PROBLEMS WITH MODERNIZATION
There are also major exceptions that don’t fit this theory that could call its
explanatory power into question. China is the most obvious exception. China’s GDP
has exploded in recent years, and there doesn’t seem to be any signs, even nascent,
of democratization.
China’s Gross National Income per capita (a measure of the total amount of
money earned by a nation’s people and businesses) has been steadily increasing
since 1995 compared to the so-called BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China and
South Africa). BRICS states are considered the fastest growing middle-income
countries in the world. China’s rise is expected to continue and may surpass the US
by 2035. (Saul, 2022). By the definition of democracy laid out in the previous chapter,
China is not a democracy. People do not elect their leaders, it is effectively a one-party
state that controls not only politics, but also industry and universities, and the National
People’s Congress recently removed presidential term limits, which means that the
current president, Xi Jinping, can rule indefinitely. Dissent is only allowed within very
limited terms (Johnson, 2023). Having lived and taught in China briefly, it was the
author’s experience that most Chinese students accept and defend the system, and
even claim that in their opinion, their system is in fact democratic. A common phrase
among Chinese is “democracy with Chinese characteristics,” which denotes a belief
that China is democratic but not by Western standards. Yet, the grip that the CCP has
on most facets of life speaks otherwise and change does not seem to be on the
horizon.
Another interesting exception on the other end of the spectrum is India. Of the
five BRICS states, India is by far the poorest and yet, democratic. In fact, from about
1977-2008, India was ranked by the Varieties of Democracy Index as in the 0.6-0.7
range (where 1 is the most democratic). Thus, democracy (albeit flawed) can exist in
developing states.
Cultural Theories
Just like there are cultural theories of the state, there are cultural theories of
democracy. Simply, some cultures are more amendable to democratic governance
than others. A study that is considered a classic in cultural theories of democracies is
Almond and Verba (1989), where they compared political attitudes in the US,
Germany, Italy, the UK and Great Britain. Most newer versions of this theory posit that
cultural values that underpin democracy such as individualism are not present in
cultures such as Asia, which emphasizes group cohesion. This view was articulated in
a famous interview of the former prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew (Zakaria,
1994). Again, should this theory hold weight, it might help to explain why most liberal
democracies today are in Global North cultures.
But, as noted in our discussion of cultural theories of the state, such
perspectives can easily turn towards cultural superiority. On the one hand, without
careful treatment of what culture is and how it relates to democracy, it can be
interpreted as, “the non-West is culturally unable to be democratic.” On the other hand,
in the case of Kuan Yew’s interview, it can be read as an excuse to resist democratic
reforms rooted in culture. Further, as the section on Indigenous sovereignty argued on
page 121, there are examples of democratic societies whose culture is group-oriented
rather than individualistic. Finally, cultural arguments rarely take the role of
colonization seriously. Colonization imposed various forms of governing on the Global
South, but none were particularly democratic, and colonial governments often took
deliberate action to undermine cultures in order to control their subjects. Therefore,
few Global South states had the opportunity to experience democracy and their
cultural “ability” to embrace democratic values may be difficult to judge after
imperialism.
International and Postcolonial Theories
While postcolonial perspectives have found numerous direct applications
concerning the state, their application to democratic states is more limited.
Perspectives labeled as "international" come close, positing that the global system
exerts pressures that either promote or hinder democracy in various nations. This
viewpoint revisits the concept of democratic waves, as illustrated in Figure 65 on page
198, suggesting that democracy might be more an outcome of global trends and
significant international occurrences, such as the aftermath of World War II and the
era of decolonization. Notably, Samuel Huntington, renowned for his theory on
democratic waves, focused primarily on the "third wave" associated with the collapse
of communism, sidelining the decolonization process.
Others argue that democracy's emergence is not solely dictated by global
trends but also by specific programs and policies. For instance, during the Cold War,
both the Soviet Union and the United States supported authoritarian regimes if they
served strategic interests—such as countering the opposing superpower or supporting
economic ties. This geopolitical strategy led the US to back non-democratic regimes
like those in Iran, Nicaragua, Tunisia, the Republic of Congo, and the Philippines.
Conversely, the US actively promoted democratic development in countries like West
Germany and Japan post-World War II, aiming to build a bloc of liberal democracies
against communist influence.
Nevertheless, these international perspectives often overlook the direct impact
of colonization. Some scholars emphasize regime transitions as pivotal moments that
could facilitate or hinder democratization. Notably, "Transitions from Authoritarian
Rule" by O'Donnell and Schmitter (2013) briefly touches on colonialism's role,
particularly in Portugal, without broadening the discussion to include the broader
implications for the Global South. Thus, they largely overlook decolonization as a
unique type of regime change that can profoundly shape democratic prospects, both
for former colonizers and colonies.
One of the more nuanced treatments of postcolonialism and democracy is
presented by Koelble and Lipuma (2008). They argue that true democracy should be
measured by how well governance aligns with the democratic aspirations of the
populace. This perspective diverges from cultural arguments by suggesting that
different cultural contexts can produce varied forms of democracy rather than posing
inherent barriers to democratic ideals. Koelble and Lipuma highlight how postcolonial
states face enduring challenges in achieving democracy due to institutional
deficiencies exacerbated by colonial legacies, economic dependence despite political
independence, and a fragmented social support structure.
Despite these obstacles, Koelble and Lipuma assert that democracy has indeed
taken root in the Global South, albeit often in forms unrecognized or undervalued by
Northern hemisphere scholars. A comparative examination of decolonization's impact
on democratization processes across different regions offers insights into these
complex dynamics, shedding light on how historical legacies continue to shape
political development in postcolonial societies.
Comparative Case Study: South Africa and Iraq
Using the Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD), we will compare two
postcolonial states and examine the various challenges, both internal and external,
that these states face to democratize.
South Africa
Full Country Name : Republic of South Africa
Head(s) of State : President Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa
Head of Government : President Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa
Government : Parliamentary Republic (Unitary dominant-party /
executive presidency)
Official Languages : 11 Official languages (English, Zulu, Swazi, Afrikaans,
Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, Xitsonga, Xhosa, Tshivenda,
isiNdebele)
Economic System : Mixed economy
Location : Southern Africa, at the southern tip of the continent of
Africa
Capital : Pretoria
Total land size : 1,219,090 sq km, 470,693 sq miles
Population : 56.9 million
GDP : $680.04 billion
GDP per capita : $11,500
Currency : Rand
Like Botswana and Somalia in Chapter 4: States and Regimes, South Africa’s
history is marked by frequent interventions and occupations by foreign powers through
colonialism and imperialism. British and Dutch powers, attempting to expand their
empires and grow their influence, colonized parts of South Africa at various points
between the 1600s and 1800s. By the early 1900s, there was growing internal demand
for South Africa to be independent from Britain. Multiple wars leading up to the 1900s,
including the Boers Wars (see also Student Feature: Lesotho), contributed to deep
racial divides between black and white citizens. White South Africans demanded
independence from Britain, which eventually culminated in the formation of the Union
of South Africa in 1910. The Union of South Africa modeled its government structure
after the British system, but had a British leader installed as a ceremonial head of
state. Full independence was achieved in 1931, giving South Africa’s government the
ability to act outside of, and without permission from, the UK.
Although South Africa’s government had hallmarks of democratic government,
like three branches of government operating with checks and balances, its legacy of
colonialism and racial divide made democratization difficult. Under British rule, a
number of laws promoted segregation and the disenfranchisement of nonwhite
citizens. Following World War II, a political party called the National Party stoked fears
within the country that significant growth in the nonwhite population of South Africa
was a threat. The National Party won the majority votes in the 1948 election and
implemented a system of apartheid. Apartheid is defined as a system of governance
wherein racial oppression is institutionalized. In the case of South Africa, this meant
laws were implemented to ensure that South Africa’s minority white population could
dominate all political, social, and economic factors within the country for their own
benefit. Apartheid in South Africa resulted in, among other things, the segregation and
displacement of nonwhites into segregated neighborhoods and the prohibition of
interracial marriage and relationships.
The United Nations attempted to sanction South Africa for its rampant
discrimination, but these efforts failed due to the United States, which consistently
blocked these efforts with their veto power. South Africa’s system of apartheid
continued until 1991. In the 1970s and 1980s, South Africa experienced intense
internal strife as clashes between those who supported the National Party, and those
who opposed apartheid, resulted in deadly violence. The main opposition to the
National Party, the African National Congress (ANC), worked to bring down South
Africa’s system of apartheid. The ANC, having been forced into exile for many years,
used a variety of tactics to force pressure upon the National Party, including using
guerilla warfare and acts of sabotage. Eventually, the National Party and the ANC
began meeting to negotiate a way forward. The outcome of these negotiations was
the abolishment of apartheid and, in the coming years, the election of the first
democratically elected President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela.
Nelson Mandela was a member of the ANC who had been imprisoned for 27
years prior to his release in 1990. Under his leadership as President of South Africa,
he oversaw the drafting of a new constitution which, in tandem with solidifying various
democratic principles, heavily emphasized racial equality and the protection of human
rights. Mandela saw it as his personal mission to heal the racial divides within the
country and formed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Truth and
Reconciliation Commission was tasked with investigating crimes committed both by
the government led by the National Party under apartheid, as well as the crimes
committed by the ANC. Though it can be difficult to quantify, the commission was
widely held as an important factor towards moving the country forward towards more
democratic governance.
Importantly, a heated debate ensued during the process of writing a new
constitution between a more deliberative style of democracy or a representative
model. Mandela and other traditional chiefs argued in favor of the deliberative model,
stating that this is more compatible with the types of governing done in precolonial
African communities and villages. Many claim that this type of democracy is not only
more compatible with African culture but is a superior form of democracy. Others,
however, thought these arguments were self-serving by local chiefs and would lead to
local authoritarianism (LiPuma & Koelble, 2009). Ultimately, the more adversarial
representative style of democracy similar to European party politics took hold. The
ANC has ruled South Africa as a dominant party since the end of apartheid.
Mandela stepped down as the President of the ANC in 1998 and retired from
politics in 1999. Although Mandela made strides in improving domestic conditions,
including investing in education, welfare programs, and the protection of workers and
prominent industries, several challenges remained that still challenge South Africa
today. South Africa continues to struggle with racial tensions, as well as persistent
xenophobia due to large influxes of legal and illegal migrants. One of the major
criticisms of Mandela’s term in office is his failure to fully address the HIV/AIDS
pandemic. For many years, the HIV/AIDS pandemic was so severe in South Africa
that the average life expectancy was only 52 years. Failure to provide a strategic
approach to combat the pandemic led to decades of poor health outcomes within
South Africa.
For many years, South Africa’s transition to democracy was heralded as a
victorious example of democratization. Nevertheless, current challenges to South
Africa’s democracy include corruption, enduring racism, and increased rates of
femicide and gender-based violence. Each of these realities has contributed to the
Economist Intelligence Unit labeling South Africa as a flawed democracy. Recall,
flawed democracies are those where elections are free and fair, and basic civil liberties
are protected, but issues exist which may hamper the democratic process. It is worth
briefly considering South Africa’s current challenges regarding corruption, racism and
gender-based violence below.
Corruption is, at best, damaging to democracy and, at worst, fatal to democracy.
Corruption can erode the public’s trust in the government and its institutions,
exacerbate inequality and poverty, and hinder economic development. In 2021, high-
ranking political officials in South Africa faced allegations of corruption for misusing
billions of dollars of foreign aid targeted towards COVID19 relief. The government
officials charged with corruption are undergoing investigations for their misuse of
funds, particularly in allowing various private companies to exorbitantly price gouge
the government. There are additional allegations of government corruption, particularly
in the favoring of some private companies over others. Corruption within a country can
also yield skepticism and condemnation from the global community, as trading
partners may lose trust in conducting business with corrupt regimes.
Still, while corruption is certainly a challenge to democracy in postcolonial
states, it does deserve some critical attention. The taking of bribes by government
officials in the Global South is often characterized as “corruption,” but the setting up of
political action committees for wealthy donors to funnel money to political campaigns
in the Global North is framed as the “free market of ideas.” Corruption is rampant in
developing economies usually as a result of anemic institutions with little
administrative experience, as well as the simple desire for local underpaid bureaucrats
to provide for their families.
Racism, too, can present threats to democracy. Failure to protect civil liberties
and civil rights within a country can create illiberal or flawed democracies. Ongoing
structural racism can exacerbate societal tensions and perpetuate violence.
Unfortunately, racism is still an ever present force in South Africa. The last two decades
have seen ongoing allegations of police and military forces engaging in racist activities.
During COVID-19, a number of Black South Africans were killed by police officers
violently enforcing lockdowns. Frequent instances of violence against Black citizens
has prompted recurrent conversations over the implementation of hate crime
legislation as well as appropriate rules for conduct regarding the use of force on
citizens. To be fair, more “liberal” democracies by the measurements of many indices
than South Africa also experience racial violence and police brutality, such as the US
and Israel. Finally, data has shown continued increases in femicide and gender-based
violence. Here again, democracies that are unable to protect civil liberties and civil
rights of their citizens risk backsliding or inability to ever consolidate fully. To this end,
equal protection of women under South Africa law is questionable. As of 2019, it was
reported that 51% of women in South Africa experienced some kind of physical
violence as a result of their gender. Violence towards women, which was already
elevated prior to the pandemic, continued to increase during the COVID-19 lockdowns.
Once again, South Africa was not unique in this, and several democratic states
recorded an uptick in violence against women during COVID. As we will explore in
more detail in subsequent chapters, gender equality and gender-based violence can
be used an interesting comparative variable to measure democratic performance of
states. In conclusion, South Africa is rare amongst postcolonial states in that it
transitioned to a semidemocratic regime after apartheid. What can explain this
outcome? First, South Africa achieved postcolonial sovereignty (read: not democracy)
much earlier than most other former colonies in Africa, yet it suffered under apartheid
long after. The democratic transition in South Africa was certainly aided by the Truth
and Reconciliation commission, another rare institution that didn’t happen in many
other postcolonial transitions. South Africa also benefitted from a very strong leader
who argued in favor of a democratic transition in Nelson Mandela, who enjoyed strong
international and eventually, domestic support. Still, South Africa is also plagued by
many struggles that have made democracy, at least the way many political scientists
define it, difficult.
Iraq
Full Country Name : Republic of Iraq
Head(s) of State : President Latif Rashid
Head of Government : Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani
Government : Federal Parliamentary Republic
Official Languages : Arabic & Kurdish
Economic System : Mixed economy
Location : Middle East, bordering the Persian Gulf, between Iran
and Kuwait
Capital : Baghdad
Total land size : 438,316 sq ki, 169,235 sq mi
Population : 40 million
GDP : $250.070 billion
GDP per capita : $4,474
Currency : Iraqi Dinar
What we now identify as Iraq formed in the wake of the defeat of the Ottoman
Empire and its subsequent breakup into smaller colonial outposts, mostly administered
by the French and the British. Yet, the history of this region goes back before the
Ancient Greeks, the civilization that most histories of democracy mark as the origins
of the concept. Importantly, incredibly complex societies appeared as early as 3200
BCE with sophisticated settled agricultural systems and massive temples, as well as
the world’s first written language. There is ample evidence that democratic institutions
existed in these early city-states of ancient Mesopotamia, a region between the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers. (See Figure 85 below). Archaeologists have found evidence of
a mythical “Assembly of Gods” that served as a judicial body that could elect and
depose kings. Historians speculate that in order to develop this myth, the people must
have experienced some form of this governance themselves. Similarly, the Epic of
Gilgamesh, another epic from around 2800 BCE, details a bicameral congress, a
system of vetoes, and appeals to the people before going to war. According to
Jacobsen (1970), this is an example of a “primitive democracy,” which operated more
like a participatory or a deliberative democracy than a representative one. The use of
the term primitive is unfortunate here, as these governing structures became
increasingly complex. The famous Code of Hammurabi enumerated the rights and
limitations of citizens of ancient Babylon. Several more examples can be found in
Isakhan (2016).
Furthermore, democratic principles also existed as Islam become the dominant
religion in the region. Muhammad and the Quran emphasize social justice and
consultation with the ummah (community). The “Constitution of Medina” emphasizes
freedom, justice, equality, and peace.99 In the Islamic Abbasid empire, a clear division
between “church” and “state” emerged, which remained in place in varying extents
even into the Ottoman period in the 16th century (Isakhan, 2016). In the waning days
of the Ottoman empire, the Young Turks movement challenged the Ottoman
government to institute more democratic reforms, and thus instituted large-scale
elections in 1908 and then again in 1912 (Kayali, 1995). In summary, contrary to many
views of Iraq and the Arab world more generally, there is a history of democratic
governance in both the pre-Islamic and the Islamic eras. During World War I, the British
occupied Basra, a city in southern Iraq, in order to extract its oil resources to fuel the
war effort (Majd, 2006). The British justified their rule over Iraq by referencing its
“inability” to democratize, and that it is accustomed to foreign rule (Isakhan, 2016). As
the war drew to a close, the Arab people of the regions of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra
fought with the British to gain their independence. However, this did not quite happen.
The League of Nations awarded a mandate to the British to administer Iraq, not unlike
the mandate to administer Palestine (see Snapshot Case Study: Israel). British
imperial authorities controlled the newly formed kingdom’s military and foreign affairs
and had major influence over its domestic political and economic affairs. In 1921,
Britain established King Faysal II as ruler of Mesopotamia and officially changed the
name to Iraq, which means “well-rooted country” in Arabic. Many Arabs in the region
saw Iraq as an artificially created country, established by British authorities to maintain
power in the region. As a result, many people saw the country, and its newly installed
royalty, as illegitimate.
The British remained in Iraq for the next three decades, with military bases,
transit rights for troops and eventually British control over the growing oil industry. Still,
the question of legitimacy never left. King Faysal and his family were able to stay in
power until 1958, when the grandson, Faysal II was overthrown in a coup that also
saw the end to British rule. The coup was led by a general that belonged to the
Ba’athist Party. The Ba’athist Party was a transnational.
Arab political party that espouses panArab nationalism and socialist economic
policies. The party came to power in Iraq and Syria, but also exerted some power in
Jordan, Lebanon, and Libya. After some turmoil between the Ba’athist party and the
Iraqi military, the country eventually came under the command of Saddam Hussein.
Hussein, who ruled until he was overthrown and executed during the US invasion of
Iraq in 2003, was from a mostly Sunni tribe in Tikrit, a city north of Baghdad. His
reliance on members of his tribe and the city, which were a minority group in the
country, contributed to the eventual violence that would follow the 1991 Gulf War.
Today, Iraq is a tenuous confederation of three major groups, Sunni Arabs in
the west, Kurds in the north and Shi’a Arabs in the central and southern parts of the
country. The current prime minister is supported by the majority political bloc led by
Moqtada al-Sadr. He comes from a powerful political family in Shi’a politics and is a
major power broker in the country. Iraq also has a president, who is elected by the
Iraqi parliament and has a largely ceremonial role. Mostly the country is run through a
sectarian apportionment system, muhasasa taiifia in Arabic, where the country is
structured amongst the three major sectarian identities.
