The way the term ‘Democracy’ is used in various social and academic circles makes one wonder whether the average person really understands the full meaning and purpose of the term. Is it really practically possible to enforce an internationally acceptable standard in all socio-economic and political environments when there are already different classifications of society based on religious, cultural and ideological beliefs?
I will try not to explore too much on the democratic argument in my article for the simple reason I do not believe there is a universally accepted standard definition that can be measured or proven as a successful example. Not even the so called champions or inventors of democracy can make claim to having democratic societies. I believe there is a close link between democracy and human rights that makes even economic rights a necessity in order to have a global democratic society that fairly addresses the needs of all communities.
"Democracy is the most valued and also the vaguest of political terms in the modern world." ~D Robertson, 1986
Robertson went on to stress that the word ‘democracy’ only starts to mean something tangible in the modern world when it is prefixed with other political words, such as direct, representative, liberal and parliamentary.
This belief is based on the right of every citizen over a certain age to attend political meetings, vote on the issue being discussed at that meeting and accepting the majority decision should such a vote lead to a law being passed which you as an individual did not support. In almost every democracy a common observation is not all the citizens of a country are fully aware of the political scenario in their environments. The majority masses usually with a limited standard of education may not be aware of the political issues in society and this may result in them making the wrong choices during election periods, this is what is termed voter 'education'. Perhaps voter education should be something that is taught from primary education, so that citizens grow up understanding their rights and the role politicians, justice, security and the private sector plays in nation building.
In most countries the government is subject to change after every election term, as such the authorities may work with a short-term focus. As they have to face an election after the completion of each term of office, they may lose focus on working for the people and rather focus on winning elections. In their attempts to secure election victories they may use mobs to influence people as has been the case in Zimbabwe. Sometimes citizens may simple vote in favour of a party under the influence of the majority not because they understand their election manifestos but because they feel compelled or influenced by the philosophies of those around, such persons may not voice their true opinion.
In most countries the government is subject to change after every election term, as such the authorities may work with a short-term focus. As they have to face an election after the completion of each term of office, they may lose focus on working for the people and rather focus on winning elections. In their attempts to secure election victories they may use mobs to influence people as has been the case in Zimbabwe. Sometimes citizens may simple vote in favour of a party under the influence of the majority not because they understand their election manifestos but because they feel compelled or influenced by the philosophies of those around, such persons may not voice their true opinion.
There is little argument today about whether or not there is a relationship between capitalism and democracy. The essential nature of capitalism is social harmony through the pursuit of self-interest. Under capitalism, the individual's pursuit of his own economic self-interest benefits the economic self-interests of all others. The system means the complete separation of economy and state, just like the separation of church and state.
The reasons for this side of looking at things are also justified, and in most cases, completely accurate. The major drawback here is that bigger and richer capitalists can then exploit their workers, and can prohibit other competitors from entering the market by monopolizing resources. If this happens, the entire purpose of capitalism is destroyed, but sadly this is a very real occurrence.
Moreover, a capitalist economy becomes very materialistic and money-oriented in nature, and this affects the people of that country morally and spiritually. The impact here is not a direct and explosive one, but more like a mild poison, slowly corrupting the minds of people. Economic disparities begin to rise, and this leads to a rise in many social evils and the crime rate. Overall, the society suffers some negative consequences which it could have surely done without. The biggest drawback though is that of exploitation, which stems as a natural result of wanting to earn more and more. People and resources are exploited ruthlessly here, and this leads to severe consequences in the long run.
Moreover, a capitalist economy becomes very materialistic and money-oriented in nature, and this affects the people of that country morally and spiritually. The impact here is not a direct and explosive one, but more like a mild poison, slowly corrupting the minds of people. Economic disparities begin to rise, and this leads to a rise in many social evils and the crime rate. Overall, the society suffers some negative consequences which it could have surely done without. The biggest drawback though is that of exploitation, which stems as a natural result of wanting to earn more and more. People and resources are exploited ruthlessly here, and this leads to severe consequences in the long run.
The answer to whether capitalism good or bad lies firmly in the manner in which capitalism is embraced in any country. No matter what system of economy one employs, there will always be certain bad seeds and corporations that will try to take advantage of the weak and helpless. This is an inevitable evil of society, and even socialism is not excused from this. In Africa because of a long history of oppression and poverty, the opportunity to capitalise on access to wealth by both political and business leaders makes building democratic societies a much more difficult challenge especially taking into account the fact that most of the structures of governance were adopted from their predecessors who used them to manipulate the majority disadvantaged, they find the election periods too short to set their development goals, that they end either changing their terms of office or simple rigging elections to remain in power.
I think for Africa the key to good governance would be having none partisan Justice & Security Officials. A mixed economy approach that combines the best of all ideologies and focuses on helping a largely disadvantaged in society by at least ensuring that basics rights to education, health and economic sustainability are easily accessible would be a good starting model. As we live in an ever changing world, ideology should also be flexible based on the best proven examples of success. In the long run it will be the most innovative economies that will constantly have an advantage over their competitors. We must never be afraid to try out new strategies.
