President Paul Kagame of Rwanda
Without a shadow of a doubt, Abraham Lincolns characterisation of democracy, jurisprudentially grounded in the ideals of equality, freedom and liberty, as the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, has withstood the test of time, and is the prevailing global political orthodoxy.
Nevertheless, out of 193 member states of the United Nations, only a fraction practice full democracy; which means that civil liberties and political freedoms are honoured in name and deed. It means that the political culture supports robust democratic principles and that effective governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary and independent media, constitute the norm rather than the exception.
According to the Economist Intelligence Units Democracy Index (2023), 14 per cent of countries globally are full democracies; 50 per cent are flawed democracies; 34 per cent are hybrid regimes and 59 per cent are outright authoritarian regimes.
Historically, the origins of democracy date several millennia to Athenian Greeks in the 5th Century BC, Babylonian Phoenicians (present day Lebanon) in 1100 BC and ancient Mesopotamia (Iraq), insofar as they practiced some form of representative democracy.
Philosophically, the innate, legitimate and rational human desire for self-determination by a persons or peoples freely elected representatives, is therefore entirely consistent with the striking notion of democracy.
In that sense, full democracy is a super attractive political model, because people have a direct or indirect participatory stake in governance, the running of state affairs and decisions which directly or obliquely impact their lives.
Regarding 21st Century political dynamics, when democracy is characterised as the government of the people, by the people and for the people, exactly which people? In the context of multi-political party models like Nigeria, South Africa, UK, USA, is democratic governance consistently in the demonstrable interests of all citizens or is it parochially skewed towards partisan political allies and loyalists?
Is multi-party democracy the panacea to all political quandaries? Are countries like China and Rwanda beacons of anarchy because they are one-party or one-dominant political party nation states or is it the converse? Does it inexorably follow that one party political models are antithetical to the security and welfare of citizens, economic renaissance and national development?
On safeguarding overarching national and geostrategic interests, should it matter whether a country is defined by a mono-political party or multi-political party model? This treatise aims to concurrently address these posers examining historical and extant case studies from around the world.
No discourse on these issues will be complete without examining the Latin concept of quid pro quo (something for something). Contextually, the concept is applicable in diplomatic, economic, legal and socio-political settings.
Here, the argument is hypothetically formulated thus: a group of persons in country A, operating a multi-party democratic model, invest their efforts, resources and time, to register a political party with the ideological objectives of economic development, employment regeneration, national security, low taxation, protecting the national interest and zero tolerance for corruption.
They get into power having secured two-thirds majority in 67 per cent of the states and provinces of that country; which, incidentally, is a commandingly high threshold. The losing opposition parties wither, having lost their political deposits, feel cheated out of power and seek to sabotage the efforts of the winning political party directly and indirectly, whilst exploiting latent ethnic, religious, security and tribal chasms! Invariably, transformative national development is impeded!
The counter argument in country B, is formulated with exactly the same ideological objectives terms as country A. The singular exception being that in country B, the prevailing political orthodoxy is a one-party state, albeit one with internal democracy wherein persons can freely compete for positions within that monolithic political party.
The emerging question in this scenario then, upon the sole criterion of ideologically pure objectives, is whether country As multi-party democratic model is inherently better than country Bs one-party democratic model or the converse? The answer is no, again, purely on the criterion of ideological objectives which, in this example, are exact.
If the philosophical answer is no, why then do some countries have multi-party-political models and others, the sole-political-party model. This is essentially due to the fact of sovereignty, and the exercise therein, which accords each independent nation the latitude to determine which political model best suits its unique circumstances given its culture, historical antecedents and socio-political aspirations.
Rwanda, exemplifies the point. The country has been ruled by one dominant political party, the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) for a period of 30 years since 1994, under the leadership of Paul Kagame, following a genocidal civil war which claimed approximately one million lives! Ideologically, the country is focused on national peace, reconciliation and socio-economic growth.
According to the World Banks Human Capital Index (HCI), Rwanda rates at 0.38 which is slightly above average for low-income countries, but falls beneath the Sub-Saharan average. Plus, the countrys robust economy, notwithstanding tough domestic and external factors, achieved a 7.6 per cent growth rate in Q1, Q2 and Q3 of 2023.
The Bank projects resilient GDP growth rate averaging 7.2 per cent through 2024 and 2026. Furthermore, Transparency Internationals Corruption Perception Index (CPI), which ranks 180 countries on a scale of 0 to 100, (where 0 is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean), globally; assessed Rwanda at 53/100 in 2023.
China and Russia are striking mega examples of one dominant political party nation-states. Both countries are economic power hubs, nuclear superpowers and are permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto wielding powers. China, for instance, is led by the Chinese Communist Party and has done so for several decades! The countrys ideology is defined as socialism with unique Chinese characteristics.
The countrys HCI is 0.7, a 2022 GDP rate of USD 17.96 trillion and a 5 per cent unemployment rate in 2023. The countrys GDP grew by 5.2 per cent in 2023 exceeding official estimates of 5 per cent per annum. The countrys Transparency Index CPI is evaluated at 42/100 in 2023.
Examples of nations states operating multi-party-political models are Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States etc. Nigeria operates U.S.-model presidential system of government within a federal structure. Presidential tenures are constitutionally limited to two terms of a maximum of eight years!
According to the National Bureau of Statistics, economic growth increased to 3.46 per cent in Q4 of 2023, up from 2.54 per cent in the preceding period of 2022. The current administration of President Tinubu is targeting a growth rate of 3.8 per cent in 2024 and approximately 6 per cent per annum in succeeding years. The countrys HCI was assessed at 0.36 in 2020, whilst the CPI in 2023 was 25/100. Nigerias dominant political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) characterises its ideology as progressivism, which means economic progress, good governance and the rule of law.
In the final analysis, both the one-political-party model and the multi-party-political model are inherently flawed because they are human creations which, are necessarily, imperfect. Either model can be utilised to the parochial advantage of political allies and loyalists; instead of ordinary people and the national interest.
Accordingly, China and Rwanda (supra) are certainly not beacons of anarchy just because of their one-party-political models; just as multi-party- political models are not the panacea to all problems.
Because change is a constant dynamic in human affairs, the logicality of the human desire for self-determination, is as valid as the desire for political change at periodic intervals. The proposition that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, is more prevalent in one-dominant-party nations than those with multi-party-political models, given the pseudo-deification of power and those at the helms of power.
Where a person rules a country for 10 to 30 years or more, the risks of absolute power, and the corruptive influences of that dynamic, are greater than in countries with shorter term limits! The American multi-party democratic model reinforces the point in that the constitution limits presidential tenures to two terms or a maximum of eight years. This is a statutory safeguard against do-or-die presidential incumbency, which implicitly seeks to limit the risks of corruptive, excessive and reckless tendencies.
Furthermore, upon the singular criterion of ideologically pure of objectives, there is little difference between one-party-political administrations and multiparty democratic dispensations because all aspirational and forward-looking countries seek sustainable economic growth, employment, national development, peace, security and the welfare of their citizens.
The issue then becomes of one of choice for each country, which in turn, speaks to the free exercise of national sovereignty. That is ultimately a decision for the electorate, political prioritisation and realpolitik.
Afterall, as Acemoglu and Robinson opined in Why Nations Fail (2013), the rich countries of today are those are those that embarked on the process of industrialisation and technological change in the nineteenth century, and the poor ones are those that did not.
Economic renaissance and national development are therefore not a function of the simplistic nomenclature of a monolithic one political party or multi-party democratic ideal. Visionary leadership, adaptability, courage, political will and delivery are uber vital.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Why are you flagging this comment?
I disagree with this user
Targeted harassment - posted harassing comments or discussions targeting me, or encouraged others to do so
Spam - posted spam comments or discussions
Inappropriate profile - profile contains inappropriate images or text
Threatening content - posted directly threatening content
Private information - posted someone else''s personally identifiable information
Before flagging, please keep in mind that Disqus does not moderate communities. Your username will be shown to the moderator, so you should only flag this comment for one of the reasons listed above.
We will review and take appropriate action.
Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox every day of the week. Stay informed with the Guardians leading coverage of Nigerian and world news, business, technology and sports.
Follow Us