--Economy
US CONCEPTION OF DEMOCRACY IS ELITE-BASED
Dionysis Markakis, Center for International and Regional Studies- Georgetown University, 2016, US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: The Pursuit of Hegemony, p. 17
The contemporary popular understanding of the term “democracy” is therefore radically different from the dominant historical conception, which ultimately perceived it as “a dangerous and unstable form of rule which inevitably led to anarchy or despotism.” This has been accompanied by a revisionist discursive narrative, in which democracy’s history has been portrayed as one of linear progress, with liberal democracy as its teleological denouement. According to such interpretations democracy was invented in Athens and then passed to Rome, as the cradles of Western civilization, before being molded into its contemporary form by the American and French revolutions of the eighteenth century. This narrative ignores the fundamental differences between the classical Athenian form of democracy and contemporary liberal democratic manifestations. In the latter, democracy complements liberalism, upon whose tenets the liberal democratic system rests. This has resulted in a radically different conception of democracy both in philosophy and praxis. Moreover, the practitioners of both the Americana and French revolutions categorically stood against the classical notion of democracy, which they regarded as inherently flawed, serving as the inevitable prelude to a tyranny of the majority. It is not by chance that the elite-based model of democracy promoted by the US addresses this fundamental concern, one that has plagued it for the majority of its existence.
LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC MODEL PROMOTED BY THE US DOES NOT SOLVE INEQUALITY – IS ELITE-BASED
Dionysis Markakis, Center for International and Regional Studies- Georgetown University, 2016, US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: The Pursuit of Hegemony, p. 20
It is important to emphasize here that the institutions comprising the promoted liberal democratic system, aside from periodic elections, include a broad range of political and civil rights, such as a legal system based on common and civil law for example. This is exactly what constitutes the basis of a consensual system of governance. By definition a hegemonic ideology has to be expressed in universal terms, that is the norms and values promoted have to appeal broadly, on some level, to most groups in society. An ideology can only achieve hegemonic status when it appears as universal, that is it provides a point of agreement between the various social groups, namely between elite and subordinate classes. At the same time, the consensus provided by the liberal democratic system, manifested for example in the range of political and civil rights granted to citizens, does not undermine the fundamental position of the elite ruling class. If one is to believe that in a liberal democratic system of government every citizen has equal rights and opportunities, then in essence this means a belief in the lack of a ruling class. This is patently false. Inequality – whether political, economic or social—is prevalent in liberal democracies, just as in other systems of government.
US NEOLIBERAL MODEL OF DEMOCRACY ENTRENCHES ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Dionysis Markakis, Center for International and Regional Studies- Georgetown University, 2016, US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: The Pursuit of Hegemony, p. 20-1
At the core of this institutional model of democracy, liberal democratic political values and free market economic principles are posited as intrinsically linked. Successive American administrations have argued that free markets are a prerequisite for democracy. For instance, as the G.W. Bush administration stated in the National Security Strategy of 2002:
“A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world. Economic growth supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher incomes. It allows people to life their lives out of poverty, spurs economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces the habits of liberty [emphasis added.]
This amalgamation of democracy and capitalism lies at the heart of America’s ideology and the model of governance promoted. It results in a very particular, narrow interpretation of democracy, one that attempts to separate the political system from the socio-economic order. In Democracy in Developing Countries, a landmark study commissioned by the NED, for the purposes of informing US policy on political transitions abroad, Larry Diamond, Juan Linz and Seymour Lipset argue that democracy signifies a “political system, separate and apart from the economic and social system.” They claim that: “a distinctive aspect of …[their] approach is to insist that issues of so-called and social democracy be separated from the question of government structure.” This is supported by Samuel Huntington, who similarly argued that “political democracy is clearly compatible with inequality in both wealth and income, and in, some measure, it may be dependent upon such inequality.” He concluded that: “defining democracy in terms of goals such as economic well-being, social justice, and overall socioeconomic equity is not…very useful.” This interpretation of democracy is inherently contradictory; on the one hand it claims political equality, while on the other it legitimizes socio-economic inequality. And fundamentally, it fails to allow for the possibility that other forms of democracy, beyond the liberal sub-type, can exist—and perhaps more successfully.
Democracy Promotion Does Not Increase Development
WORLD BANK EXAGGERATES LINK BETWEEN GOVERNANCE AND AID EFFECTIVENESS
Wil Hout, Associate Professor World Development in the Hague, 2007, The Politics of Aid Selectivity: good governance criteria in World Bank, US and Dutch development assistance, p. 136
The claim that countries with very poor governance should receive little or no development assistance can thus be backed up almost effortlessly with data and examples detailing how aid funds have been misspent. In its Assessing Aid report, however, the World Bank went much further and asserted that there is an almost linear relationship between the quality of governance and policies, on the one hand, and aid effectiveness, on the other. The central message of the report (also quoted in Chapter 2) was that “among countries with similar poverty levels but different policy regimes, more finance should go to the countries with better management.”
It is highly doubtful whether the impact of governance should be assumed to have a linear-like impact on aid effectiveness. On theoretical grounds, it is much more plausible to assume that political arbitrariness, corruption, violence and a bad business environment will stifle social and economic activities if these cross a certain threshold level. People are able to cope with a certain degree of uncertainty in their environment. If uncertainties reach the level that investments and property are being threatened and people can no longer live normal lives, people’s relative valuation of the present and the future will be changed dramatically. It is very unlikely that foreign assistance, if give to countries faced with circumstances of extreme uncertainty and threats, will have a positive contribution to development.
GOOD GOVERNANCE NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR AID EFFECTIVENESS
Dirk-Jan Koch, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2009, Aid from International NGOs: blind spots on the aid allocation map, p. 149
Supporters of the complement theory claim that bilateral aid is not necessarily more effective in countries with better governance. They argue that it depends on the type of bilateral aid provided. General budget support, for example, will only be effective in countries with good governance, whereas sectoral support and/or project support can be provided to countries with weak governance, where only certain ministries are functioning properly. Those favoring the complement theory also increasingly challenge the assumption that good governance is a prerequisite for development (e.g. Khan and Jommo 2000). They argue that countries with poor governance that are falling behind in the battle against poverty should not be abandoned by bilateral donors.
Share with your friends: |
