Democracy is being overlooked in the field of international development. Take a look at the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG); strengthening democratic institutions is simply not a priority. Not that this list is the end-all-be-all, it simply represents an important trend. As discussed in this recent NY Times article by Peter Baker, even President Obama has not yet made democracy abroad a top priority.
We could invest billions in education, health, gender equity, and other important initiatives, but without a foundation of accountable and responsive democratic government, funds may be spent inefficiently and used to maintain corrupt (and mostly ineffective) structures of resource distribution. In my estimate, democracy one of the most powerful forces for social good in the world and is being entirely underutilized.
My guess is that democracy is being undervalued for two main reasons. First, large international organizations like the UN, World Bank, World Vision, etc. attempt to be apolitical and categorically nonpartisan in their work. In many developing countries, working for free and fair elections is essentially the same as working against the regime in power, thus being perceived as partisan behavior.
Second, the severe degree of need in the developing world seems to legitimize a myopic strategy for change. When making choices about allocating scarce resources, it’s difficult for nonprofit/international organizations to invest in long-term democratic transformation in the midst of the “urgency of now.” When given the choice, they will ensure that bellies are full before working toward contested and inclusive elections. This is despite the fact that, in the long run, a well-functioning democracy may be a far better mechanism for filling bellies.
To optimize the efforts of global philanthropy, we ought to make democratization a priority among donors, NGOs, and intergovernmental organizations working in the field of development. We must invest more seriously in building the civil and political societies of fledgling democracies if we are to move beyond the aid ineffectiveness that has plagued the efforts of the West for the past 50 years.
Feb. 24, 2009 at 10:44 am
Hey Dave
Interesting post… Adam’s comments on the other site were good push-back as well.
I guess i am trying to wrestle with the tension between this article and the David Brook’s piece I sent you earlier today. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24brooks.html). I think there is a tension between imposed goals and structures, and their more natural (yet slower and less controllable) emergence from below. I think the benefit of imposing democracy is that you are promoting a structure which hopefully allows more emergence from below even though, ironically, it requires top-down action to initiate.
Anyway, still pondering over this stuff.
pb
Feb. 24, 2009 at 11:04 am
Wow, I really had no idea how imperialist this post came across until your comments and Adam’s…
Something I didn’t articulate above is that I think these organizations ought to focus on strengthening democratic processes in already “democratic” nations, not in supplanting regimes.
This may or may not be a “top-down” system. We could support grassroots education efforts, local voter mobilization projects, etc. in order to build the fabric of civil society that is required for democracies to flourish. The question is, exactly as you put it, how do we help strengthen existing democracies in the long term through an “emergence from below.”
Thanks for your comments, look forward to discussing more.
Feb. 24, 2009 at 11:16 am
Hey Dave
I don’t think you necessarily have to back away from the previous position (or previously implied position). What is democracy, or some version of rule by the people, is an appropriate form of governance from the majority of nations… even those without this system in place. I think that some version of people rule (not always in the model of american democracy) has some benefits. Like Brooks argument, it does allow for some constraint on the problems of a small group of leaders imparting their obviously simplified models onto a complex system.
Regarding the process element you address latter in the point, I think you are right that it might take forms from the bottom and top… and perhaps a question is what role the UN is most effective at partaking in (oops… never end a sentence with a preposition… that is why I will add this section before the period).