What Is the Link Between Culture and Democratization in Underdeveloped Countries?

Democratization, Culture and Underdeveloped Nations

This paper looks at the issue of culture and democratization in underdeveloped countries. The paper is based on research conducted through a systematic review of the current literature on the subject, from policy documents published by bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, to academic papers written by workers in this field, to online discussion forums (which can be an extremely valuable source for assessing 'grass roots' opinions regarding issues such as this).

The paper begins with a basic introduction to some key topics, through a discussion of questions such as 'What is democracy?', 'What is culture?', 'What is an underdeveloped country', and 'What does democracy mean at the present time for people in the United States, and the rest of the developed world, and for people in underdeveloped countries'?

What do we mean, as a citizen of the United States, when we talk about 'democracy'? Democracy is a form of government, a way of life, a goal or ideal, and a political philosophy; the term also refers to a country that has a democratic form of government (Swank, 2003). The word 'democracy' means 'rule by the people', and the United States President Abraham Lincoln described such self-government as "government of the people, by the people, for the people" (Swank, 2003). Most modern democracy is representative democracy: in large communities (cities, states, provinces, or countries), it is impossible for all the people to meet as a group; instead, they elect a certain number of their fellow citizens to represent them in making decisions about laws and other matters (Swank, 2003). An assembly of representatives may be called a council, a legislature, a parliament, or a congress, and government by the people through their freely elected representatives is sometimes called a republican government or a democratic republic (Swank, 2003).

Many voting decisions in democracies are based on majority rule (that is, more than half the votes cast), a decision by plurality may, however, be used when three or more candidates stand for election (Swank, 2003). A candidate with a plurality receives more votes than any other candidate, but does not necessarily have a majority of the votes (Swank, 2003). In several democracies, elections to legislative bodies are conducted according to proportional representation: such representation awards a political party a percentage of seats in the legislature in proportion to its share of the total vote cast (Swank, 2003).

Throughout history, the most important aspects of the democratic way of life have been the principles of individual equality and freedom (Swank, 2003). Accordingly, citizens in a democracy should be entitled to equal protection of their persons, possessions, and rights; have equal opportunity to pursue their lives and careers; and have equal rights of political participation (Swank, 2003). In addition, the people should enjoy freedom from undue interference and domination by government: they should be free, within the framework of the law, to believe, behave, and express themselves as they wish (Swank, 2003). Democratic societies seek to guarantee their citizens certain freedoms, including freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, and ideally, citizens should also be guaranteed freedom of association and of assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, and freedom to work and live where and how they choose (Swank, 2003).

The characteristics of democracy vary from one country to another, but certain basic features are more or less the same in all democratic nations (Swank, 2003). Free elections give the people a chance to choose their leaders and express their opinions on issues, and elections are held periodically to ensure that elected officials truly represent the people (Swank, 2003). The possibility of being voted out of office helps assure that these officials pay attention to public opinion (Swank, 2003).

In most democracies, the only legal requirements for voting or for holding public office are concerned with age, residence, and citizenship (Swank, 2003). The democratic process permits citizens to vote by secret ballot, free from force or bribes, and also requires that election results be protected against dishonesty (Swank, 2003).

In a democracy, also, a decision often must be approved by a majority of voters before it may take effect (Swank, 2003). This principle, which is called majority rule, may be used to elect officials or decide a policy, however, as we have seen. democracies sometimes decide votes by plurality (Swank, 2003). Most democracies require more than a simple majority to make fundamental or constitutional changes: in the United States, for example, constitutional amendments must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by special conventions called in three-fourths of the states (Swank, 2003).

Majority rule is based on the idea that if all citizens are equal, the judgment of the many will be better than the judgment of the few: democracy therefore values freely given consent as the basis of legitimate and effective political power, but democracies are also concerned with protecting individual liberty and preventing government from infringing on the freedoms of individuals (Swank, 2003). Democratic countries guarantee that certain rights can never be taken from the people, even by extremely large majorities: these rights include the basic freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and religious worship (Swank, 2003). The majority also must recognize the right of the minority to try to become the majority by legal means (Swank, 2003).

Political parties are also a necessary part of democratic government; rival parties make elections meaningful by giving voters a choice among candidates who represent different interests and points-of-view (Swank, 2003). The United States (and many other countries, such as the United Kingdom) have chiefly two-party systems, but many other democratic countries have multiparty systems (Swank, 2003). Often in these countries, no single party gains a majority in the legislature; as a result, two or more parties must join to make up such a majority, by forming a coalition government (Swank, 2003). In democratic countries, the party or parties that are out of power serve as the "loyal opposition," that is, they criticize the policies and actions of the party in power (Swank, 2003). In dictatorships, the people have no real choice among candidates, and no opportunity to express dissatisfaction with the government (Swank, 2003).

Controls on power are also important in democratic societies, as democracies have various arrangements to prevent any person or branch of government from becoming too powerful (Swank, 2003). For example, the U.S. Constitution divides political power between the states and the federal government, with some powers belonging only to the states, some only to the federal government, and some being shared by both (Swank, 2003). This arrangement, known as federalism, is also used in such democracies as Canada, Germany, and Switzerland (Swank, 2003).

In all democratic countries, government officials are subject to the law and are accountable to the people (Swank, 2003). Officials may be removed from office for lawless conduct or for other serious reasons, and the media help keep elected officials sensitive to public opinion (Swank, 2003).

Democratic government is also based on law and, in most cases, a written constitution (although the UK does not have a written constitution) (Swank, 2003). Constitutions state the powers and duties of government and limit what the government may do (Swank, 2003). Constitutions also say how laws shall be made and enforced (Swank, 2003). Most constitutions have a detailed bill of rights that describes the basic liberties of the people and forbids the government to violate those rights (Swank, 2003).

Constitutions that have been in effect for a long time may include certain unwritten procedures that have become important parts of the operation of government: such procedures are a matter of custom rather than written law (Swank, 2003).

Another essential characteristic of democratic government is an independent judiciary (Swank, 2003). It is the duty of the justice system to protect the integrity of the rules and the rights of individuals under these rules, especially against the government itself (Swank, 2003). Occasionally, dictatorships establish extremely elaborate constitutions and extensive lists of basic rights of citizens: for example, the 1977 constitution of the Soviet Union contained more detailed rights supposedly guaranteed to citizens than does the U.S. Bill of Rights (Swank, 2003). In practice, however, Soviet courts were not known to defend individuals' rights against the government (Swank, 2003).

Further, in a democracy, individuals and private organizations carry on many social and economic activities that are, for the most part, free of government control (Swank, 2003). For example, newspapers and magazines are privately owned and managed (Swank, 2003). Labor unions are run by and for the benefit of workers, not the state, and democratic governments generally do not interfere with religious worship (Swank, 2003). The people may form groups to influence opinion on public issues and policies (Swank, 2003). Most businesses in democratic societies are privately owned and managed (Swank, 2003).

How is democracy made to work? In most democracies, there are extensive programs to provide economic security, to improve education, to ease suffering, and to develop human potential: many democracies aim to provide a minimum standard of living and adequate medical care for all (Swank, 2003). A society must be stable and informed for its democratic institutions to function with maximum effectiveness (Swank, 2003).

Democracy also calls for widespread participation in politics by the people; it is believed to be the duty of all adult citizens to vote in local, state or provincial, and national elections (Swank, 2003). Qualified individuals should be willing to run for public office, to serve on juries, and to contribute to the welfare of their country, and citizens should help shape public opinion by speaking out on important issues and by supporting the political party of their choice (Swank, 2003). An active citizenry is thought to be one of the best guarantees against corrupt and inefficient government (Swank, 2003).

Further, faith in the power of education is a characteristic of democracy (Swank, 2003). According to democratic ideals, widespread participation in politics does not necessarily ensure good government (Swank, 2003). The quality of government depends on the quality of participation; well-informed and well-educated citizens are able to participate more intelligently (Swank, 2003).

A democracy needs educated citizens who can think for themselves (Swank, 2003). Citizens have a duty to take part in public affairs, to keep informed on public issues, and to vote intelligently (Swank, 2003). Democratic institutions must produce leaders worthy of public trust and responsibility, and for this reason, democratic governments support education for their citizens (Swank, 2003).

A further important quality of democratic government is its emphasis on trying to get people to act on the basis of understanding and agreement instead of force (Swank, 2003). Although governments must use force sometimes, democracies usually emphasize dialogue, negotiation, bargaining, and ultimately, voluntary citizen cooperation (Swank, 2003). This approach is closely linked to the widely held democratic belief that people are generally rational and well disposed toward the common welfare (Swank, 2003).

It is a well-known fact that most successful democracies have existed in developed societies (Swank, 2003). In such societies, literacy rates and per capita (per person) incomes are relatively high; some scholars have argued that democracy works best in countries with a large middle class (Swank, 2003). Many democratic governments have collapsed during economic crises (Swank, 2003). The basic problem involved in the failures of such democracies has been the inability to maintain sufficient agreement among either the people or their political leaders on the purposes of government (Swank, 2003). Crises have often aggravated and sharpened divisions and suspicions among various classes, groups, parties, and leaders (Swank, 2003). Excessive divisions have at times blocked action by freely elected governments, often resulting in widespread public frustration and disorder (Swank, 2003).

Democratic governments are also likely to be unstable whenever people become deeply divided and suspicious of one another, and sometimes racial, ethnic, or religious differences make democracies difficult to operate (Swank, 2003). In the 1960's and 1980's, for example, intense ethnic conflicts led to the collapse of newly founded democratic governments in Nigeria (Swank, 2003). In such instances, the people may not see one another as legitimate and trustworthy partners in the enterprise of government (Swank, 2003).

What does democracy mean today, for developed, and underdeveloped countries? Most governments today claim to be democratic, but many lack some essential freedoms usually associated with democracy (Swank, 2003). In some countries, for example, the people are not allowed basic freedom of speech and of the press, or competitive elections (Swank, 2003).

One of the most important influences on democracy since the 1970's has been the economic and social globalization of the world's nations (Swank, 2003). Globalization refers to the trend toward increased business, cultural, and government interaction across international borders, which involves the loosening of trade restrictions and the movement of businesses, investments, and workers around the world (Swank, 2003). It also involves the rapid spread of information, ideas, and values, by means of the Internet and other technological advances in communications (Swank, 2003).

Some academics believe that globalization can encourage the development and practice of democracy worldwide (Swank, 2003). Increased cultural interaction may help the spread of democratic principles and the reporting of human rights abuses (Swank, 2003). In addition, democratic countries may be able to use economic pressure to make dictators give up power and establish democracy (Swank, 2003). Some international economic organizations require nations to establish and maintain democracy before gaining membership, leading to calls of cultural relativism being used for the worse by, and within, these organizations (Swank, 2003).

On the other hand, some people believe that globalization may have negative consequences for democracy (Levin, 1992): in some cases, a nation's efforts to attract international business and investment may conflict with the needs of the nation's people (Markoff, 1996; Swank, 2003). Countries may reduce social spending, cut taxes that fund public programs, or eliminate environmental regulations to decrease business costs (Markoff, 1996; Swank, 2003). In addition, many people are concerned about the growing powers of certain international organizations that are not directly accountable to the people (Swank, 2003).

Now we have seen the basic requirements of democracy, and the basic requirements for democracy to function, and also the status of democracy in the world today, we will go on to discuss the issue of culture, and later, how this relates to democracy, and democratization, in underdeveloped countries.

Culture is a term created by, and used by, social scientists to describe a particular way of life. Every human society has an individual, recognizable, culture. 'Culture' includes such factors as a society's arts, beliefs, customs, institutions, inventions, language, technology, and values. A culture produces similar behavior and thought among most of the people born within, or - even - living within, a particular society.

The issue of culture is a delicate one, especially in these days of globalization, when culture is becoming homogenized, and through this homogenization, cultural values and cultural currents are being lost, such that all countries, and all cultures within those countries, are being 'Americanized'; the first wave of this Americanization followed the introduction of television to countries across the world, which introduced the world to the American way of life, and led to children from underdeveloped countries wanting Nike trainers, and drinking Coca-Cola (Levin, 1992).

The second, potentially more destructive, wave of Americanization has been an unspoken undercurrent in international politics for decades, with successive American governments playing a role in supporting 'U.S.-friendly' foreign governments (for example, the U.S.-backed Allende coup in Chile, which put General Pinochet into power, and gave huge opportunities for U.S.-style economic development in Chile).

This second wave of Americanization is currently in vogue, enjoying a dangerous renaissance, and is currently being labelled (mainly by the U.S., but also by 'friends' of the U.S., such as the UK) as 'democratization': witness the war on Afghanistan, which was meant to bring democracy to the people of Afghanistan, and the war on Iraq, which was also fought in the name of bringing democracy to Iraq. For many people in underdeveloped nations, this process of democratization is little more than U.S. imperialism, that is a determination on the part of the U.S. To plant these countries with seeds of U.S.-style democracy, which they can then manipulate to their own ends (witness the 're-building' of Iraq, which will be conducted by U.S. companies, generating huge revenues for the U.S. economy).

This thought, that democratization equates to Americanization, and is no more than U.S. imperialism in disguise, is strangely entangled with issues of culture, especially in post-9/11 days, when 'other cultures' are routinely demonized in the U.S., and when culture, for most U.S. citizens means nothing more than, and should mean nothing more than 'American culture'. This problem, of the lack of cultural relativism in U.S. foreign policy, has sinister repercussions for underdeveloped countries, who find themselves bowing to international pressure, simply to gain aid with which to try to develop their countries (Elshtain, 1993). As this 'culture of democratization' persists within the U.S., and within U.S. foreign policy, backed as it is by U.S.-centric ideas of what democracy means, relative only to the U.S. culture, this U.S.-style 'culture of democratization' is taken on board by development organizations, which are supposedly independent, but which are largely in the pocket of the U.S.: this idea of an ideal democracy, from this U.S.-centric view of democracy, is taken forward to underdeveloped countries, on whom pressure is put to transform their political cultures, and their social cultures, in order for aid to be given (Elshtain, 1993). This is little more than a modern form of cultural slavery, with culture being subverted and used as a weapon with which to attack and diminish other cultures.

This argument is taken further by Abizedah in his 2002 paper in the American Political Science Review, where he analyzes four arguments in the socio-political literature, which support the cultural nationalist theory that liberal democracy is viable only against a background of a single national public culture: (1) social integration in a liberal democracy requires shared norms and beliefs (Schnapper); (2) the levels of trust that democratic politics requires only can be attained amongst co-nationals (Miller); (3) democratic politics requires communicational transparency, which is only possible within a shared national culture (Miller, Barry); and (4) that the economic viability of specifically industrialized liberal democracies requires a single national culture (Gellner) (Abizadeh, 2002).