Democracy and Africa's Search for Development

Introduction It is evident that most popular form of government today in world is judging by its wide acceptance and pretensions to it by those who in reality are aversed to its tenets. The reason for this lies in fact that being democratic today now signifies being good and admissible into comity of nations as opposed to isolation meted out to regimes considered to be despotic. For Africa, gale of democratisation as known today did not gather steam until about four or five decades ago with collapse of European colonisation and dawn of political independence. In an age where public morality gets more Machiavellian and pragmatic in spite of spirited pretension to contrary, laying claim to becomes prudential. This is not to say there are no loud grumblings about its purpose and constant interpretations, to which it is constantly subjected at whims of user. To this end therefore, this paper tries to examine meaning of its underlying assumptions and ideological dimension it has assumed. Furthermore, paper tries to look at implications of all above stated factors as it relates to Africa's quest for development. In tradition of philosophy however, it becomes pertinent to begin with clarification of concept under discourse. The Idea of Democracy: Meaning and Origin One fundamental problem created by elastic use of concept of is problem of definition. (Falaye, 1998:97) A pointer to this fact is that the promotion, practice and vicissitudes of in different parts of world have exposed it to some definitional haze and diverse forms of interpretations. (Adediran, 1996:47) Therefore, it is not a thing of surprise that by word democracy, a thousand scholars may have a thousand divergent opinions. Two reasons advanced for this by K. A. Owolabi is that first, democracy has become in current usage, another word for political decency and civilisation (Owolabi, 1999:5). It is an idea that has become a moral concept thereby drawing patronage of various regimes that proffer it more for sake of survival than true commitment to its ideals. Secondly, is difficult to define due to ideological connotation. For example, ideological tussle between socialists and capitalists has generated a situation in which regimes become tagged democratic not necessarily because of its participatory tendencies but mainly due to its ideological persuasion. Therefore, it becomes difficult to present a definition of which can be called objective. However, quest to know ideal definition of becomes imperative because: If is not properly defined people would live in an inextricable confusion of ideas, much to advantage of demagogues and despots (McGowan, 1991:21). In addition: It leaves us in danger of refusing something that we have properly identified and getting in exchange something that we would not want at all (McGowan, 1991: Ibid). Classically, is derived from two Greeks words: demo and Kratia meaning people and rule respectively. It can thus be understood to literally mean rule by people. Perhaps it explains why Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address defined as government of people and for people. In ancient Athens, was used to describe a practice where all male citizens, (excluding women, children, slaves and foreigners) meet freely on a frequent basis to deliberate on issues bordering on their lives. Everybody was playing role of government by creating rules and regulations and running of an orderly society. This was made easier because population is not over bloated for convenience of such practice. Yet, we must understand that economic system of slavery and feudalism served as a catalyst to success of direct because slave owners had ample time to partake in government business. …