Papers Presented at the Forum
Democracy Forum 2000

The Democracy-Poverty Nexus:
Summary on Issues of Participation

by Simi Kamal

Paper presented at International IDEA 2000 Democracy Forum "Democracy and Poverty: A Missing Link?"
Stockholm, Sweden, June 8^th – 9^th , 2000

Download (Word format)

Abstract

This paper summarizes the discussions, debates and recommendations of four regional workshops covering South Asia, the former Soviet block, South America and Africa. However, based on this review of regional perspectives on participation, this paper puts forward the argument that genuine democracy offers a unifying force, participatory institutions and a process that can bring groups within nations (and also different nations) together to deal with poverty.

The paper also looks at the nature of the essential institutions that make democracy genuine, and also examines the impact of external participants on participatory processes within countries. It presents the argument that the ‘missing link’ between democracy and poverty is the political participation of the poor and redistributive justice, which can be made possible under a democracy that is not subservient to market forces and that strengthens the government through the participation of all sections of society.

1. Introduction

At policy and programme levels there is very little to link democracy and poverty, except that "free markets" are touted as the panacea for both economic development and democratic development.

Democracy has not always meant improved living standards for the population and the political system has not always mattered when it comes to factors necessary for economic growth and poverty reduction. Sometimes undemocratic regimes have been successful in reducing poverty, even though they could not provide a comprehensive framework of political and social development and their efforts were often unsustainable. It can be argued that the success of these non-democratic, economic models was limited because the state propelled the models and the citizens were not fully involved. Democracy implies the guarantee and protection of basic freedoms and rights of citizens, accountable and transparent governance and opportunities for citizens to participate in policy matters and decision making. Equipped with assets, education, good health and organized freely in their own organizations, citizens are suppose to safeguard their democratic values, principles and institutions as well as use their energies to improve their welfare (ie emerge from poverty).

In theoretic terms democracy is a form of governance in which citizens control public policy and public action, by electing persons of their choice to represent them (and make policies and undertake actions on their behalf). However, democracy is not always honest or inclusive, and has many times been put to serve the interests of the powerful: some developed countries that may be very democratic and committed to open competition internally, may not be so when dealing with other countries, or in terms of international trade. The UN system itself continues to reflect some of the more undemocratic power relations among nations. All nations are not ‘equal citizens’ of the world. These power relations among nations put pressure on the internal democracy and poverty conditions in developing countries across Asia, Africa, South America and recently the post Soviet states.

Theoretically the poor in a democratic society should have the same opportunities to seek office and to influence decision-making as any other group. Democratization is, therefore, as a key precondition for the alleviation of poverty, as it would provide the poor with the channels to influence and develop policies that would be to their interest.

Poverty is an unacceptable human condition. Yet 1.2 billion people of the world are poor (those who earn less than US $1 /day). Data suggest that 60 per cent of the world's poorest people (more than 500 million) live in ecologically vulnerable areas, or ‘poverty reserves’, in both urban and rural areas.

Recent trends in economic development have seen the disparity between rich and poor countries widening. By far the major constraint facing developing countries in their struggle against poverty is trying to survive in a global economic system that is severely skewed against them. Access to financial resources is depended upon a country’s participation in the international community of nations. The powerful rich countries dictate the terms through which the weaker countries must participate in the international system. This is an aspect of "participation" that is often not discussed.

2. Democratic Social Contract

"The Social Contract" by Rousseau, published in 1762, stated that "human beings must be made citizens before they can be made men, but in order that they may be citizens, government must give liberty under law, must provide for material welfare and remove gross inequality in distribution of wealth". Thus the concept of ‘citizenship’ includes freedom from poverty.

The current democratic social contract or consensus is usually presented as a triangle (of government, civil society and markets) that impacts upon the development of society. Across the world the role of government appears to be shrinking (with much applause) while those of civil society (NGOs, peoples’ movements, pressure groups etc) and markets (mostly the growing power of multinationals) are expanding. But this triangle mainly supports the status quo.

Change will occur when the government, private sector and civil society organizations in each country are convinced that they have to work together and move to do so, without directives or recommendations from donor agencies or other governments. The emerging paradigm in developing countries may be termed one of building genuine partnerships among the four major actors of civil society: government, NGOs, private sector and communities.

Working together for setting the development agenda would also mean reduced reliance on foreign donor agencies. Their role as mediators among the government and NGOs, for example, would then become limited and their resources could go more readily to where they are more urgently needed - to disadvantaged groups and the poor.

3. Context of Democracy and Poverty in Developing Regions

3.1 South Asia

The end of the British Raj and the cataclysmic events surrounding the partition of British India (as well as later events) have made the main countries of what is now South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives), very sensitive to ‘unity’, ‘security’ and ‘integrity’, so that they have highly centralized governments and quasi-federal state structures at best. Democracy (or at least its outward trappings of voting and elections based on adult franchise) has been established for varying lengths of times in South Asian countries.

It is important to note that the notion of democracy and democratic institutions are enshrined prominently in the constitutions of all the South Asian countries. But in spite of these commitments and constitutional guarantees, in reality the people of all the South Asian countries are mostly powerless, vulnerable and poor. These political, social and economic conditions faced by the poor stop them from participating as full citizens in their societies. South Asia remains the most populous region of the world after China and poverty is rampant.

The regional SAARC Cooperation provides a framework and institutions within which South Asian countries can work together for democratization and poverty alleviation.

3.2 Africa

The absence of genuine democracy has led to conflict, poverty and social exclusion on the continent. 1990 Arusha African Charter on Popular Participation the 1990 OAU Charter on Fundamental Human Rights and the 1993 OAU Conflict Resolution and Prevention Charter have provided some institutional framework for the promotion of democracy, participation and conflict resolution and prevention. Problems include:

• Poor voter education and registration exercises;

• Poor infrastructural support for elections;

• Electoral influencing through monetary incentives and other means;

• Poor voting arrangements; and

• Lack of resources and logistics.

3.3 South America

In Latin America, social policy expenditures are higher than ever and yet the range of relative inequalities keeps widening. In the Latin American context, research by different international organizations shows that relative inequality widened while poverty varied throughout the decades: increasing in the 1980s, then decreasing in the early and mid 1990s, to worsen again by the end the decade (after 1997). Latin America as a region ranks medium on economic development. This helps to explain why the range of inequality is wider than in other developing areas of the world. It is partly due to the fact of higher income inputs into the system.

The democratization wave of the last decades has brought more freedom to Latin America, but it has also been accompanied by more inequality. Limited democracy has not reached all sectors of society; a combination of different regimes operating simultaneously under the vest of electoral democracy has given legitimacy to all others (bureaucracy, oligarchy, technocracy, partitocracy, and corporatism); current "democracy" in South America is more liberal (focusing on rights, freedoms) than popular (aiming at popular sovereignty and social equality), more defensive (guarantee oriented) than pro-active (pushing for change).

3.4 Soviet Union

In the past ten years in the former Soviet Union have been characterized by a multilevel transition: transition to independence, transition from planned to market economy, transition from single party politics to multiparty politics, and transition of social classes. The transition was followed by expansion of national self-awareness and ethnic and religious conflicts which are now transforming towards new social structures.

Migration has change the demography of some of the countries in the region. For example, an important percentage of the male population between the age of 27 and 40 live outside Azerbaijan. In Armenia, the proportion of men is 75 men to 100 women.

Poverty is a new phenomenon in the former Soviet Union. The old social classes – peasantry, proletariat, intelligentsia – have disappeared and new social divisions are developing. Currently there are only two classes, the rich and the poor.

There is little motivation to participate, since people lack belief in political institutions. However, democracy at the community and grassroots level is beginning to emerge.

4. People’s Participation: the Link Between Democracy and Poverty Alleviation

One can see that there is a democracy-poverty nexus. Economic growth without democracy leads to greater degrees of inequalities - within democratic systems, where a greater proportion of people participate through political institutions in negotiations and debates, they can influence the economic system. The poor have at least the chance to try and bring about economic changes that can lead to the reduction of poverty and inequalities. The missing link between democracy and poverty then, must surely be the political participation of the poor.

However, it must be noted that this participation by the poor is often mitigated by "the market" and "lobbying" by powerful groups in the developed world, and by unelected authoritarian governments and elitist politics in the developing countries. Many democracies continue to carry baggage – monarchies and racial values in the "north", paternalist and feudal values in the "south".

The world, therefore, has to work towards increasing the political participation of the poor: this means increasing the participation and clout of the poor countries in the international system, particularly the UN, and the participation and clout of the poor within their own countries. The role democracy can play in poverty alleviation is by making the space for redistributive justice, such that the poor have a fair chance to pull themselves out of disadvantage. This space can be created by strengthening the government, political paries and groups (of the poor, or inclusive of the poor), processes of political participation and negotiation, tempering ‘the market’ to support the poor, and finding a balance between private enterprise and government control.

All four regions debated ‘participation’ in this context. The South Asian workshop clearly enunciated the following:

• A missing link between democracy and development in South Asia are the organizations of the poor. For this, social mobilization of the poor is a must, but only if the ‘social mobilization’ model can incorporate full participation by all marginalised groups in society.

• Women’s participation as equal members of the society in decision making, civic life and share in the property must be ensured as otherwise exclusion of half the population, i.e., women will be counter-productive to democracy and development.

• Social mobilization must also incorporate marginalized groups such as tribals, low caste population and Dalits and provide for their upliftment so that they are able to stand on equal footing with the rest in their society.

• Unless all of these groups are able to contribute equally in a truly participatory democracy, poverty in South Asia will remain at chronic levels and continue to contribute to the destabilization of the region. Affirmative action measures to strengthen the weaker sections of society are an essential component of any package which seeks to address these issues.

• Ensure that services, such as compulsory education, access to primary health, work, and shelter are available.

• Strengthen decentralization and local government.

Some of these points were illustrated in the South America workshop.

Bolivia is a story of successful struggling for the rights to land by indigenous organizations. In less than two decades, through dialogue and negotiations, they were able to evolve from a protest movement into a situation where they could affect legislation. The main point here is that two worlds apart – indigenous and non-indigenous, rich and poor - had managed to defend their respective interests through dialogue and negotiation, which was made possible by the rules of democracy.

From the post-Soviet countries came the realization that legal framework and democratic institutions do not guarantee democracy or poverty reduction. Institutions are meaningless and do not fulfil their representative function without participation of the people. Voter turnout is less now that in 1991. Poverty and participation are interconnected. The poor cannot afford to participate in political parties and elections.

It was felt that in the African Workshop the decentralization can address both poverty and promotion of democracy.

5. The Role of External Participants

All four regional workshop presented critiques of the role external participants: ie the donors (Bretton Woods institutions, bilateral and multilateral organizations, national and multinational corporations, international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations).

It was felt that developing countries should have a space in global negotiations and that donors need to change their mind-set and search for authentic national actors.

The African participants felt that external participants are largely determinantal to policies and programmes and yet are not accountable to the people or their governments and that they have their own interests and agendas which are sometimes counterproductive to African states. I t was also felt that governments hide behind external actors when they want to implement harsh and difficult policies and programmes

While it was agreed that external participants have a role to play in democracy and poverty reduction, the democratic intentions of some external actors should not be taken for granted.

It was also felt that individual countries and regional organization should insist on some kind of democracy audit for donors to ensure that their activities are consistent with democratic principles or in line with requirement of countries development programmes.

For the post-Soviet countries there was a sense that some external actors have brought national players to form a consensus on national issues and programmes. For example, in 1997, Russia received the highest loan in the history of the World Bank. By 1999 the World Bank has provided 12 billion dollars for Russia. It was felt that The World Bank, IMF and other donors cannot approach the countries of the former Soviet Union the way they have approached the Third World, especially since the poverty in the region is new poverty and did not exist ten years ago.

6. The Way Forward

There are many challenges confronting developing countries in enhancing political participation as the missing link between democracy and poverty. These include, leadership, conflicts, unstable governments, cultural erosion and environmental degradation and natural disasters

These challenges have to be met through the revitalization and reconfiguration of the state and its institutions, the institutionalization of the notion of citizenship and devolving political power at the local level.

Other suggestions that emerged from the regional workshops are as follows:

• Developing political representation of the poor.

• Operationalizing the concept of partnership between government, civil society and private sector

• For participation to be genuine and widespread development of national policies to promote the participation of the poor, local governance and decentralization are essential.

The policy recommendation for these changes would include:

• Information and education

• Accessibility

• Dialogue

• Increased representation of the poor

• Political mobilization

• National forum for dialogue

• Devolution of power

• Constitutional/provisions to strengthen democracy

• Space for languages and cultures 

7. Conclusions

A model of growth with equity within participatory democratic norms, seems to be the way of the future, although the two are not easy to reconcile.

The role of political institutions and government organizations should be recognized in the struggle against the ongoing social dislocation which has often followed economic liberalization. Democratic politics should go beyond elections, and the institution of the rule of law should be strengthened if democracy and participation are to be adequately protected. There is no democracy without a state; neither can social equality be effectively pursued without an intervening government.

There is a role for international cooperation in the strengthening of governmental capacity, and so improving of the legitimacy of democratic government, but this cooperation should be based on equality and dialogue, not donor prescriptions.

A certain antagonism between democracy and the market cannot be denied. Democracies are at least as efficient as authoritarian regimes to foster economic growth, but they are better equipped for facing economic and social crises. Democratization has largely succeeded until now, but failure by governments to meet the basic needs of the people is posing a threat to the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Governments have surrendered to economic powers, and democratic institutions have weakened. There is, therefore, a need to rescue the institutional essence of democratic politics, especially since social rights have taken precedence over political rights.

The recovery of democratic politics should start by an increasing popular control of political institutions. In order to alleviate the condition of the poor and the socially excluded, a main asset of democracy is that the system gives voice to the voiceless, so that the excluded may legitimately denounce the system under which exclusion takes place. This would improve the possibility for maintenance of the social contract, by allowing for successive peaceful changes.

Democracy and rule of law should be considered of high political value by themselves; the point being that of finding out the potential of a democratic regime for the alleviation of poverty while preserving freedoms and rights. Free competition may harm the society, but participative politics should compensate the flaws of the market, such that social justice becomes an undeniable value.

Developing countries have what it takes to become dynamic nations, but are often prevented from this course by the moribund and undemocratic political systems. Political re-education of the poor (so that they understand that their political participation will make a difference) is needed to change the political culture of developing countries. The entire basis of political discourse needs to change – ‘scapegoats’ and ‘conspiracy theories’ should be replaced by serious analysis based on professional, scientific and intellectual debates.

In order to develop and maintain equality among all sections of society (including all poor, minorities and disadvantaged groups), democracy and democratic participation are indispensable. Widespread participation in electoral processes helps to safeguard the values of democracy. Democracy and electoral processes are two sides of the same coin, but this relationship has been rendered ineffective in many developing countries. The electoral process exists but there are no political institutions to give credibility to this process. These political institutions need to be strengthened: the judiciary, parliament, administration, professional bodies, civil society institutions. If there is a sound judiciary, for example, there should be no need for extra-constitutional measures such as the accountability bureaus.

Very importantly, poverty can be addressed by redefining the economic structures; while social programmes may be needed "poverty alleviation" programmes are not the answer. A paradigm shift is needed in economic thinking to include redistributive justice, development and support of local enterprise, revenue generation and opportunities for economic advancement of individuals and businesses. A clear perspective on foreign aid and impact of globalization is also needed in developing countries.

Within the ambit of widespread economic and political participation, work will be needed to rationalize education and other development sectors within urban and rural contexts, through sound policies and well-managed implementation, such that they all address the roots of poverty and help the poor help themselves. A political voice of the poor through political participation would provide the vital link between poverty and democracy.