Professor of Sociology, Institute of Social Studies, Hague. January 1961
I think a realist who, against the background of the political situation in Africa today, contemplates the prospects for democracy, would not find very much that would raise fresh hope for humanity. Such hope would need to be firmly founded on faith: faith is the strength, the appeal and the universality of the values of democracy.
To me a disturbing feature of the contemporary world situation is the apparent lack of faith and conviction in democracy, even amongst those who live in the long established democracies of what is generally referred to as the West.
The realization that the tender plant of parliamentary democracy planted on the African soil by Colonial powers is by no means robust, has caused apologists to offer easy explanations in defence of undemocratic actions.
It has been suggested that parliamentary democracy is unsuitable for Africa, because it is alien to African thought and way of life. This has been repeated so often recently that it seems to be gaining wide support, for, after all, it is those who are supposed to have expert knowledge of Africa, and who regard themselves to be friends of Africa, who avow it; and those who are not experts can only accept their judgment.
Others argue that the tasks which face the new States of Africa make parliamentary democracy an unnecessary impediment to rapid progress. Such aspects of parliamentary democracy as the right to criticize, or the formation of parties opposed to those in power are undesirable hindrances, mere spokes in the wheel of progress. They should therefore be dispensed with, at least until more important tasks have been accomplished. What are these tasks?
Two principal ones have been indicated. The first is the need to achieve national unity. The new States in Africa are the creation of Colonial Powers. At Independence, narrow tribal and regional loyalties re-assert themselves, and the new State has to be welded into a nation. For this task, it is argued, a strong leader, a strong centralized government, and firm measures are required; therefore, according to the apologists, what in the old democracies may seem undemocratic measures are justifiable in the peculiar circumstances of Africa.
From this, the apologists slide into the assertion that it is not right to judge the African situation by the standards of Europe. This I think is dangerous for international relations. It would seem to set up different standards of democracy for different countries, and this could lead to a chaotic state of affairs for democracy.
The second principal task pointed to in defence of authoritarianism is some of the new African States is the need for rapid economic development. Standards of living have to be raised considerably, and in as short a time as possible, and this, it is again argued, can only be done under a strong leader and a strong centralized regime that can adopt a planned economic and social development, and impose the necessary social discipline.
I may point out that this is not a problem peculiar to Africa. Accelerated economic growth anywhere tends to increase the role of government in economic life; this can be a real threat to democracy and needs watching. In the African situation, the threat is great and serious because African States just emerged from Colonialism offer easy opportunities for near-absolute authoritarianism and dictatorship.
Colonial rule does not offer shining examples of tolerance of criticism or opposition. Those who first take over from Colonial rulers thus inherit a paternalistic or near-absolute power, and some of them do not hesitate to exploit this tradition for their own purposes. Sponsoring rapid economic growth just comes in handy as an additional and convenient reason for the governments of some of the new States of Africa to suppress criticism of their decisions and activities; or to explain away inefficiency or corruption, or to justify dictatorship. It has been used to underline democracy or to smother its growth.
The question which we cannot avoid asking is whether economic development and nation building must mean authoritarianism and denial of freedom. Is it true that roads, railways, houses, harbours, factories and the like can only be quickly built under dictatorial forms of government?
I find that experts are not agreed as to whether in fact dictatorships achieve higher levels of output and consumption, and more quickly and efficiently than democracies. There are disputes about published statistics and the claims based on them. But even if this were so, and there are those who stoutly maintain that dictatorships achieve faster economic growth, there would be a fundamental question to answer. It raises a question of values. Which should have priority: material output or democracy? The choice made will determine the methods considered suitable to use.
Here I must admit my bias. I am in the camp of those who place a higher value on democracy than on material value. I therefore do not think that countries should develop more rapidly, even if they could, than is feasible within a democratic framework. This is based on the belief that human beings are what matter most in the world.
I must add that I am convinced that adequate economic growth, as much as the available resources and personnel make possible in any of the new States in Africa, can be achieved within a democratic framework, should those in power choose to do so. It is neither necessary nor essential to resort to dictatorial methods in order to raise agricultural productivity or stimulate industrialisation, or secure adequate savings. According to experts, an annual rate of growth of 4% per annum would represent a rapid rate of growth in any of the new States of Africa, and this could be achieved without resort to authoritarianism or dictatorship or communism. Indeed, I think this rate of growth could be achieved whilst cherishing and encouraging the development of parliamentary institutions and forms.
Let me elaborate a little on some of the things I have in mind. A democratic society needs a well informed and effective public opinion. This is often lacking in African States. It should not be impossible along with rapid economic development to encourage a free and honest Press, or voluntary associations, or free trade unions, professional bodies, or farmers' associations which represent a variety of interests and protect a variety of liberties. Yet when some new African States have failed to resist the temptation to bring all such organisations under centralized control, they have sought to justify their action by saying that such controls are demanded by the need for rapid economic growth.
I am thinking also of organised opposition parties. I do not find economic development inherently incompatible with the institution of a political opposition. Every government, if it is to remain democratic, needs to be under constant observation and scrutiny. Criticism and the free expression of opinion should help a government to discover truth. Yet when some of the new States in Africa have severely limited or denied opportunities for an opposition to exist, or to criticise the government, or to offer the electorate an alternative government; when they have stifled freedom by arbitrary arrests and imprisonment, without even the opportunity of a trial, they have sought to justify those actions by stating that democratic institutions, such as an organized opposition, are alien to Africa, and some have gone further to evoke something called the African Personality in justification. The meaning of this concept is not clear, since Africa is a land not of one culture, but of many cultures.
I said at the beginning that what I find to be a disturbing feature of the contemporary world situation is the apparent lack of faith in democracy, even among those who belong to the long-established democracies of the West. By contrast, those who propagate communism in Africa do so with such fervour and conviction that it should cause no surprise that they are winning converts. The West should take note of this. Lukewarm loyalty and sometimes even flagrant disloyalty to democracy by citizens of the Free World has not only constituted a sad betrayal of those Africans who believe in the democratic way of life for Africa, but of democracy itself.
It is my conviction that democracy can be achieved, and that the fundamental values of democracy are not alien to Africa or to any country. Man, whatever his colour, or wherever he lives, has a worth and importance greater than material things and I would add that it is in the democratic tradition that the individual has an importance higher than the State. This faith which has inspired democracy in the West can do so in Africa also. Economic development need not destroy individual freedom. Although sponsoring economic growth may provide temptations to undermine democracy, it can also provide opportunities for the uplift of man. It could provide a common purpose in which all can join in the battle against hunger, disease and ignorance; and it could promote human dignity and democracy if man learnt to co-operate to serve first, not the richest or the most powerful, but those who are suffering the most.
The above paper, published in United Asia: An International Magazine of Afro-Asian Affairs in 1961. It is a shorter version of a celebrated lecture first delivered on 4 January 1961 as part of a lecture series was organized by The Council for Education in World Citizenship. The Central Ball, Westminster, London, S.W.1. Dr Kofi Abrefa Busia, a Professor of Sociology at the Institute of Social Studies at the Hague, was then leader of the opposition United Party, living in exile because of the then one-party government in Ghana.