As an African lady who comes from a developing country (Zimbabwe) which is currently struggling with political instability and recessed development for the past two decades, I am very keen to learn more about Development Politics. The introduction to the module where we had to learn about the link between the Development and Politics was an eye-opener. It was great to see the different views of my fellow colleagues who come from different backgrounds and have different views on the subject. It was interesting to note that we all seemed to agree on the importance of politics in the development of countries. When I was reading Duncan Green’s book, How Change Happens, I came across this definition by the Amartya Sen who defines development as the ‘progressive expansion of freedoms to be and to do’. As simple as this definition can be, one might think that achieving development is simple and linear and a matter of following a step by step approach. I have come to realise that development is a complex subject and is a result of an interaction of many diverse and unrelated factors.
Early literature on the subject of development was focused on issues to do with better planning, providing more funds and following what other countries did in essence following the modernisation theory. The Modernisation theory emerged in the 1950s and it tries to explain how development happened in the North America and Western Europe. The theory argues that societies develop in fairly predictable stages through which they become increasingly complex. Development depends primarily on the importation of technology as well as a number of other political and social changes believed to come about as a result. What was surprising was that even with these ideas laid out and other countries’ models taken as blueprints development didn’t happen as expected. Scholars noticed that politics also played a part, in the 1990s institutions, governance and democratisation entered into the debate of development, as an important part of development success. There was an emphasis that politics and economic development are closely connected. A major proposition was that politics either creates limits or facilitates the course of development. Donors began to play an advocacy role by promoting good governance as a priority and a prerequisite for foreign aid. In the cases of countries battling with corruption, Anti-corruption programs were funded by donor agencies in a bid to create functioning political entities where the state upholds the rule of law and be accountable to its citizens. The expectation was that this would, in turn, promote development. It may be argued that corruption has been a strong challenge which has inhibited and stifled development objectives of various countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is the part of the world where I come from.
Democracy was also the core agenda of development agencies. What I found interesting is the link between democracy and development, particularly the fact that countries that are more democratic seem to be better developed compared to their undemocratic counterparts. It may be concluded, therefore, that promoting democratization and good governance in both countries and institutions may be one of the ways of achieving development. From my personal experience, taking the example of Zimbabwe, I am of the opinion that the failure to embrace principles of democracy coupled with rampant corruption has been the key factor in the underdevelopment of the country. The system of corruption that is thriving in the country has led to many development partners and potential investors staying away. Corruption results in the political elite making irrational decisions that are meant to protect their interests even though they are not for the good of the country.
In studying this subject I have also realized that development challenges are complex and are always evolving depending on the circumstances that a particular jurisdiction faces. I agree with this since change is unpredictable it requires people and organisations involved in development to embrace the political element in their work and to adopt more flexible, iterative approaches to achieve development which is what is called thinking and working politically. Since no two countries are the same, every country has to find its own way to translate political power into change for the public good. There is need for politically smart locally led programming as there is evidence that they produce tangible results compared to the old way of doing things. It’s interesting to me that even with all the theories and studies there is still no clear path to development, it appears to be a function of trial and error and what works in one end of the world might not work in the other contexts. The contextual element needs to be understood together with the recognition that change happen does not happen fast, what is key is to be able to adapt and reform within the current situation.
References
Leftwich, A. (2008) “Developmental states, effective states and poverty reduction: The primacy of politics”. Geneva, UNRISD.
Menocal, AR (2014) Getting Real About Politics: From Thinking Politically to Working Differently. ODI, London
Thembiedevelops 