LOCAL POLITICS AND DEMOCRATISATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES PDF

Preview

Summary

LOCAL POLITICS AND DEMOCRATISATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES June 2001 Olle Törnquist Department of Political Science and Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo Kristian Stokke Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo 1 Purpose The purpose of the project ...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

LOCAL POLITICS AND DEMOCRATISATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Olle Törnquist

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Int roduct ion: T he New Local Polit ics of Democrat isat ion Olle Törnquist , Krist ian St okke

Polit ical Geography in Norway. Current St at e and Fut ure Prospect s Krist ian St okke Ret hinking Popular Represent at ion Olle Törnquist , N. Webst er, Krist ian St okke

LOCAL POLITICS AND DEMOCRATISATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES June 2001

Olle Törnquist Department of Political Science and Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo

Kristian Stokke Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo

1

Purpose The purpose of the project is to critically examine local politics and democratisation in developing countries. The contemporary world is characterised by both globalisation and localisation, i.e. simultaneous tendencies towards international integration and local embeddedness. Within development theory and practice, this tendency towards globalisation has led to various attempts at compensating for the negative effects by turning ‘the local’ into a prime site of economic, social, and political development (Mohan & Stokke, 2000; Nederveen Pieterse, 2001). Common institutional reforms aimed at this goal include decentralisation and local governance, elections, and participatory development initiatives. The general assumption is that mutually empowering relations between decentralised state institutions, private businesses and civil societies promotes liberal democracy and socio-economic development. There are few critical analyses, however, of whether the processes involved actually generate substantial democracy. Most existing studies focus on either the institutional reforms or on the actors in civil society. There is a lack of comparative research which comprehensively studies what kinds of democracy and development really emerge when various actors are confronted with and adapt to these institutional reforms. The purpose of this project on ‘Local Politics and Democratisation in Developing Countries’ is precisely to fill this gap. The project’s analytical focus is the conjunction of factors that generate widened local political spaces and the capacities of the actors that operate within these spaces. Priority will be given to the implications of local politics for democratisation. The overall research question is: To what extent and under what conditions does the combination of widened local political spaces and the political practices of local actors, contribute to a substantial democratisation? This question will be answered through interdisciplinary comparative analyses of a set of key cases in Asia, Africa and Latin America. These are cases which participating researchers are equipped to contribute high quality research to the international efforts in the field. The case studies and the comparative analysis will be built around three main research questions: 1. What are the origins of the widened local political spaces and what characterise these spaces in terms of rights, institutions, channels for participation and political discourses? 2. What capacities do key actors have to make use of local political spaces and what are the sources of their capacities? 3. What are the implications for democratisation of the concurrence of factors generating local political spaces and key actors’ political strategies? In addition to papers, articles and monographs on the individual cases, the research results will be published as two edited anthologies on (1) theoretical issues in studies of local politics and democratisation; and (2) thematic case studies and comparisons. The research will also be developed and disseminated through international workshops, masters and doctoral courses and a proposed network on “Local Politics in Developing Countries” (see separate proposal to NFR’s Program on Globalisation and Marginalisation, June 2001). The emergence of widened local political spaces in the age of globalisation By local politics we mean all politics that are carried out locally, not just in relation to local organs of the state or local governments but also, for instance, struggles over national or global issues that take place in local contexts. Until recently, such local politics was given minimal attention within development studies. Local identities, interests and organisation were commonly seen as traditional features that would ‘dissolve’ with modernisation. Alternatively, local politics was seen as unimportant in comparison to national and global economic and political processes.

2

This reasoning reappeared in the 1990s through analyses of globalisation as a universal force that will eradicate local inequalities, identities and politics. Contrary to this expectation, localisation has proved to be an integral part of globalisation and the associated restructuring of nation-states. The undermining of East Asian developmental states like Indonesia is a recent case in point (Törnquist, 2001a; 2001b) Recently, developments at the global level have widened political spaces at the local level. This has occurred as the result of simultaneous tendencies towards economic and cultural globalisation and localisation. A discourse on local development and democratisation has recently also become very influential.1 Such global processes are mediated through context-specific socioeconomic, political and cultural conditions. This means that the widening of local political spaces is both global and contextual. Globalisation has especially challenged the role of developmental states. In the early political economy of development, the state was assigned a key role in correcting market failures and ensuring economic efficiency, growth, macroeconomic stability and social development. With economic globalisation and new neo-liberal discourses, developmental states have been ‘hollowed out’, i.e. their regulatory capacities have been diminished and transferred to sub- and supra-national institutions (Jessop, 1993; 1994). Simultaneously, neo-liberal development discourse has brought about a dramatic shift by refuting state regulation and promoting market liberalism as the most efficient development strategy within a global market system. This singular emphasis on deregulation has been modified recently through an additional emphasis on institutional reforms (World Bank, 1997). With this shift from ‘less government’ to ‘good governance’, the local state and civil society have emerged as the special arenas in which a host of objectives are to be achieved. Thus, participatory development, local governance, social capital and mobilisation for empowerment have become central features of the contemporary development discourse. This hegemonic discourse has contributed to a number of institutional reforms. First, there are various forms of decentralisation (Rondinelli, Nellis, & Cheema, 1983; World Bank, 2000). These include privatisation to actors in the market or semi-privatisation to NGOs and other actors in civil society that work within a public regulatory framework; deconcentration of tasks and fiscal transfers to local units of central offices; and devolution of power to local governments. Second, previous theses on the need for elitist socio-economic modernisation as a precondition for democracy have largely been replaced by the idea of basic elements of human rights and democracy as a precondition for ‘good development’. One should get the ‘formal’ institutions right in terms of the rule of law, basic rights and free and fair elections, including the mobilisation of votes on local issues and identities, in order to further development (Williams & Young, 1994). Third, a number of development programmes seek to initiate economic and social development through local partnerships between state institutions, businesses, and actors in civil society (Wolfensohn, 1988). The need for critical analyses of local politics A review of the scholarly discourse reveals that, while there is a growing emphasis on the local level in development studies, the fundamental issue of how various actors adapt to and utilise local political spaces is under-researched (Mohan, 1996; 1997; Mohan & Stokke, 2000; Stokke, 1998): We simply do not know when and how the conjunction of the factors that generate local political space and the actors that adapt to it really contribute to substantial democratisation. This also makes it difficult to fulfil priorities such as the Scandinavian one of promoting democracy and pro-poor development. The discourse on local development and the institutional reforms towards decentralised service delivery and participatory development holds the promise of more localised, relevant and sustainable development. However, a number of problems also exist. These include a tendency to

3

essentialise and romanticise local communities and to downplay questions of exploitation, inequality and dominance. Paradoxically, these political reforms have to a large extent been treated in technocratic and apolitical ways rather than focusing on the extent and ways in which they promote democratic participation (Mohan & Stokke, 2000). Even when studies focus on local politics, they tend to limit themselves either to the institutional reforms (e.g. decentralisation, local administration, elections, human rights) that generate local political spaces, or to certain actors within local civil society (e.g. NGOs, social movements or local patrons). There are few comprehensive studies that critically examine the concurrence of institutional reforms and local political actors. Given the considerable diversity within this literature we intend to use it critically and especially utilise those studies that treat local development politically. The existing literature on local politics includes two major approaches. On the one hand there are studies that take state institutions as their point of departure and address the way in which reforms may promote local changes. The weakest of these analyses are either normative and discuss what ought to be rather than what is or they focus on central-local state relations to the exclusion of the interactions between the local state and society. However, other studies do treat these issues in more political ways. The kind of inquires that we have in mind include, on the links between central and local organs of the state and its societal roots, Crook & Manor (1998), Smith (1998), Tendler (1997) and Harriss (2000)2; on issues of citizenship, Mamdani (1996), Mohanty, Mukherji & Törnquist (1998) and Heater (1999); and on the crafting of democratic institutions, Linz & Stepan (1996) and Mainwaring (1995). There are good possibilities to build on these and additional studies, including through network relations with researchers at the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (Eriksen, Naustdalslid, & Schou, 1999) and the Norwegian Institute for Human Rights (Ekern, 1999; Tronvoll & Aadland, 1995). On the other hand there are studies that focus on civil society and address the ways in which individual and collective actors in society can promote participation and empowerment. The weakest of these analyses either romanticise ‘community’ as undifferentiated and harmonious or infer causality between local social characteristics and desirable democratic outcomes without showing how they actually affect each other. However, other more exciting studies do problematise participation and local culture. In this latter category one could mention, on NGOs, Holland & Blackburn (1998) and Nelson & Wright (1995); on social capital, Putnam (1993), Evans (1996), AGORA (1996), Blomkvist (Forthcoming) and Fox (1996), and on trade unions and social movements, Andræ & Beckman (1999), Beckman (2000), Escobar & Alvarez (1992), Foweraker (1995) and Lindberg & Sverrison (1997). This is also the general field within which the present authors and our collaborators have carried out several projects and critical reviews – all of which constitute a necessary base for the current project.3 This broad category of research also includes anthropological studies of how local actors relate to political institutions and policies. Usually these do not include the concepts and systematisation of more political theories and studies of democratisation. One of the major aims of the proposed project is to overcome this shortcoming. Furthermore, there are also vital insights on how local patrons and bosses – within the framework of ‘formal’ and often decentralised liberal democracies – politicise and manipulate cultural identities (Brass, 1997; Hansen, 1999) as well as obtain and maintain monopolistic control over economic and political resources (Bierschenk & de Sardan, 1997; Sidel, 1999b; Trocki, 1998). We are very fortunate to have some of the most dynamic and competent scholars within this tradition as associated researchers and reference group members for our project (Appendix IV). General theoretical framework for comparative analysis In order to fill the gap in current research with regard to whether the factors that generate local political space and the actors that adapt to it really contribute to substantial democratisation, there is a need for elaboration of suitable theoretical frameworks and more specific research questions. To begin with, this calls for an examination of how it is possible to draw on and further develop relevant approaches to the study of democratisation. This has already been discussed during a

4

preparatory international workshop, in a series of seminars and a post graduate course on local politics. (Appendix V). The first problem faced is the tendency to abstain from analysing democracy on the basis of its universal ends (the principles of democracy) but rather build on contextual and historically static means of democracy in the West. This happens despite the fact that those means vary over time, between contexts and depending upon the balance of power (Beetham, 1999). Thus, we are also engulfed by normatively based analyses of stages such as transition to and consolidation of democracy. An important aim of the current research project, therefore, is to focus on the dynamics of democratisation in terms of the social and political forces at play and their interests in being able to shape and use democratic means to reach democratic ends. Second, we challenge much of the earlier structural and institutional approaches to third world democratisation that were based on the assumption that democracy would only come about through more modernisation, or, as their critics retorted, less international dependency. Both of these determinist positions have been proven wrong. The third wave of democracy reached the third world despite insufficient modernisation and continued dependency. These unexpected changes yielded revisionist, but still problematic, approaches. The mainstream scholars did away with much of their outdated hard-core modernisation theories, but substituted them with a myriad of partly unrelated and emprirically generalised factors, and congregated around a normative focus on western liberal democracy and the role of middle-class elites (Diamond, Linz, & Lipset, 1989; Huntington, 1991; Linz & Stepan, 1996). Meanwhile, the dependency scholars simply set aside the structural and institutional dynamics – which according to their previous analyses could not generate democracy – and focused on contingent elite-manoeuvres (O'Donell & Schmitter, 1986). Both approaches to the new democratisation suffer from unclear and even absent relations to the broader societal dynamics (Gill, 2000). Rather, they contribute to the dominating idea that it is possible to craft instant democracies by introducing minimum human rights, ’free and fair’ elections and ’good’ institutions. Moreover, in Indonesia, the actual failure of most of these efforts has in turn paved the way for two arguments on the other extreme (Törnquist, 2000a; 2000b; 2001b). First the resurgence of the old determinist argument that time is not yet ripe for democracy followed by calls for enlightened top-down promotion of more modernisation, ’rule of law’ and ’good governance’. Second the fashionable cynicism that pro-democratic efforts are naive and almost ridiculous, since patrimonial cultures and systems are so old and strong that they will capture whatever element of democracy that is introduced (Chabal & Daloz, 1999). The way out of this impasse of vacillating between unrealistic idealism and undemocratic determinism, we suggest, is to substitute the common citizens for the elite. This would allow us to consider the broader societal dynamics, for instance by supplementing Diamond, Linz & Lipset’s (1989) analyses of structural constraints through the prism of the elite with studies of how popular actors relate to such societal preconditions. Also, one would be able to critically discuss the role and importance of patrimonialism and clientelism and whether such practices really have that deep and strong roots.4 An alternative focus on problems of substantial democracy: In our view, studies of democratisation need to proceed along a third way, between determinism and idealism. This implies specifying the minimum economic, social and political preconditions that are required, in addition to basic democratic rights and institutions, in order for ordinary people to be able to use and develop such rights and institutions. This expanded and dynamic view of democracy will be described as substantial democracy:5 Substantial democracy means that the conventional rules of the game are both fair and applied impartially, and that all the players are granted both political equality and have an actual capacity to take part and win. This implies a democracy that is likely to make sense for most people concerned, but not because its outcome is always to their advantage. Instead, it is likely to be meaningful (and sustainable) simply because people will have both the possibility and the capacity to make use of democratic rights and institutions in order to handle their problems – by influencing, controlling, and

5

participating in equal and peaceful government and administration of their societies. While popular control and political equality with regard to collective binding decisions are universal democratic aims, their implementation through various means are not. Hence our questions should be thoroughly contextualised. Space constraints prohibit more than a few remarks about general concepts here. Four basic criteria have gained wide acceptance in the discussion about ‘auditing democracy’ (Beetham, 1999): The two ‘conventional’ means – constitutional rights and institutional channels – to promote the democratic principles of popular control and political equality, some of the additional societal conditions that are necessary to enable people to make use of those instruments, and the specification of the quality and extent of it all. Hence, substantial democratisation would then rest with some equally substantial rights, institutional mechanisms, certain societal background-factors along each of these dimensions and most importantly (but not specified by Beetham) the chances and capacity of the citizens to make use of (and improve) these rights and mechanisms (Figure 1). Citizen’s instrumental aims

Relations between and the usage of

Democratic aims: Popular control and political lit di bi di Means A:

Supplement ary

Means B:

Means C: A democratic society

Citizen’s capacity to make use of and improve the i Figure 1. Elements of substantial democracy

Three sets of means are presented in the figure. The first type of means is the conventional cluster of constitutional rights, including to what extent they are real and useful for ordinary people. The second instruments are ‘free and fair elections’ (to which we add their substance and scope) and open and accountable government – which also require independent public knowledge, movemen...