*Corrupt Democracies or Benevolent Dictatorship?*
Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai
Over the past two decades, as I have been promoting democracy, human rights, and good governance in my home country of Sierra Leone and Africa, I have often contemplated whether a corrupt democracy is preferable to a benevolent dictatorship. This question arises due to the prevalence of corrupt democracies in the continent and the failure to meet the socioeconomic rights of citizens. This has resulted in growing frustration among the youth towards the ruling elites, disillusionment with democracy, and even military interventions driven by populist sentiments. While other countries are providing their citizens with necessities, fragile democracies continue to deepen poverty and worsen living conditions for the most vulnerable populations. It seems that democracy, particularly when coupled with capitalism, tends to widen the wealth gap, with a few becoming affluent while mass poverty persists.
Recent examples, such as Cuba, Libya under Gaddafi, Saddam’s Iraq, and notably China, arguably suggest that countries with less democratic systems have been more successful in providing for their citizens than democratic nations. This raises the question: what is the incentive for democracy when it fails to serve the people, while dictatorships can provide for their citizens? A benevolent dictator may govern with an iron fist but still prioritize the well-being of their people, even if it means disregarding certain aspects of a functioning state. What ordinary citizens truly desire are necessities such as food on the table, education for their children, affordable healthcare, and a safe society. Unfortunately, many democracies have failed to address these needs due to issues like corruption.
However, it is essential to approach this topic cautiously and consider the long-term implications of such a choice. While a benevolent dictator may appear to meet immediate needs, the absence of democratic institutions can lead to a lack of checks and balances, potential abuse of power, and the stifling of individual freedoms. Dictatorships often lack mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and peaceful transitions of power, which are fundamental principles of democracy.
Instead of abandoning democracy altogether, a more constructive approach would be to address the underlying issues that lead to corruption and the failure of democratic systems. Strengthening democratic institutions, promoting transparency, ensuring the rule of law, and combating corruption are crucial steps towards improving governance and meeting the needs of citizens. It is through these efforts that democracy can be made more responsive, inclusive, and accountable to the people it serves.
Democracies indeed need to address the socioeconomic needs of their citizens to be effective and meaningful. While civil and political rights are essential, they alone cannot fulfill the people’s basic needs that the government should protect. The promise of elections and changes in government, or the enthusiasm of political campaigns and citizen participation, do not directly translate into putting food on the table for the people. For citizens to exercise their rights and freedoms of expression, they must have their basic needs met, such as access to food, clean water, and electricity for essential services like charging their phones. Without these fundamental necessities, engaging in protests or demonstrations becomes challenging.
The socioeconomic fulfillment of citizens is indeed crucial for democracy to have real meaning and impact. Merely advocating for civil and political rights while neglecting the population’s basic needs renders democracy an empty concept with unfulfilled promises. When the socioeconomic needs of the people are not adequately addressed, it can lead to disillusionment with democracy and create fertile ground for military rule, dictatorship, and populism to take hold. This is particularly evident in emerging democracies that possess natural resources, as they often become vulnerable to exploitation by foreign investors driven by capitalist principles. The extraction of resources without adequate benefit-sharing for the people has contributed to the popularity of military coups, as seen in the case of Niger.
It is high time to reconsider the principles that allow for the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable. Democracies must prioritize the well-being of their citizens by ensuring equitable distribution of resources, combating corruption and exploitation, and implementing policies that promote socioeconomic development. By addressing these issues, democracies can provide tangible benefits to their citizens and demonstrate the actual value of democratic governance.
While civil and political rights are essential, democracies must also prioritize the socioeconomic needs of their citizens. Neglecting these needs can lead to disillusionment and pave the way for alternative forms of governance. Democracies should strive to fulfill the necessities of their people, combat exploitation, and promote equitable development to achieve the aspirations of democracy.
In conclusion, while the shortcomings of some democracies and the apparent benefits of benevolent dictatorships may raise doubts about the efficacy of democracy, it is vital to recognize the long-term risks associated with authoritarian rule. By strengthening democratic institutions and combating corruption, it is possible to create a more just and equitable society that addresses the needs of all citizens.
