Does democracy deliver? : an analysis of the debate on the relationship between development and democracy

• Main Author: Swider, Aniela
• Format: Dissertation
• Language: English
• Published: University of Cape Town 2014
• Subjects: Political Studies
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/6939

Bibliography: leaves 66-70. === The assertion that economic development can lead to democracy has been one of the most contested and debated issues in political science. Chapter Two outlines the evolution of the definitions and measurements of democracy and development which are used by Western scholars. The empirical studies on the relationship between development and democracy were largely generated in response to Seymour Martin Lipset's controversial study in 1959, which showed that the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances are for it to sustain a democracy. African scholars' criticisms of the Western canon will be presented in Chapter Three. This paper will describe the link between modernization theory and the development projects that have disappointed African scholars, thus causing them to search for a ""new and improved"" development theory which should replace Western theory. African scholars connect the failures of development projects in their own countries to the inapplicability of Western theory to the African continent. This paper will describe the African argument against Western definitions of democracy and development, methodologies used by Western theorists, and the 'Westernization' of social science. Then, the original literature will be presented to show that African scholars have created a contestable caricature of the Western canon which denies the possibility that African scholars and Western theorists have much in common. However, African scholars do not attempt to contribute to the evolution of the analysis on the relationship between development and democracy. Instead, they negatively stereotype the entire Western canon and do not acknowledge the robust value of the empirical findings outlined in Chapter Two. This ""misunderstanding"" of the Western canon suggests that African scholars are arguing against a construct rather than an accurate paradigm.