I have been sort-of-losing a long-standing argument with a number of friends with anti-democratic leanings. Much of it stems from disgust with our very low opinion of the government, on which premise they base the argument that elites should take over the running of the state and that we should be subjected to a benevolent dictator. Ah, the sweet scent of paternalism.
In the blue corner is me, valiantly trying to believe in the rebuttals I toss their way: that just because our government is donor-dependent, corrupt and turning predatory is no good reason to get rid of popular democracy as a mechanism for choosing our leadership. Besides, we've already had one benevolent dictator in our history and it's a little greedy to expect more quite so soon.
In principle I can stand by my argument- it isn't hard to choose between a system that attempts to distribute power somewhat, and one that embraces authoritarianism as a governing doctrine. On the other hand it is hard to resist elitism from a meritocratic perspective: if we expected our politicians and public servants to actually deliver from time to time we might gravitate towards voting in the best and the brightest instead of the murky mess we have now.
President Kagame crops up during these debates with distressing frequency. It is undeniable that Rwanda is emerging as the shining star of East Africa under the stewardship of Mr. Kagame. Okay. Can Rwanda's successes be reproduced in Tanzania with the adoption of a similarly endowed, benevolent dictatorship? Um. Let me rephrase that: can the recent successes of a tiny, highly motivated, landlocked, post-civil war, post-traumatic, land-hungry country with high ethnic homogeneity and no recent record of presidential transition be reproduced in a large, coastal, stable-for-three-generations, complacent, highly heterogeneous, weak-but-functional multi-party democracy with four times the population?
And is Kagame even a dictator? Not yet he isn't- he has until 2017 to finish up and we will only know then if he's going to go down the tiresome road of Presidency For Life. At present he is what's popularly referred to as a 'strong leader,' and I suppose some of the romance can be explained by the allure of a soldier-king with a warm, administratively efficient, environmentally-conscious heart... This, this and this make up a fantastic trio of articles on Kagame and Rwanda's contemporary history though the author has been accused of some pro-Kagame bias.
But this isn't about Rwanda or Kagame so let me bring it back home to Bongoland.* I have to admit I am intrigued by the elitist argument. So: poll on the right of the blog. Vote and let's see what happens, coz this be a democratic space. Heh.
In the blue corner is me, valiantly trying to believe in the rebuttals I toss their way: that just because our government is donor-dependent, corrupt and turning predatory is no good reason to get rid of popular democracy as a mechanism for choosing our leadership. Besides, we've already had one benevolent dictator in our history and it's a little greedy to expect more quite so soon.
In principle I can stand by my argument- it isn't hard to choose between a system that attempts to distribute power somewhat, and one that embraces authoritarianism as a governing doctrine. On the other hand it is hard to resist elitism from a meritocratic perspective: if we expected our politicians and public servants to actually deliver from time to time we might gravitate towards voting in the best and the brightest instead of the murky mess we have now.
President Kagame crops up during these debates with distressing frequency. It is undeniable that Rwanda is emerging as the shining star of East Africa under the stewardship of Mr. Kagame. Okay. Can Rwanda's successes be reproduced in Tanzania with the adoption of a similarly endowed, benevolent dictatorship? Um. Let me rephrase that: can the recent successes of a tiny, highly motivated, landlocked, post-civil war, post-traumatic, land-hungry country with high ethnic homogeneity and no recent record of presidential transition be reproduced in a large, coastal, stable-for-three-generations, complacent, highly heterogeneous, weak-but-functional multi-party democracy with four times the population?
And is Kagame even a dictator? Not yet he isn't- he has until 2017 to finish up and we will only know then if he's going to go down the tiresome road of Presidency For Life. At present he is what's popularly referred to as a 'strong leader,' and I suppose some of the romance can be explained by the allure of a soldier-king with a warm, administratively efficient, environmentally-conscious heart... This, this and this make up a fantastic trio of articles on Kagame and Rwanda's contemporary history though the author has been accused of some pro-Kagame bias.
But this isn't about Rwanda or Kagame so let me bring it back home to Bongoland.* I have to admit I am intrigued by the elitist argument. So: poll on the right of the blog. Vote and let's see what happens, coz this be a democratic space. Heh.
Let me rephrase that: can the recent successes of a tiny, highly motivated, landlocked, post-civil war, post-traumatic, land-hungry country with high ethnic homogeneity and no recent record of presidential transition be reproduced in a large, coastal, stable-for-three-generations, complacent, highly heterogeneous, weak-but-functional multi-party democracy with four times the population?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very racist comment Elsie.....
Hi Masanja- Thanks for the heads up. I think it only fair of you to enlighten me further as to my racial prejudices since I only brought the issue up in relation to hetero v. homogeneity. But we have our flaws, and I'd certainly like to hear your full and detailed condemnation if you would be so kind...
ReplyDelete