Challenges for the Democratisation Process in Tanzania: Moving towards consolidation years after independence?

2. Theoretical framework: Democracy, democratisation and development

41 2 Theoretical framework: Democracy, democratisation and development The aim with this chapter is to show what concepts and theoretical frameworks are used in this thesis in order to answer the research question to what extentTanzania is moving towards a consolidation of democracy. The chapter briefly points at how democracy, democratisation, development and related concepts are defined and used in this thesis in order to explore the challenges for the democratisation process in Tanzania. The first section describes the general debate on democratisation and economic development as a point of departure, and the following sections the more specific theoretical perspectives that have been used in the thesis. Hence, we start with the broader theoretical context to the debate on the democratisation process and its linkages to economic development in Africa, and then narrow this down to the theoretical framework and concepts used to frame the empirical questions and analyse the empirical material, at the end of the chapter. The debates on the role of democracy in development, on poverty reduction and on the interrelation between these two issues have been important components within the field of development studies, and in social science, for decades (Haynes, 2005; Haynes, 2008; Rudebeck et al., 1996; Apter, 1987; Brett, 2009; Chabal and Daloz, 1999; Cowen and Shenton, 1996; Diamond, 2000; Martinussen, 1997; Nederveen Pieterse, 2001; Sen, 1999; Sørensen, 1991; Törnquist, 1999). The standpoints on what role democracy plays for development, and vice versa, as well as the strategies for how to promote democraFreedom is meaningless if people cannot put food in their stomach. Nelson Mandela 42 JONAS EWALD CHALLENGES FOR THE DEMOCRATISATION PROCESS IN TANZANIA cy, have shifted over time (Carothers, 1999; Carothers et al., 2007). Hettne (2008) has analysed these changes and categorised a number of discourses, each built up around prevailing international power structures. In the sixties, development and modernisation were perceived as creating the necessary economic, social and structural change for democratic political development. Without these economic and social changes, a democratic development was unlikely to take place. If a democracy was established it would not be sustainable as the necessary structural conditions were not at hand, in terms of capacity, institutions and resources. In the seventies the main theoretical debates were related to how to accomplish structural change and social development, rather than democracy. With the neo-liberal turn in the eighties, focus shifted to how to dismantle the state and provide the foundation for a market driven economic development. From the end of the eighties, the theories of development gradually changed and incorporated political development. From the early nineties democracy became perceived not as a value in itself and an outcome of the development process, but as a prerequisite for development. Democracy and democratisation became perceived as necessary for development—an almost 180 degree turn in the theories on development regarding the relationship between democracy and development compared with the 1960s. This is the theoretical context of this thesis, which we will shed light on in this chapter. 2.1 The theoretical debate on democratisation in Africa In Africa, as described in the introduction, the transformation of African states in crisis to “market-democracies” replaced the neo-liberal agenda and its focus on minimizing the neopatrimonial state, in the late 1980s (Olukoshi and Laakso, 1996; Sandbrook, 2000; Widner, 1994; Bratton, 1998; van de Walle, 2001). Liberal democracy is supposed to promote political liberties and human rights, as well as facilitate rapid economic development through a leaner state characterised by “good governance”, “accountability”, and “transparency” (World Bank 1989; 1993; 1997; 2000). A disputed issue is which actors, policies, and institutions are able to affect the political and economic liberalisation process in order to enable a transformation into a “deep” democratic, socially acceptable , and sustained development process that encompasses the whole of society— and not only the elites (Ake, 2000; Obi, 2008; Mkandawire, 2006). The context of the arguments is the large body of literature discussing the prerequisite for democratic and economic development in Africa. From a more liberal standpoint authors like Bratton and van de Walle (1997), van de Walle (2001), Chabal (1994) argue that one of the more important institutions that could explain the lack of economic development and continued authoritarian governance in multiparty structures, was the emergence of neo-patrimonialism from independence and onwards. Neo- 43 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRATISATION AND DEVELOPMENT patrimonialism still characterizes most African societies, according...