Suchergebnisse

Draws upon personal experiences in Tanzania during the 1960s & 1970s, participation in a 2000 memorial workshop on Julius Nyerere, Tanzania's first president, & research in Tanzania in July-Aug 2001 to reevaluate Nyerere's vision for the development of Tanzania. The focus is on the theory/practice of democracy & socialism/self-reliance. Discussions with Cranford Pratt about Nyerere's political practice are related, noting that Pratt's belief that Nyerere's essentially democratic approach would overcome threats to consolidation underestimated Nyerere's authoritarianism & the high costs of his movement for progressive change. Although it is acknowledged that many of the socioeconomic measures introduced by Nyerere's government were inappropriate for the development of an extremely poor nation, it is argued that his socialist measures were not solely responsible for Tanzania's dramatic economic decline, & Nyerere's approach was more viable than the policies of most of his successors. The impact of rising oil prices, extreme drought, & the collapse of world commodity prices are considered, & the prospect of building revolutionary socialism in Africa is discussed. J. Lindroth

Argues that the move to a democratic system in South Africa in 1994 has failed to improve socioeconomic conditions of the majority of its people, as was hoped, because of the neoliberal policies adopted by the African National Congress (ANC) governments of both Presidents Mandela and Mbeki.

This article is a theoretical companion to an essay on the 'transition to democracy', which we published in our previous issue, ROAPE72. Here John Saul contrasts two approaches to the understanding of democracy and democratisation, both of which see democratic transition as part of a larger political and economic process, which for one limits the possible scope and sustainability of democratisation, and for the other both threatens but also enhances its scope and strength. The latter approach, older and currently less fashionable, sees democracy and democratisation (and our analysis of them) as rooted in processes of imperialism, class struggle and state‐society relations. This 'political economy' of democratisation' approach, characteristic of the work of Issa Shivji and of John Saul, is contrasted with a larger and more pessimistic body of work, which Saul labels as the 'political science of democratisation'. Thus Diamond, Huntington, Przeworski, Di Palma and others, while stressing the necessity of democratic institutions and values, at the same time argue that only a highly attenuated version of these is feasible under current (African) conditions, and that 'if reform is to be adopted without provoking a crisis' (Diamond), then it must be reform consistent with the demands of capital and the neo‐liberalism of the IFIs: 'thin' democracy.

This article accompanies an essay reviewing recent literature on 'transitions to democracy', which we publish in our next issue. There Saul contrasts two approaches to the understanding of democratisation. Both see transition as part of a larger political and economic process; for one this limits the possible scope and sustainability of democratisation, while for the other it threatens but also enhances its scope and strength. The latter approach, older and currently less fashionable, sees democratisation (and its analysis) as rooted in processes of imperialism, class struggle and state‐society relations. This 'political economy of democratisation' approach, characteristic of the work of Shivji and Saul, contrasts with a larger, more pessimistic body of work, which Saul labels the 'political science of democratisation'. While sometimes used in suggestive ways, it can narrow debate disastrously when detached from any self‐conscious mooring in the critical traditions of political economy. This literature stresses the necessity of democratic institutions and values, but argues that only highly attenuated versions are currently feasible: 'if reform is to be adopted without provoking a crisis', then it must be reform consistent with the demands of capital and the neo‐liberalism of the IFIs.
This companion article analyses two highly significant cases of transition in southern Africa; each seems to epitomise the 'political science' approach, yet to contain the longer term possibility of 'popular democracy'. Thus in South Africa the left accepted the necessity of a carefully negotiated transition to obviate the risk of civil war. However, the ANC, to retain the 'confidence' of local and external capital and of foreign governments, has had to demobilise its (non‐electoral) popular support, and to abandon a social redistributive strategy in favour of a one dominated by neo‐liberal 'market solutions'. What keeps a progressive agenda alive in these conditions are the pressures from trade unions, civics, women's organisations etc, where there are growing signs, at least at grassroots level, of resistance to the ANC's new project. In Mozambique, the transition has been less euphoric, more perhaps a matter of transition from authoritarian rule and from war than to a democratic regime. As in South Africa, the transition would seem to disempower popular forces ‐ but outside the electoral arena, there are instances of resistance and struggle within civil society, which may carry with them the longer‐term potential for the growth of popular democracy.

Der Beitrag setzt sich kritisch mit den demokratietheoretischen Konzepten von Huntington, Diamond, Przeworski und Di Palma auseinander. Besonderer Wert wird dabei auf die Unterscheidung zwischen einem Demokratiebegriff, der als zentrales Kriterium auf wirtschaftliche Liberalisierung setzt, und einem anderen, der sich in erster Linie an politischen Rechten und Freiheiten orientiert. Eine zu starke Betonung des Aspektes der wirtschaftlichen Liberalisierung, wie sie von Wissenschaftlern aus dem Westen oft vertreten wird, verweist auf imperialistische Interessen und trägt neokoloniale Züge. (DÜI-Spl)

Der vorliegende Beitrag versucht die Transitionsprozesse in Südafrika und Mosambik in die analytischen Kategorien konkurrierender Demokratietheorien einzuordnen. Eine zentrale Frage ist dabei, ob die Wurzeln der Demokratisierungsprozesse in erster Linie im Kampf gegen die autoritäre und diskriminierende Herrschaftsform oder in der wirtschaftspolitischen Notwendigkeit (bzw. dem internationalen Druck) zur Durchführung von Liberalisierungsprozessen gelegen haben. Die Bestimmung der Wurzeln der Prozesse in die eine oder andere Richtung stellt einzelne Etappen ihrer Entwicklung in ein jeweils anderes Licht und führt zu unterschiedlichen Bewertungen der Verhandlungsstrategien und Ergebnisse. (DÜI-Spl)