Democracy and Democratic Consolidation - Research Proposal Example

Grant Proposal: What I propose to Study: The intention of this study is to study democracy and democratic consolidation. Forje (17) defines democracy as a system of government whereby all eligible citizens of the government are able to participate equally. This is either indirectly or directly through their elected representatives. Participation of citizens will always be in the creation of laws, development activities, or governance. The objective of this paper is to analyze the factors that promote democracy, and how it is possible to promote democratic consolidation. It is important to understand that democracy is one of the main factors that have made countries such as United States, Britain, France, Japan, etc to be highly industrialized. This is because democracy is able to promote accountability in the governance system of a state. This in turn will minimize corruption, as well as encourage the administrators of a state to work hard, for the purposes of satisfying the various needs of the population. Furthermore, a democratic country has political stability, and the justice system serves every member of the society equally. This research is also interested in this concept of democratization, mainly because of the effects that face countries which are not democratic. For instance, in the year 2007, Kenya was able to experience deadly post election violence because of the undemocratic nature of its leaders (Iraki, 212). The elections were conducted, and because of serious breaches of election laws, President Kibaki won, amid opposition from his competitors. Kenya is not the only country to experience violence because of undemocratic behavior. Other countries include Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, etc (Kilonzo, 247). Democracy is therefore an important element that countries have to practice in case they need to promote political stability, as well as economic development. This paper seeks to analyze democracy and democratic consolidation in Zimbabwe and Kenya. Zimbabwe is a country found in Southern Africa, and it is under the leadership of President Robert Mugabe, who took power in 1987 (Derman and Randi, 37). There are two main political parties in Zimbabwe, ZANU PF, led by President Mugabe and Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) that is led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Robert Mugabe has always been accused of undemocratic practices; initiating policies that would make him cling to power (Derman and Randi, 37). For example, in the 2008 elections of Zimbabwe, there were a variety of irregularities, and this led to the declaration of President Mugabe as the leader of Zimbabwe. For instance, in the first round of elections, the opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai was able to win the elections by 48%, against that of President Mugabe of 43% (Derman and Randi, 28). However, the election commission refused to release the results for about one month, leading to violence in opposition controlled areas. During the second round of elections, the opposition boycotted the elections resulting to the illegal annunciation of Mugabe as the president of Zimbabwe. This triggered a series of post election violence in Zimbabwe, for purposes of protesting the results. This situation is similar in Kenya, for instance, the 2007 post election violence was mainly caused by the perceived rigging of election results by President Mwai Kibaki, against his challenger, Raila Odinga (Iraki, 211). A series of violence erupted in Kenya, just for the main purpose of protesting the results, leading to a power sharing government of Kibaki and Raila. President Kibaki remained the President, while Raila Odinga was appointed as an executive Prime Minister. The same situation happened in Zimbabwe, whereby President Mugabe agreed to share power, with him remaining as the president, and Morgan Tsvangirai appointed as the prime minister. In comparing these two countries by the use of Mills method of agreement, we can denote that undemocratic practices were the main factors that led to the eruption of post election violence in the two countries. This is because the President of these two countries were both involved in seeking to manipulate the elections for their own favor. This is a common factor that existed in Kenya, and Zimbabwe, and according to the Mills method of agreement, a common factor that exists in different concepts, that leads to the same results, is the main cause of the results under consideration. The following are therefore the objectives of this paper, Analyzing the effects of undemocratic practices in Kenya and Zimbabwe. How the two countries managed to rectify the problems that faced their 2007, as well as 2008 elections. Analyzing the process of democratic consolidation in the two countries. Academic Context of the Paper: The term democracy emanates from the word demokratia, which is a Greek word which refers to the rule of individuals or majority. The word emanates from the concept of demos, which is a Greek word that refers to people, and kratos, which is a Greek word that refers to the rule. On this basis, Lindberg (41) explains that democracy is a concept that refers to the rule of people. Iraki (217) goes on to explain that this term was used to refer to the political system that existed in the 5th century Greek city states, specifically the state of Athens. However, Lindberg (28) explains that in as much as democracy advocated for the rule of people, there were certain segments of the people who were not allowed to participate in the political process of democracy amongst the Greek city states, even in the countries during the 19th and 20th centuries. For instance, in Athens, slaves and women were not allowed to participate in the political process. The same happened to United States in the 19th and early parts of the 20th century. In America, slaves and women were not allowed to vote, until 1870 when the 5th amendment was introduced, that made it illegal to deny any citizen of US the rights to vote, based on their color, race, or conditions of servitude. Lindberg (48) gives an explanation that democracy contrasts with other forms of government, whereby power and authority is held by one individual, normally referred to as an absolute monarchy, or even whereby power is concentrated on the hands of a small number of individuals normally referred to as oligarchy. However, Lindberg (51) explains that contemporary societies normally have a mixture of monarchic, democratic, as well as oligarchic elements. Hartnett (33) in defining democracy contrasts it to tyranny or even dictatorship. On this note, Hartnett (35) explains that democracy is an opportunity for the citizens of a country to have a control on their leaders, ousting them without causing a revolution. Hartnett (29) maintains that there are two major types of democracy. One type of democracy is referred to as direct democracy. Under this type of democracy, every eligible citizen of a state has an active and direct participation in the process of political decision making. (Iraki, 214) explains that in a variety of modern democracies, all eligible citizens of a state are always the source of power, and political authority is practiced indirectly through representatives who are elected by the people. This type of democracy is referred to as representative democracy. Forje (41) explains that this notion of representative democracy emanates mainly from institutions and ideas that were able to develop during the periods of reformation, the European Middle Ages, the French and American Revolution, and during the age of enlightenment. Hartnett (18) argues that consensus does not exist on the method to use in defining democracy. However, freedom, rule of law and legality are identified as the major characteristics of democracy. These characteristics are reflected in the concept whereby all citizens of a state are equal before the law, and they also have an equal access to the legislative process of a given state. For instance, in a representation democracy, each and every vote that is cast has an equal weight, and they count towards electing an official to a representative body. Furthermore, Bratton (7) explains that the freedom of the citizens of a democracy is always secured by the liberties and legitimized rights of citizens that is always protected by the constitution of a given country. Forje (17) still maintains that there are three major principles of democracy, namely political equality, upward control, and social norms whereby people and organizations can accept principles that emanate from political equality and upward control. It is important to understand that the principle of upward control refers to a situation whereby power and authority lies with the lowest organs of the society, that is, the people. Pakulski and András (31) further assert that the word democracy is associated with liberal democracy, which is an example of representative democracy. This includes concepts such as right to petition elected representatives, political pluralism, human rights, due process, civil liberties, etc. Based on these facts, democracy is a concept that allows people to have a participation in the governance process of their country. On the other hand, democratic consolidation is a term that depicts a process in which a new democratic state matures. This is in a manner in which the democracy under consideration will not revert back to authoritarianism, without producing an external shock. It is important to understand that unconsolidated democracies normally experience formalized elections, but one which is full of clientelism and corruption. Hypothesis: The following is the hypothesis for this research, The reason for the emergence of undemocratic practices in Kenya and Zimbabwe is because of the existence of weak structures of governance. How to carry out the Proposed Research: In conducting this researcher, the researcher will use both primary and secondary methods of data collection. While using primary methods of data collection, the researcher will mainly rely on interviews and questionnaires. While conducting an interview, the researcher will have to look for an expert on African politics (Coppedge, 13). The target population in this case is a journalist who has more than 5 years experience writing on African affairs, or even a lecturer who has a qualification on African affairs and studies. Due to the experiences and knowledge that these people possess, the researcher will look for information pertaining to the structures of governance in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Specifically, the researcher is interested in information that touches on the relationship between the government, parliament, police, the judiciary and election commission in these two countries. Information touching on these institutions is crucial, and this is mainly because the mentioned institutions are responsible for promoting governance, and democracy in any given state. This method is effective, because it allows for an in depth discussion on the issues of concern, and the researcher can record the information for purposes of using them during the process of data analysis ((Bryman, 39). This therefore minimizes chances of distortion of information, hence making the information collected to be accurate and reliable (Coppedge, 24). The researcher will also use questionnaires. In using questionnaires, the researcher will target students of African affairs and politics for purposes of finding information on the factors responsible for frustrating the rise of democracy in African states. This is important because it will provide background information on the democratization process in Kenya and Zimbabwe, but on a wider perspective. It is important to understand that the problem of democracy that affects Kenya and Zimbabwe is not unique to only the two countries. But this occurs to the entire African context, whereby most countries in the region are struggling at implementing democratic governance (Bryman, 23). Countries such as Nigeria, Uganda, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Chad, Cameroon, etc, are always accused of failing to practice democracy. This is despite their constitutions referring to the states under consideration as democratic states. Scholar explains that the main reason as to why these states are unable to effectively practice democracy is based on the fact that they have not consolidated their democratic practices. Through secondary research, the researcher will mainly rely on journals, books, the internet, and newspaper articles for purposes of collecting information regarding democracy and democratic consolidation in Zimbabwe and Kenya. The main information that the researcher will be collecting through this method are information pertaining to the causes of post election violence’s in Kenya and Zimbabwe, how the violence were stopped, the democratic strides that were put in place for purposes of promoting democracy in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Works Cited: Bratton, Michael. Voting and democratic citizenship in Africa. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2013. Print. Bryman, Alan. Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Coppedge, Michael. Democratization and research methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print. Derman, Bill, and Randi Kaarhus. In the Shadow of a Conflict Crisis in Zimbabwe and its effects in Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia.. Oxford: Weaver Press, 2013. Print. Forje, John W.. Here the people rule: political transition and challenges for democratic consolidation in Africa. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2009. Print. Hartnett, Stephen J.. Executing democracy. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2012. Print. Iraki, Frederick Kangethe. "Culture & Development: Lessons learnt from the Post-Election Violence in Kenya." Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa 2.1 (2010): 209-227. Print. Kilonzo, Susan. "Ethnic minorities wedged up in post-election violence in Kenya: a lesson for African governments." Critical Arts 23.2 (2009): 245-251. Print. Lindberg, Staffan I.. Democracy and elections in Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Print. Pakulski, Jan, and András Körösényi. Toward leader democracy. London: Anthem Press, 2012. Print. Read More