There are over 190 countries in the world, and each has a unique system of governance. While democracy remains the most practised system in the developed world and in many developing countries, kingship, authoritarianism, dictatorship, and hybrid governance are also practised in many countries.
The debate about the governance system was settled many decades ago, when democracy was declared the best system, in which the majority always has a voice in selecting the legislature and the executive. However, in the developing world, it remains a subject of intense debate, even when a particular state follows a democratic or authoritarian system.
The question is: why do developing states lack a basic understanding of how to form a governance system when they have different models available? While the question might be simple, the answer may not be easy to record.
Each state has a unique history, geography, resources, people, cultures, values, and interests. Ideally, each state should have adopted a particular style of governance based on the above parameters. However, during the colonial era, the masters not only imposed their own system of governance but also their language, culture, and education system. This is where things started to go wrong, and many developing states continued to use colonial systems even after they left, in theory.
If the states are left to decide their own governance systems and western-style democracy is not thrust upon them, they might do better in governance.
Unfortunately, the colonial masters refused to cede their control over their erstwhile colonies. They ensured that their legacies were maintained by their chosen leaders, who would serve their interests more than their people’s. The methodology adopted was a sham democracy in which elections were held only as a showpiece, while the colonial leaders made the selection.
Most developing countries in Africa, particularly the Francophone and Anglophone states, have never achieved true freedom. This only resulted in underdevelopment across multiple domains: education, health, infrastructure, human resources, agriculture, tourism, and governance systems. The situation led to alienation among the masses and, eventually, to several countries revolting against their old enslavers. Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso have successfully unshackled themselves from their amsters and have begun to march towards their destiny, crafted with the well-being of their own people in mind.
Fortunately, China’s rise has coincided with several African states’ determination to break free from colonial rule. Hence, they have embraced China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and several development projects are already underway.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, the style of governance is entirely different. The hydrocarbon economy gave them significant autonomy in their decision for self-development; however, the unique security situation has made them dependent on the Western powers, particularly the U.S., for their security, both state and regime. Most of the Gulf States have either the kingship or the Emir system. Interestingly, the system works well, and the six Gulf States have shown extraordinary development in all domains, including education, health, sports, infrastructure, tourism, and economy. Despite a lack of Western democracy, the Gulf States have tremendous capacity to develop, attracting professionals worldwide seeking job opportunities there.
However, elsewhere in North Africa and the Middle East, where the western powers intervened militarily over the past four decades, like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, etc, have remained underdeveloped and poor.
Perhaps the region least affected by the Western powers’ intervention is Southeast Asia, where democracy is also practicable under Constitutional Sultans and Emperors. Therefore, in my opinion, if the states are left to decide their own governance systems and western-style democracy is not thrust upon them, they might do better in governance. The problem arises when the Western powers impose their will on developing countries, dictating who should lead and how the government should be run, according to their vision and values. It is hard to predict when the developing countries will achieve true independence and sovereignty. Unless developing countries achieve their true economic freedom and are permitted to take their own decisions regarding the form of government and governance system, the African dream of self-government and development will remain a far cry.
China’s BRI is a light at the end of the tunnel, should it maintain the same spirit of cooperative and productive engagement. As of now, the BRI projects worldwide are a ray of hope for developing states because they are helping them build the much-needed infrastructure to meet 21st-century requirements in connectivity and communication, climate change, and an all-important food security.
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.”
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.”