By Shadrack Muyesu
In “The Age of Rights” Louis Henkin argues that Human rights enjoy a prima facie presumptive inviolability and will often trump other public goods. Francis Fukuyama similarly elevates rights when, in his acclaimed treatise The End of History and The Last Man, he argues that liberal democracy is made perfect by nothing beyond its ability to guarantee basic freedoms. For him, rights stem from recognition, which as German philosopher William Hegel observes in The Phenomenology of Spirit, is man’s ultimate goal.
What Henkin et al seems to say is that although citizens desire economic development, it must never come at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms. In fact, citizens have risen up against oppressive regimes more often than they have against those that are economically regressive. Even when their government is performing well economically, citizens unrest will manifest if they feel oppressed. And history is awash with examples.
Liberal democracy is anchored on the pillars of free market, public participation and universal suffrage. The most developed states are those that best mirror this type of government. It is this unrivalled ability to deliver economic prosperity and guarantee basic freedoms that Fukuyama cites in concluding liberal democratic government as the pinnacle of governance.
Unfortunately, the economic prosperity liberal democracy promises come by slowly. Fukuyama accepts that the prosperity democracies of the West now enjoy took several generations to attain and contrasts it to socialist central planning which catalysed industrialization in a single generation for many second generation industrial states.
Although “uncommunist”, Far East regimes were not immune to coercion either. Successive authoritarian regimes consistently sacrificed social justice at the altar of economic success. Successive governments applied draconian policies so as to reduce consumer demand and enforce a culture of saving. It is this culture, though unpopular to start with, that guaranteed surplus and provided capital for public investment. China has actually enjoyed an average growth of 8% annum even though it is a one-party regime. Josef Stalin used exactly the same system when he forced savings of the industrial working class after people moved to the city. He increased taxes and made mandatory the act of saving with saving schemes. The subtle wisdom in all this is that when people are allowed to earn their money, it is easier to tax them more.
The role played by “benevolent dictators” in the economic resurgence of nations such as Ethiopia, Rwanda, Libya and Egypt means that the successes of authoritarianism haven’t been enjoyed by the Far East states alone. Places such as Chile, Taiwan and South Korea actually experienced slower growth after they had democratised! Emergent Western states were also not as democratic when they started out and grew so rapidly to gain First World status. In “Indianomix – Making Sense of Modern India”, Vivek Dehejia and Rupa Subramanya acknowledge this fact when they write: “periods of very high economic growth in the 20th century are associated with autocratic, not democratic regimes”. They go as far as invoking these principles as an explanation behind the slow growth of India relative to China.
The criticism for liberal democracy has been that public participation and deliberation makes decision making a lot harder. The effects are particularly devastating in highly stratified rural societies like Kenya’s where Fukuyama concluded public participation to be in fact counterproductive. In Kenya “the simple tasks” of bringing to account corruption suspects or finding an acceptable election module seem to be beyond government. In fact, the leadership and the opposition can’t seem to agree on anything.
Poor governance and failing economy, however obvious, are often politicized. Political and tribal affiliations regardless, people will however, unite in condemning any encroachment to basic rights and freedoms – whether by the State or private persons. The same phenomenon manifests in the United States where Donald Trump, despite his positive effect on markets (sheer reputation) seems destined for a people’s impeachment. The fall of Libya’s Mummar Gaddafi; unrest in Ethiopia and the criticism of Paul Kagame continues to attract from international media can also be explained in the same way.
A simple solution would be to revert to some form of authoritarianism as some Kenyans have argued. However, taking away freedoms from people who are used to them, however noble the intention, is an endeavor that should expect the fiercest resistance. Societal evolution is defined by human beings moving towards freer, yet slower societies, hardly ever the reverse. Any revolution towards limited society can only be at the cusp of a palace revolution instigated by society’s elites.
Kenyans are only remotely concerned by the economy. Freedom is what is most dear to them. Yet for those keen on a fast government, it is qualifying universal suffrage they should consider not taking it away altogether or advocating dictatorship.
