Democracy versus dictatorship

Zimbabweans have a narrow choice in tomorrow’s elections. Leading contender, Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan Tsvangirai says tomorrow’s vote is a choice between democracy and dictatorship – change and the status quo.

Mugabe, who should be the underdog because he was beaten in the first round of the 2008 elections before winning the run-off after Tsvangirai pulled out, argues otherwise. The vote is a “do or die” struggle between reversing the gains from the liberation struggle and consolidating those gains with locals now taking over the economy.

To most Zimbabweans, what matters most is who brings food to their tables and how they can better their lives. And they are right about this. It seems democracy is centred around how much a person earns or per capita income.

Studies have shown that no democracy ever fell in a country with a per capita income higher than $6 055. According to Adam Przeworski 47 democracies collapsed in poor countries between 1946 and 1999.

“In contrast, 35 democracies spent 1 046 years in wealthier countries and not one died. Affluent democracies survived wars, riots, scandals, economic and government crises, hell or high water.”

Countries with a per capita income of less than $1 000 had a life expectancy of 12 years as democracies, between $1 000 and $3 000 the life expectancy rose to 27 years, between $3 001 and $6 055, democracy can last up to 60 years. Democracy lasts forever when the per capita income exceeds $6 055.

Zimbabwe had a per capita income of $500 in 2011, the latest figures available. This means that democracy can hardly last 12 years unless there is significant wealth creation.

Other points Przeworski raises are that:

• Democracy is likely to survive if the labour force is better educated.
• The impact of economic growth on the survival of democracy is hard to determine.
• Democracies are more likely to succumb when one party controls more than two-thirds of the seats in the lower house of the legislature.
• The rates of democratic failure are much higher among democracies that were established after 1950.
• Parliamentary democracies are more likely to be around than presidential ones.
• It is not true that a democracy is more likely to be around if it has been around for a long time. It is income that explains survival, not some kind of habituation.

But this does not mean dictatorships are better. While some economies have thrived under dictatorship, those under dictatorships end up having lower incomes than those in democracies.

In poor countries, however, there is little to distribute so it does not matter whether the country is a democracy or a dictatorship.

“But in affluent societies, the gap between the incomes of the electoral losers and of people oppressed by a dictatorship is large…… As per capita income increases, more is at stake and even permanent electoral losers prefer to obey election results. It is a risk aversion that motivates everyone in affluent societies to obey the results of electoral competition.”

Egypt is a typical example. After 60 years of military rule, democracy collapsed in less than 12 months.

This may be a point to ponder as the country goes to the polls tomorrow. Are the electoral disputes that have dogged the country over the past decade or so about democracy or about poverty?

(22 VIEWS)