Democratisation and National Development: A Comparative Analysis of Nigeria and South Korea, 1999 to 2009

Abstract

The problems addressed by the study were: (i) did democratisation enhance the national development especially the economic performance of Nigeria and South Korea between 1999 and 2009?

(ii) did democratisation improve the quality of life of Nigerians and South Koreans between 1999 and 2009? The qualitative method of research was used.

The study was conducted with the aid of the theory of the developmental state. The theory faults the regime type hypothesis insisting that development is not amenable to any kind of regime.

It holds that leadership’s resolve to develop the country and the capacity of the institutions and a disciplined population are more critical factors.

The data were analysed using the qualitative method aided by graphs, charts, tables, and simple percentages. The results revealed that development is not regime-specific.

South Korea achieved the bulk of its development under autocratic regimes and continued on the path of development into the current democratic system.

On the other hand, Nigeria was unable to maximize the opportunities at the disposal of autocratic regimes to achieve national development in all the years of military dictatorships.

Introduction

1.1 Background of Study

The link between democratisation and national development has been a matter of intense debate in the political economy literature.

The contention on whether or not democratisation is the best option for the attainment of national development will continue to agitate the minds of social science scholars.

Scholars viewed the relationship between democratisation and economic development from different perspectives. For instance, Inglehart (1997:184) asserted that “economic development leads to democracy, and not the other way round.”

It becomes, therefore, expedient to assert from this perspective that national economic development oils the process of democratisation.

The implication is that economic development should be achieved under a seemingly authoritarian regime before contemplating democratisation.

Commenting on the critical question of development particularly as it affects Africa, Ake (2003: 1) asserted that “the problem is not so much that development has failed as that it was never really on the agenda in the first place.”

This position potently justifies the reasons for the inability of most of the African countries to overcome the problem of underdevelopment even after about five decades of independence.

References

Bolesta, A. (2007). “China as a developmental state.” Montenegrin Journal of Economics, No 5.

CPI (2011). Corruption perception index. www.transparency.org. Retrieved 14/02/2011. Igwe, O. (2005). Politics and globe dictionary. Aba: Eagle Publishers.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Mastruzzi, M. & the World Bank (2007). Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996–2006, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4280, July 2007.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Mastruzzi, M. & the World Bank (2010). World Wide Governance Indicators.

Leftwich, A. (1994). “Governance, the state and the politics of development.” Development and change, Vol. 25, Institute of Social Studies. Blackwell Publishers.