Chap. 3: Democracy for States: The West

As stated in the introduction, several of the new African countries adopted fundamental laws that were often ‘carbon-copied’ on the constitutions of the former colonial powers. It is therefore a fair assumption to make, to say that in some respect, the aim was to create entities that would mimic the models of the West, in form and in action.

Instead, and this is critical, the first successful attempts at establishing Western style democratic processes in African countries do not occur until the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989), and the end of the Soviet Union, of the Cold War. The following year, Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress in South Africa, is freed, and there is the first popular National Conference in Benin. During the hiatus between the independence (1960s) and 1990, most of the African countries were under perpetual dictatorships, punctuated with military coups, assassinations, wars, civil wars, and several other imaginable forms of strife. Many of those countries still experience those situations presently, despite an institutional context that has all the outside appearances of a Western democracy: constitutions, elections, parliaments and parliamentary oppositions, etc. How is that possible?

When we examine the process of democratization in the West, the first assessment shows that it was long, and tumultuous. However, Europe and other Western countries had advantages that African countries did not have. The most pre-eminent among them is what I call ‘the capital compact’. Borrowing the ideas of French sociologist, anthropologist, and philosopher Pierre Bourdieu[1], and other scholars, and modifying them a little, I want to propose that one the main ingredient behind the success of democracy in the West is their ability to ‘tap’ into the capital compact.

What do we define as the ‘capital compact’? It is the various forms of capital that the members of a society can have recourse to, to formulate, and then achieve their goals. Bourdieu recognizes three elements of the compact: the traditional economic capital, but also cultural capital, and social capital. To these, I would like to transform cultural capital into historical-cultural capital[2], and provide a definition for these forms of capital, and show how the West used them to reach its form of democracy. I also want to show whether the people in Africa had the ability to tap into this capital, and transform it into truly democratic systems.

Social Capital is a very popular notion among scholars. Thus, we are left with several definitions of the concept. Bourdieu’s definition is the following: “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition -- or in other words, to membership in a group which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a "credential" which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word”[3]. Bourdieu establishes this notion in the particular context of analyzing the impact of the replications of social order, by the holders of that capital. Francis Fukayama[4], on the other hand, defines it as “an instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals”. Fukayama provides a more mainstream and more positive view of the concept. In order to have a functional definition, we must turn to the World Bank, who defines it as “the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions.” This will include common governments, religions, clubs, tribes, families and other similar social constructions.

There are numerous examples of the effects of the social networks in the West. The institution of the Houses of Parliament, which evolved very early in England, are in many ways a living proof of the ability of people within that country, to create synergies that resulted in a progressive acquisition of power by the majority of the people over time. Since 1215, and the promulgation of the Magna Carta by King John of England, an ever increasing amount of Englishmen – and later Englishwomen – have gained the right to opine on, participate in and influence the political decision making process in their country. These progressions were the result of various internal confrontations and two great civil wars (13th and 17th centuries). But they were also obtained because of the intricate systems of interaction that existed among the people of all classes, be they the monarch, the nobles, the clergy or the common men. It can be partly put on the account of the feudal system, and of the various virtually non-violable social ties that it entailed, despite the inequality of power that it generated. Similar developments can be seen in the development of the politics in France, Spain, and other Kingdoms in Western Europe.

Additionally, the ties that existed between the ruling classes of Western Europe allowed not only for the wars, but for a great deal of networking between the peoples of these lands, and the establishment of mutually dependent societies, that were bound to evolve concomitantly. Finally, Western countries had the opportunity – especially after Westphalia – of developing their societies with little external oppressive pressure. I do not intend here, to claim that there were no wars, conflicts, trials or tribulations during this developmental process, as it would be untrue. But it is fair to assert that during the said process, when the people in these countries attained the level of revolting against the system, it was an internal revolt, against internal oppression and inequalities. This revolt was based in part on the breach by one member of the social system, namely the monarchy and its government, of the sanctity of the relationship, to honor their part of the relationship, thus disabling the ability of the other member, namely ‘the people’, to benefit from the social capital. Hence, the French Revolution of 1789 was primarily aimed at (re) establishing a social order that was fairer and mutually acceptable for the three classes in society, namely the clergy, the nobility, and the Tiers-Etat, which was the large majority of the people, and was asking for an increased representation in the “States-General”. When this was arrogantly refused, the representatives of the people took appropriate measures. Thomas Payne had the following to say on the French Revolution:

"This motion was not made in a precipitate manner. It was the result of cool deliberation, and concerned between the national representatives and the patriotic members of the two chambers, who saw into the folly, mischief, and injustice of artificial privileged distinctions. It was become evident, that no constitution, worthy of being called by that name, could be established on anything less than a national ground. The Aristocracy had hitherto opposed the despotism of the Court, and affected the language of patriotism; but it opposed it as its rival”[5]

The people therefore took the charge of creating a new social system. When this system maintained the monarchy, as it happened in England, it progressively created a situation where the monarch is dependent enough on the relationship, that he/she would favor institutions that are more inclusive of their subjects. When the new system expelled the monarchy, as it was the case in the United States and France, it formed institutions and relationships based on the only dependable members, namely ‘the people’ themselves. Both new systems therefore have a renewed ability to cash on their social capital, and as we discussed earlier, their cultural capital, and create new rules that are aimed at increasing that social capital. Thus we find laws, bills and constitutions that emphasized the creation and maintenance of a community of people.

Interwoven with Social Capital, is what I refer to as Histo-Cultural Capital. Bourdieu[6] also addresses the notion of cultural capital, but his definition is very limiting, as it is once again linked to a particular context, that of differential educational achievement and the reasons for it. Our interest here is to see how cultural capital contributes to bringing about Western democracy. Adapting from Bourdieu’s definition, I will therefore define histo-cultural capital as: the aggregate of the cultural experiences, the history, the intellectual and scientific advancement - as measured by literature (oral or written), art, pictures, philosophy, which are the trace or realization of theories or critiques of these theories, and problematics –, the religion(s) and the mind and body disposition of individuals of a said people. This convoluted definition can be simplified, though not limited, into saying that histo-cultural capital is all the elements that constitute and preserve a culture.

In the Western World, the development of society was accompanied, as stated above, by the development of a certain common capital, and in this case, a cultural capital. The turning point in Western Culture is the use of scripture. Written documents are the best possible way of transmitting and preserving the various specificities of a culture. It allows for a solid system of education and training in the ways of the culture, and allows for a more permanent and accessible account of history, scientific discoveries, and philosophical concepts.

As we have seen above, the thoughts and ideas of the Ancient Greeks Plato and Aristotle continue to play a role in the Western World until today. And the Western World has had the ability for many years to build on that cultural capital, with little interruption. The Roman Empire[7] maintained records of its deeds, and until today, Western people can have access to that common cultural patrimony, and use it as a foundation for the generation of new systems, new thoughts, and new discoveries.

Charlemagne continued the traditions of the Roman Empire, and provided that stability that would allow for the further flourishing of Western Culture and Society. He will sponsor the Arts, and promote formal education. By the 13th Century, with the numerous relations that existed among the leaders of the Western World, inherited from the Roman Empire, and that of Charlemagne, Western Europe had become a hub for competition among the princes. War erupted several times, and as we have seen earlier, we so far as owe the entire notion of state sovereignty to a war. The monarchs sought to rival their peers in grandeur, in prestige, and in the intellectual level of their court. The result of this competition was often beneficial for the cultural capital of the West. In the Renaissance era, the Princes competed to secure the services of the best painters of the like of Leonardo Da Vinci, writers like Machiavelli, architects, scientists and other, as they sought for their light of power and intellectualism to beam farther than all the other princes.

But, even more importantly for our argument, is the advent of the philosophers and scientists of the Enlightenment movement, in the 18th century. These remarkable thinkers generated the ideological framework that would result in the creation and the massive spread of Western Democracy. Rising on a background of absolutism, the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire, Hobbes, and Diderot will give those in the West that were literate, the tools to rethink the basic premises of their society, in order to produce one where they could possibly achieve happiness. They themselves were building on a common cultural capital, as they adulated for example, the ‘mixed’ government system of England[8]. As seen earlier, England was a pioneer in implementing popular participation, and because of the ability of the Enlightened to create networks across Europe, and with the new Western entities of America, they were able to spread their belief in the merits of that system, and the merits of moderating the princes, by increasing the power of the subjects, the people. They adulated justice and freedom for the people, and created an intellectual debate around the topic of their society:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may anse, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it
joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor”[9]
- Montesquieu

“Is a simple or a mixed government the better? Political writers are always debating the question, which must be answered as we have already answered a question about all forms of government.[…] But when the executive power is not sufficiently dependent upon the legislative power, i.e., when the prince is more closely related to the Sovereign than the people to the prince, this lack of proportion must be cured by the division of the government; for all the parts have then no less authority over the subjects, while their division makes them all together less strong against the Sovereign. The same disadvantage is also prevented by the appointment of intermediate magistrates, who leave the government entire, and have the effect only of balancing the two powers and maintaining their respective rights. Government is then not mixed, but moderated.”[10]
– Jean Jacques Rousseau

It is on this intellectual and cultural backbone that the societies in the West will generate Western Democracy: a combination of history, ancient and modern thinkers, and a progressive, yet eventually total access to the lessons drawn from both. We must note, once more, that this occurs with little or no external domination.
_______________________________________________________

[1] Bourdieu, Pierre, The Forms of Capital, Trans. Richard Nice. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Ed. John G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood, 1986.
[2] Ester R. Fuchs, Lorraine C. Minnite, Robert Y. Shapiro, Political Capital and Political Participation, 1999, Columbia University.
[3] Bourdieu, Pierre, The Forms of Capital, Trans. Richard Nice. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Ed. John G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood, 1986.
[4] Fukayama, Francis, Social Capital and Civil Society, The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, 1999, Prepared for delivery at the IMF Conference on Second Generation Reforms.
[5] Payne, Thomas, Being an Answer to Mr. Burke's Attack on the French Revolution, Part 10 of 16, in The Rights of Man, 1792.
[6] Bourdieu, Pierre, The Forms of Capital, Trans. Richard Nice. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Ed. John G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood, 1986.
[7] See Footnote 8
[8] See Voltaire, Lettres Philosophiques, c. 1778
[9] Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1752
[10] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right