Is democracy just an expression of ideas? - Part 1

Zimbabwe government is now facing a significant challenge as young, educated and out of employment youth begin to demand a share of political power. Will this lead to the eventual appearance of formal democratic accountability in Zimbabwe? This question has prompted me to ask the following questions. Why is democracy more established in some societies than others?

Why democracy has become a global phenomenon in the twentieth century? One school of thought stated that democracy has taken hold as a result of the underlying idea of democracy and ideas clearly propagate rapidly across international borders via social media, internet, radio and television.

Still, to an inquisitive mind, why do the ideas of human equality or democracy take off in some periods and not others? I would like to refute the notion that liberal democracy does not represent a universal trend but something culturally specific to Western civilisation. Then, further to a more inquisitive mind, why this particular idea arose in the West and not elsewhere?

One school of thought answered this by stating that democracy is not the expression of an idea or a set of cultural values but as the by-product of deep structural forces within societies. Meanwhile, social scientists have long noted that there is a correlation between high levels of economic development and stable democracy. Well, does this explain the fact that most of the world's rich industrialised countries are democracies? Can we accept that most authoritarian countries are much less developed?

One school of thought has argued that while countries may transition from authoritarian to democratic government at any level of development, they are much more likely to remain democracies if they rise above a certain threshold of per capita income. Going back to Southern African, let's look at the disparities between Zimbabwe and Botswana? Botswana's economy is far much stronger when compared to its neighbour, Zimbabwe. Can we, therefore deduce that Botswana is more democratic than Zimbabwe? The economy of South Africa is undoubtedly one of the strongest in Africa. Therefore, can one be correct if they postulate that by virtue of having a stronger economy; South Africa will always be more democratic than Zimbabwe?

What is the connection between economic development and democracy? One school of thought suggests that economic growth affects democratic institutions via social mobilisation. It is believed that the key concept is the division of labour. The division of labour is limited by the size of the market. As markets expand through increased trade in both commercial and industrial economy a new division of labour would arise and deepen. This division of labour will entail the creation of new social groups. These new groups, once excluded from participation in the political institutions, would demand a share of political power and therefore increase pressures for democracy.

My concern with new social groups is their vulnerability to corruption. They can easily get bought off by the rich, corrupt and already seasoned politicians to support at most very limited democracy.

However, a stable democratic system will emerge only if these newly mobilized groups are successfully incorporated into the system and allowed to participate politically. Instability and disorder will occur if these groups do not have institutionalised channels of participation.

The idea of democracy is within the mindset of the pro-democratic forces of Zimbabwe. Why has this idea failed to gain traction? Is this due to the fact that the bulk of ZANU-PF supporters are rural peasants with a low social mobility?