What is ‘politics’?

This was the first of three questions that kicked off the seminar, and the answers we came to are far from simple. On our tables we discussed notions of decision-making and compromise, which are perhaps more succinctly summarised by Leftwich (2006: 4) as “all the activities of cooperation, negotiation and conflict in the use, production and distribution of resources”. However, this is a very sanitised definition that, while allowing for conflict, avoids the complexity of it all.

This complexity stems from “institutionalizing uncertainty” (Przeworski, 1991: 14), where institutions set ‘the rules of the game’, but politics has free roam to play ‘games within the rules’ (Leftwich, 2006: 4). In many developing states with weak institutions, the rules are easier to manipulate, and the games all the more chaotic for it. The contentious nature of politics in such countries is therefore mirrored in the messy reality of development.

Does ‘politics’ matter for development?

Yanguas (2018: 75) sees development as “institutional change… the transition from old rules to new rules, and the often-difficult path that lies between them.” Development, therefore, is synonymous with change, but the implications of that ‘difficult path’ for development politics are often messy and unpredictable. Issues like decolonisation, urbanisation, intervention, democratisation, social movements and autocracy promotion show how change can have negative outcomes, as we will explore further in coming weeks. Reflecting on this as a history graduate, there is in fact nothing new about this idea at all, as sixteenth century political theorist Machiavelli once wrote:

“There is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success, nor more dangerous to administer, than to introduce new political orders.” (Machiavelli, 2005: 74)

And yet, the history of development is littered with examples of the ‘Global North’ attempting to impose their own framework of rules onto the incompatible political systems of developing states in the ‘Global South’.

Is ‘politics’ in the Global North different to that in the Global South?

These simplistic binary terms are analytically problematic, as they hold both geographical and temporal exceptions. As I was surprised to learn from Hans Rosling, the differences between these two groups have become increasingly blurred in recent decades (Gapminder, 2018).

In an increasingly multi-polar world, the fading influence of international institutions and the emergence of rising powers highlights how outdated these terms are. Nevertheless, their use in the literature remains pervasive due to differences with political ties to the military, the separation of powers, and the strength of institutions.

Fukuyama’s ‘Getting to Denmark’ thesis (2014) reminds me of previous research I conducted on Helmand province, Afghanistan, in which British hopes were to create “Belgium in a couple of years” (Gordon, 2011). There is clearly something attractive about using small developed Northern states as development blueprints for the ‘Global South’, but this ignores the intricacies of their political systems.

Attitudes regarding the ‘Global North’/’South’ divide are difficult to overcome, perhaps because they became so entrenched following centuries of colonialism. Does the fact we continue to use these terms mean the study of development politics is inherently flawed?

References

Fukuyama, F. (2014) Political order and political decay: from the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. London: Profile Books.

Gapminder (2018) Income [online]. Available at: https://www.gapminder.org/about-gapminder/ [Accessed: 8th January 2019]

Gordon, S. (2011). Interview in: War Without End? [TV Episode]. In L. Telling, (2011) Afghanistan. London: BBC2. 2011, June 26, 2300hrs.

Leftwich, A. (2006) Drivers of change: refining the analytical framework: conceptual and theoretical issues. York: University of York, Department of Politics.

Machiavelli, N. (2005) The prince electronic resource. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Przeworski, A. (1991). Democracy and the market. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Yanguas, P. (2018) Why we lie about aid: development and the messy politics of change. London : Zed Books.