The Main Criteria for Political Development

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
List of References

Introduction

Political development is a topic that has raised many controversies among political scientists in the contemporary world. According to Myrdal (2008, p. 48), there is still an argument among political scientists as to the proper definition of political development. This scholar says that the criteria for political development may be viewed from different angles based on the political structure within the country.

This is particularly true when considering the fact that some countries around the world are still under dictatorial rule, others practice aristocracy while others are governed by pure democracy. However, some scholars have argued that political development should always be geared towards realizing a leadership where the lives of the ordinary people can be made better.

Jillson (2013, p. 33) defines political development as, “The development of the institutions, attitudes, and values that form the political power system of a society.” This scholar says that political development can only be achieved if the responsible stakeholders can manage to use it as a vehicle through which good governance can be achieved for the betterment of all the people.

Based on this definition, it would be expected that political development would be considered achieved if the lives of the ordinary people is made better. However, this may not be the case in most of the developed countries. This research seeks to investigate the argument that the main criteria for political development do not enhance the development experience, particularly the lives of ordinary people in developing countries.

Discussion

Developing countries, especially those in Africa, have been faced by numerous political problems in the last five decades following the independence they gained from the Whitman’s rule. When colonization ended, these countries were handed the mandate to govern themselves. However, Jillson (2013, p. 67) says that the lives of ordinary people have been consistently deteriorating ever since.

It would be expected that following the change of political leadership, the countries would be able to manage their resources through good governance from those trusted with political leadership. This has not been the case. According to Jillson (2013, p. 79), the main problem facing the developing countries is poor governance. The political elite have perfected the art of stealing from public coffers instead of helping the country develop.

This scholar says that this problem has been inherited over the years from one era to another. When the colonial masters were ruling these countries (take a case of South Africa), they ensured that only the whites had access to the best jobs and best facilities the country could offer. When these countries started governing themselves, they continued with the same trend of rewarding friends, relatives and tribesmen even if this will cost the ordinary people.

According to Harber (2007, p. 102), it may be true to say that most of these developing countries have attained political development. This can be analyzed using a number of criteria. For instance, South Africa is one of the countries in Africa that is considered as to be a stable democracy. Upon gaining independence, Nelson Mandela took over power using African National Congress as the party to become the first Black President of this country.

Pye (2006, p. 28) says that for a country to be considered to be politically developed, one criteria should be strong political parties that political leaders use to gain political power. Using these criteria, South Africa can be considered to be politically developed because African National Congress has remained a strong party since independence.

The country has not experienced any form of coercing people either using financial incentives or creation of fear to elect their political leaders, especially the president. Their election has been purely based on their love for this party, and the belief that it has the capacity to end the suffering of the ordinary people.

The level of political development of this country was experienced when the African National Congress Party decided to take President Thambo Mbeki out of power. The party, through its national delegates’ conference, made a decision to recall the president from office. The president obeyed, although he had all the government machinery at his disposal to dismiss the recall. The people of South Africa did not have any problem with this decision because of their trust in this party.

The change of leadership happened in a very smooth way and it was difficult for a foreigner in this country to realize that a president had been ousted unless he or she got the information from the media. Most political scientists have considered this the height of political development that a country can ever have. Leys (2011, p. 117) described this as one of the unique political maturity that has never been witnessed before in the developing countries.

This scholar says that the way the sitting president responded to the decision of African National Congress was a clear indication that individual leaders of this country have come to realize that their political parties, and the country at large is larger than an individual. For this reason, their interests must always be put ahead of personal interest for the good of all.

This would make one strongly believe that this maturity in political leadership could have translated to the betterment of the lifestyle of the ordinary people.

South Africa is considered as the leading economy in Africa. The economy of this country is one of the fastest developing economies in the world. The gross domestic product of the country is rising, and the per capita income of its people is higher than that of many countries in Africa. Again, this would mislead people that the ordinary South Africans are leading better lives. According to Weinstein (2005, p. 37), South Africa has one of the largest slums in the world known as the Soweto.

Lives of people in Soweto have remained deplorable. The poor in this country has remained poor while the rich are getting richer. In one of his bestselling books, Leys (2011, p. 91) says that the poor South Africans who fought for independence have never enjoyed the fruits of their fight in the form of economic empowerment. Soweto remains the largest slum for the ordinary people who work in the city for salaries that can hardly support their needs. Things are a little worse at the rural areas.

Harber (2007, p. 82) says that most of the rural set-ups lack some of the basic facilities that can enhance their way of life. These places have few poorly facilitated hospitals that cannot support the capacity of the ordinary South Africans. Most of the rural schools are understaffed, and with poor facilities. It is a fact that the roads and rails have been developed in this country. However, a keen analysis of this infrastructural development reveals a skewed trend favoring the rich.

Other than in towns, most of these roads are leading to places where the rich are running their business. This means that the motivation to build these roads was not to improve the economic state of all the citizens, but to make the rich have an easier way of managing their businesses.

Some scholars have argued that ninety percent of the country’s wealth is held by ten percent of South Africans. This means that the other ninety percent are left to share the remaining ten percent of the national cake. This means that although this country is considered one of the strongest economies in the region, the majority of its citizens still languish in object poverty.

It would be worrying to know that such a country with a sound political leadership still has problem with improving the social welfare of its people. In order to bring more understanding on this topic, the researcher will analyze political leadership of another country that has had a complete opposite leadership structure as that of South Africa, and that is Libya.

Libya has been considered as one of the strongest economies in Africa. Since September 1, 1969 to October 23, 2011, Libya had been under the dictatorial rule of Muammar Gaddafi who took over power through a military coup. The leadership of this country has been a direct opposite of that in South Africa. In Libya, Gaddafi was declared the life president of the country. No authority in this country was beyond this leader, and he never tolerated any form of criticism towards his rule.

According to Sen (1999, p. 78), this may be considered as a political development when analyzing dictatorial leadership. However, this scholar is quick to note that in the current globalized world, dictatorial rule do not have a chance, especially with empowered media. This means that the leadership in Libya may not be considered as that powered by political development.

However, spot check into the lives of the ordinary people of this country reveals that Libyans had the best living standards in Africa. Although its economy may not be as big as that of its neighboring country such as Nigeria or in South Africa, the ordinary Libyans were leading better lives than citizens of these two other countries were. Until the time of revolution in early 2011, Libya had the best infrastructure meant to serve the ordinary people.

Hospitals in this country were well equipped and with medical staff who are well qualified. The schools had enough teachers and with the right equipments. The road network was good, and the government agencies were always ready to offer ordinary people any help that is considered universal. Most of these services, especially in health and education sectors, were offered at no cost to the ordinary people.

The government would pay for these services. This was until the revolution that destroyed the infrastructure of this country. The living standards of Libya have constantly been going down since the rebels- with the help of western powers- ejected Gaddafi from power.

It would be interesting to analyze the relationship between political development and economic empowerment of people within country. According to Kingsbury (2007, p. 57), it the most important thing that would make ordinary people happy is a leadership that cares for them and concerned of their living status.

These ordinary people need a leadership that will offer them the basic needs such as medical services, education and job opportunities so that they can support themselves. These ordinary people prefer a leadership that would seek a mandate to lead the country from them so that they can chose the candidates they feel could meet their needs. This is what has been happening in most of the countries considered having political development.

However, it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that in most of the developing countries, political development has failed to translate into direct economic empowerment and development of the ordinary people. This is because of lack of goodwill from these political leaders, greed and fear of the unknown by the people entrusted with leadership. Taking the case of Nigeria as one of the developing countries with political leadership that may be considered to pass criteria of political development. T

he country is one of the leading exporters of oil, with its economy considered second in Africa. However, its human development index is among the lowest in the rest of the world. This has been associated with corrupt leadership in this country. Human development index in South Africa is not attractive either, despite being the leading economy in Africa.

The reason behind this has also been cited as poor political leadership in this country. The last three presidents of this country have not had a clear plan of how to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich. The former colonial rulers who practiced apartheid still control the economy.

Scholars have pointed out that these sections of South Africans still receive preference treatment in government offices despite the proclamation that all South Africans are equal. The leadership of this country appears to be gripped by the fear of the unknown because this small section of South Africans still have grip of the economy of this country.

Conclusion

As was mentioned in the introductory part of this paper, the term ‘political development’ is still under evolution. Different scholars have continued to give different definition and criteria of its determination as time goes by. While some political scientists define it as political modernization, others have defined it as political democracy.

However, these political scientists seem to be in agreement with the fact that political development involves equality, which is defined by mass participation, recruitment based on merits, and universal laws. It also involves efficiency in government performance and integration in the society.

Political scientists have given numerous other criteria that may be beyond the scope of this research. However, focusing on a section of the criteria given it may be true that some of the developing countries have attained political development. Some of these countries have attained the basic criteria of what it takes to have a developed political system. The countries mentioned above are just specific examples.

However, this political development has not been translated to improved living standards of the ordinary people. These countries still have the highest percentage of their populace living in poverty.

Equality among its citizens is yet to be realized and the capacity of the government to support its populace is still below the expectation. It is therefore, a fact that the main criteria for political development do not enhance the development experience, particularly the lives of ordinary people in developing countries.

List of References

Harber, C 2007, Education, democracy and political development in Africa, Sussex Academy Press, Brighton.

Jillson, C 2013, American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change, Taylor & Francis, New York.

Kingsbury, D 2007, Political Development, Routledge, New York.

Leys, C 2011, Politics and Change in Developing Countries, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Myrdal, G 2008, The political element in the development of economic theory, Transaction Publishers, London.

Pye, L 2006, Aspects of political development: An analytic study, Brown and Co, Boston.

Sen, A 1999, Development as Freedom, Alfred A Knopf, New York

Weinstein, B 2005, Language policy and political development, Ablex Publishers Corp, Norwood.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Main Criteria for Political Development

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)