Equality by lot

Senegal, which “is considered one of West Africa’s more stable democracies and is the only country in the region never to have had a military coup”, has recently been in the news, as its electoralist system is being shaken by the government’s attempt to postpone the upcoming elections.

Back in 2012, the Senegalese economist Ndongo Samba Sylla wrote the following assessment of the situation in Senegal (and elsewhere).

By praising the Senegalese “democratic” model, we are in fact glorifying an oligarchic system based on a legitimacy which, for its effectiveness, is no less artificial. This artificial character derives from the fact that the label “democratic” is conferred more by the certification of established political rating agencies than by an ability to really address the needs of the population. At a time when demagogic flights of fancy regarding the “Senegalese exception” are all the rage on the web, the most needy are quietly suffering in structural poverty which “democracy” will probably never pull them out of.

This is why it is necessary for us to be clear and precise in the language we use. If we want to resort to caricature and demagoguery, it is possible to extol the merits of the Senegalese model and in this way, to espouse the point of view of the elites. On the other hand, if it is truly the outcomes expected by the populations that matters, then it goes without saying that Senegal must change course. If “democracy” merely means that with this system, we more or less substitute economic violence for physical violence, it should be said immediately so that the matter is clear. So that the African populations know what they can expect, so that they know that “democracy” offers them the opportunity to replace despotism with the tyranny of the market that can be exercised by their “representatives”, so that they know that we offers them the least bad government for men reputed to be bad, because for constitutional liberalism, men are bad and can only have the right to at most the least bad governments. “Democracy” cannot promise anything more. It has never claimed to guarantee the democratic performance expected by the people. This is enshrined in its constitution.

Under capitalism, “democracy” has only produced democratic outcomes in countries that are relatively sovereign, those that can protect their human and natural resources, those that can limit the influence of the market, as Karl Polanyi would have said. This situation does not hold everywhere. As long as Africans do not realize that the conquest of political power at the global level is the necessary condition, although not sufficient, for the democratic outcomes expected by the population, they will remain prisoners of illusions indefinitely.

Those who do not mind mediocrity can easily be satisfied with “democracy”, as Plato has remarked. On the other hand, those driven by a passion for justice should seek something other than “democracy”. If we are to change things, we must learn to think differently and distance ourselves from ambiguous concepts that lead to paralysis because they discourage the search for new alternatives.

Filed under: Athens, Elections, History |