Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
WHEN THE NEW GOVERNMENTS OF UNDERDEVELOPED AREAS supplanted colonial rule, many were optimistic that these governments could operate within a democratic framework. But these nascent governments drifted into authoritarian forms of political life as they faced the exigencies of self-rule. Representative institutions on the Western pattern broke down and were replaced by single-party arrangements headed by charismatic leaders. This form of government, in turn, has tended to give way to bureaucratic and military regimes.
1 A concise description of underdevelopment and what this writer construes as the apologist position can be found in Clute, Robert E., ‘Fundamental Rights in the African Commonwealth’, in Beck, Carl, ed., Law and Justice: Essays in Honor of Robert S. Rankin, Durham, 1970. pp. 269–294.Google Scholar A much more involved analysis from the apologist perspective is contained in Bayley, David H., Public Liberties in the New States, Chicago, 1964.Google Scholar
2 For the most stringent attack on the apologists’ arguments, see Arthur Lewis, W., Politics in West Africa, London, 1965.Google Scholar Another good example of the revisionist view, especially on the role of the single-party state, is Zolberg, Aristide R., Creating Political Order: The Party States of West Africa, Chicago, 1966.Google Scholar
3 A description of the preference for a single-party system and its development into an ideology can be found in Zolberg, pp. 37–48, 65.
4 Although it is difficult to draw an exact line between behaviour that constitutes the enjoyment of civil rights on the one hand, and political rights on the other, the latter refers to the power to participate directly or indirectly in government by holding office, voting, working in administration, or enjoying the right of petition. In this paper political rights will concern behaviour as leaders and voters.
5 Emerson, Rupert, From Empire to Nation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1960, p. 24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 For this point and a criticism of the natural, historical, suitability of the single party after independence, see Zolberg, pp. 1–36.
7 This view of a potential opposition on the part of leaders in new states is described in Zolberg, pp. 72–74; Lewis, West Africa, pp. 69–76; and Apter, David, ‘Some Reflections on the Role of a Political Opposition in New Nations’, in Irving Leonard Markovitz (ed.), African Politics and Society, New York, 1970, pp. 226–232.Google Scholar
8 von der Mehden, Fred R., Politics of the Developing Nations, Englewood-Cliffs, 1969, p. 130.Google Scholar
9 Apter, , ‘Reflections’, in Markovitz, ed., pp. 236–241.Google Scholar
10 Shils, Edward, Political Development in the New States, London, 1965, pp. 34–36.Google Scholar
11 This quotation is taken from Bayley, p. 89.
12 Rabushka, Alvin and Shepsle, Kenneth A., Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability, Columbus, Ohio, 1972.Google Scholar
13 Busia, K. A., Africa in Search of Democracy, Washington, 1967, p. 99.Google Scholar
14 Lewis, p. 43.
15 Truman, David, The Governmental Process, New York, 1964, pp. 168,Google Scholar 510–514.
16 Rustow, Dankwart A., ‘Transitions to Democracy’, in Macridis, Roy C. and Brown, Bernard E. (eds.), Comparative Politics: Notes and Readings, Homewood, 1972, p. 468.Google Scholar
17 Ibid., pp. 474–475.
18 See especially, Arend Lijphart, ‘Democracy in Plural Societies: Normative Models’, unpublished paper written at Australian National University (June, 1972). Permission was granted by Professor Lijphart to cite and quote from his paper. An argument that consociational democracy should be added to accepted cateories of Anglo-American and Continental democracy is found in Lijphart, Arend, ‘Typologies of Democratic Systems’, Comparative Political Studies, I, 04, 1968, pp. 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Further elaboration of the concept is found in Lijphart, Arend. ‘Consociational Democracy’, in World Politics, XXI, 01 1969. pp. 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 A view of Nyerere cited in Emerson, Rupert, Political Modernization: The Single-Party System. A Monograph Series in World Affairs at the University of Denver, Denver, 1963, p. 28.Google Scholar
20 Ibid., p. 27.
21 Douglas, William A., Developing Democracy, Washington, D. C., 1972, p. 115.Google Scholar
22 Ibid., pp. 114–116.
23 This criticism of the single party’s organizational worth can be found in the introductory chapter of Paul E. Sigmund (ed.), The Ideologies of the Developing Nations. New York, 1972.
24 Wallerstein, Immanuel, ‘The Decline of the Party in Single-Party African States’, in LaPalombara, Joseph and Weiner, Myron, eds., Political Parties and Political Development, Princeton, 1966, pp. 207–214.Google Scholar
25 Ibid., p. 214.
26 Schwelb, Egon, ‘The International Protection of Human Rights: A Survey of Recent Literature’, International Organization, XXIV (Winter, 1970). 81.Google Scholar
27 von der Mehden, pp. 68–70.
28 An observation of Rustow, ‘Transitions’, in Macridis and Brown (eds.), pp. 468–469. Writers of the revisionist vein who strongly question if leaders are for a democratic society rather than themselves, are Apter, ‘Reflections’,’ in Irving Leonard Markowitz (ed.), p. 229; Lewis, West Africa, p. 39; and Zolberg, pp. 124–125.
29 Bayley, p. 144.
30 See the systematic survey involving virtually every country of the world regarding civil and political rights in Gastril, Raymond D., ‘The Comparative Survey of Freedom -VI’, Freedom at Issue, XXXIV, 01-02, 1976, 11–20.Google Scholar
31 See footnote 13. in Rustow, ‘Transitions’, Macridis and Brown (ed.), p. 469.
32 This low but widely shared opinion of the efficacy of peoples in underdeveloped areas is very well described in Bayley, pp. 4, 134. Also, see Clute, ‘Fundamental Rights’, in Beck (ed.), p. 270.
33 Douglas, p. 47.
34 Pye is quoted by Rostow when the latter makes his own points about peasant capability. Rostow, W. W., Politics and the Stages of Growth, New York, 1971, p. 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Smith, T. E., Elections in Developing Countries, New York, 1960, p. 1.Google Scholar
36 Shils, pp. 38–39.
37 Mathiason, John and Powell, John, ‘Participation and Efficacy’, Comparative Politics, IV, 04, 1972, 319.Google Scholar
38 Douglas, pp. 48–49.
39 For a thorough examination of the prospects and problems of implementation of rights, see Chapters Eight, Nine, and Ten of Van Dyke, Vernon, Human Rights, the United States, and World Community, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
