The paradox of electoral economies

The paradox of electoral economies

The changes in the political systems in the world have been changing with changes in ideologies of the people and the demands of a nation. In the past, aristocratic leadership allowed the society to have a centralized figure from a family that the people believed to be a naturally born leader. However, the diversity in the economy and industrialization led to the advancement of the middle class, and the society demanded better and diverse leadership through parliaments. Nevertheless, the development of the new England, the US in which the majority of the people were oppressed immigrants led to the establishment of the democratic approach to leadership. Overall, the economic needs of the people have influenced the political systems and leaders put in place. Even so, the political process also impacts the economy. In when things fell apart, the author looks into the different electoral economies and the impact they placed on the advancement of African nations after the colonial powers left Africa. The paradox of electoral economies illustrates the negative aspect of elections in democratic countries such as new leaders with different ideologies, the turbulent period of regime change, and the self-interest of the voters as opposed to the transition in the leadership for the benefits of the entire community economically.

The paradox of electoral economies is based on the main idea and agenda behind the aspect of electoral processes in the democratic states, which are to smoothly transition to a leader that desires to make life better. In the democratic countries, the electoral process is geared towards the election of an individual who is interested in the advancement of the needs and wants of the citizens, specifically in economic issues. In the text by Bates, the author highlights that “When colonial regimes departed from Africa, they orchestrated their retreat by holding elections and exiting midst the political din. While competitors for office championed the cause of independence and denounced the evils of colonialism, a notable feature of their campaigns was the stress they placed on seizing the “fruits of independence” (34). the elections in the African nations were focused on presenting the aspects of economic progress as a sign of the independence for which the nations had fought to get. As countries that were influenced by the benefits of democracy and leadership through electoral processes, the African nations linked change in the regime as the solution to the challenges of the economy. The same idea of change has been expressed in western societies. For instance, the electoral period in 2016 US, the current president of the nation based his mantra on developing a better economy, lower unemployment rate, and the advancement of the local companies. The democratic states both in the developing and developed nations link electoral periods to economic progress. The electoral economies are often linked to the aspect of improving and getting a leader with better or similar approaches to the economy. Even so, the electoral economy is paradoxical as it leaders to a turbulent period and changes that impact the progress of a nation negatively.

Electoral economies are often influenced with the change in the ideology based on the beliefs and working culture of the incoming leaders, and the electoral economy is impacted in the electoral period as it highlights the change from the opinions and working structure of one leader to the other in the democratic nations. in discussing the aspect of sowing seeds in the election of a new leader, the author explains that “report that constituents viewed politicians as their agents whose job it was to bring material benefits to the local community – jobs, loans, or cash” (38). In that, elections, as held in the developing nations, were linked to the idea of which leader was capable of bringing better economic benefits in the country. As a result, leaders have to express different ideas and beliefs. The various leaders represent aspects of educational background and work experience in the relations with economic challenges to have a better chance of being elected. In the current democratic race in the US, the concept of bringing in a system that allows people to advance in the society from various parts of the country and race had been a significant issue for the candidates. As a result, the democratic system requires that the leaders offer knowledge and a plan of making life better. Nonetheless, the electoral economy offers a contrary ideal as the shift in leadership leads to a change in economic structure, thus impacting the economy negatively during the transition period.

Similarly, the paradox of electoral economies is that the electoral economy is affected negatively based on the turbulent regime change period. The regime change and shift in the major stakeholders and officials as a new president chooses the team to work with often has an effect on the market prices and stocks. As Bates writes about Zambia, “In 1969, the newly elected vice president of UNIP resigned, sparking rumors of the withdrawal of the Bemba-speaking bloc from the governing party. The president responded with yet another economic “reform,” adding the banking and insurance industries to the government’s portfolio” (68). The economic reforms were focused on removing the economic systems and introducing a new idea that impacted the economy of Zambia, notably. The shift in the power systems in the nation results in the change in the regime as new ideologies and leaders of various parastatals are chosen by the leader. In the United States, for instance, the shift in the leadership regime in 2016 was characterized by the change of the insurance policies and the people placed in charge of the various industries. As a result, the change influenced the shift in the working structure of the nation, thus affecting the economy negatively. The change in leadership is followed by adjustments in the economic structures where the leaders bring in new people, thus negatively impacting the electoral economy both in the developed and developing nations.

Similarly, the change in the democratic leadership is linked to the change in the democratic leadership poses the challenge of an increased threat to survival. The structures in societies are often developed to increase the chances of people surviving in the best way possible in the hypothetical case. However, the beliefs and actions of the leaders can lead to the advancement of the ability of citizens to survive or not. In the class notes, we learned that “but the greater the linkage, the greater the likely survival threat to key interests in the status quo” (‘POLI120_Class_Notes_Feb3’ 2). Examples of threats to the survival of the citizens apply to the increase in taxes or change in property rights in the nation. The transition of leadership regimes causes a shift in the ideologies governing the nation thus can pose a potential threat to the basic survival of people in the nation. The case of threat to survival is well illustrated in the example given by Bates on Kinshasa in Congo, “Employees simply could not survive on the salaries paid them by the government. Given the erosion of public sector salaries, the quality of public services declined. Teachers abandoned their classrooms, and nurses left clinics untended” (103). In that, the regime changes led to the struggle of public servants to support their lives, thus leading to a chaotic approach where the various workers left their posts of work. The case shows that electoral economies are negatively impacted by the shift in regimes and power in various parts of the world that could possibly lead to enormous economic challenges during the shifts in power.

The electoral economy in democratic nations might offer the chance for anti-democratic coalitions, and institutions can be developed in a nation, thus impacting the electoral economies negatively. The aspect of elections leads to the rise of various leaders that stand up for various ideals in the nation, which might include the anti-democratic ideas and parties. As the author expresses through analysis of the ides passed by the president of the World Bank, “As reluctant as he may have been to call openly for the introduction of democratic institutions, he left but little doubt that Africa’s creditors would welcome the legalization of opposition parties and the holding of competitive elections for political office” (115). In that, the rise of democracy in the African nations has allows the advancement of the aspect of opposition nations to rise formed on different ideals and structures of leading the nation. As a result, the idea of dictators is given a chance to prosper. For example, one of the longest-serving presidents of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, was elected as a democratic president with a clear vision for the development of his people in terms of the economy. However, during the 22 years in power, the president became dictatorial and led the economy into turmoil. The electoral period in developed and developing nations lead to the advancement of the anti-democratic ideals, which causes a challenge to capitalism and freedom of the markets, thus causing a decline in the returns of the nation and overall economy.

In the same way, the electoral economy of a nation is impacted negatively following the advancement of personal interests rather than the economic interests of the nation. Democratic campaigns and election periods in most nations are often linked to enormous expenditure that is often supported by donors to various leaders. The donors, in most cases, are heads of companies and various sector key-players. As a result, the support in the elections is linked to an understanding of favors and the advancement of certain aspects to favor the businesses. As a result, the self-interests of the presidents of prime ministers are compromised on the way to the democratic elections. As Bates explains, the transition period into a democracy for African states, “Even after the banning of party competition, competitive political forces remained, but they played out within the regime. It was the head of state, rather than the voter, who now became the object of competitive bidding, as minor apparatchiks jockeyed for recognition and competed for political favor and, while doing so, marked down the price of their political loyalty” (43). In that, the transition in the nations meant the power of the economy swift was placed on the key ruler that is the president. As a result, the main issues and aspects of the presidential team were placed before the wishes of the people. In the first 100 days of them being in office, most presidents make necessary steps that lead to the advancement of the issues of self-interest. Even though the office of the president of the prime minister in developed nations is constantly held accountable, the power of the president can be used to favor certain members of the economic sectors. A recent example is the quid pro quo that almost led to the impeachment of President Trump. The call and supposed demands of the president were to serve self-interest. The democratic period of elections affects the economies negatively based on the self-interests of the leaders.

Moreover, the electoral economies are impacted negatively following the electoral turmoil, especially in the developing nations. The concepts of democracy are still in development, with most nations addressing and expressing democracy in different ways. As a result, the ideas of revolution and change of regime can lead to violence and instability in societies. As Bates explains as he moves from fables to facts, “The resultant loss of security and prosperity stays the hand of a specialist in violence who might be tempted to engage in predation or of a group that might be tempted to forcefully seize the goods of another or withhold tax payments, thus triggering political disorder” (17). In that, different leaders in the war zone nations opt for violence as a result of losing election and fear of losing the personal wealth accumulated over the period of power. In the shift of most elections in Africa and other developing regions, the use of force is common in election periods, which influence the main income-generating industries. For example, in the election of 2007 in Kenya, the change in regime led to post-election violence that forced thousands of people in Kenya to be displaced from their homes, and others burnt alive in the homes and churches. As a result of the fear caused by the actions, the tourism industry was temporarily paralyzed. The change in regime, which is accompanied by violence, leads to a decline in income-generating activities. Apart from the developing nations, some of the countries in the west have experienced turmoil in the change of power. For example, the election of President Trump saw an increased number of marches and picketing in America that impacted the overall stock stability and economy of the nation. The electoral economy of the nation is negatively influenced by the violence and lack of satisfaction with results despite the democratic approach being taken.

In conclusion, the paradox of the electoral economies illustrates the benefit of the nation in getting a leader with new ideas of the nation. However, the leadership can cause a decline in the electoral economies based on the serving of personal interests, the rise of anti-democratic ideas, the turbulent change in regime, and the advancement of different political ideologies by the new leaders. The change in power through democratic elections is not often simple as it causes the rise of the opposition and varied views in the nations. The change in the ideals thus impacts the economy of the nations both positively and negatively. The paradox expresses the various ways in which the intended result of elections is not fully highlighted in the actual election. The process that is expected to introduce a new leader with variant ideas of building the nation or continuing with the work of the former leaders in the nations. Even so, the change in regimes does not always lead to the advancement of the expected ideals of society. On the contrary, elections lead to turmoil and economic challenges that cause a decline in the economic progress in the nations. The change in the leadership period is tough for the majority of the democratic nations as it leads to the changes in the fundamental ideologies, leadership figures, and heads of various government institutions in democratic countries. The paradox of electoral economies captures the complex relationship of politics and economies, as revealed in various decades and leaderships over the years.