Who says that democracy is unsuited to certain geographical areas of the world? An interesting piece in the Financial Times focusing on the Mauritius elections begs to differ.
As opposition leader Paul Bérenger points out, “Four times since independence [in 1968], the government of the day was thrown out in general elections. Three times it won. Then again I suppose it’s not that special. After five years [of one government] people want a new dream.”
But it is that special considering Africa's dismal record in this field. So what's the secret? Despite Mauritius possessing the ethnic cleavages sometimes blamed for sparking electoral malpractice in the pursuit of power - which beget bloodshed in turn - and its parliamentarians enjoying vitriolic debate, there is a broad acceptance that the rule of law must prevail and that the voice of the people must be paramount. Mauritian politicians didn't need to behave in this way - certainly the island was no better prepared for independence than many of its African neighbours - but they have chosen to, and civil society has developed as a consequence. To the point where the notion that a government tries to remain in power by rigging ballots and using force has become unthinkable.
I think the lesson here is simple. For the West to remain serious about the business of democracy promotion, we need to pay more attention to the need to develop enlightened leaders and the institutions that will formalise support for democracy, rather than just judging progress on the physical process of elections themselves.