The Error of Developmentalism

I wanted to touch upon this idea.  I learned this in my Political Geography class and I definitely think it applies to South Africa.  Developmentalism is a concept that looks at the reasons developing countries are having trouble developing.  It proposes that developing countries can’t develop efficiently because developed countries have created rules and regulations to keep developing countries from developing.  Countries such as the United States and Britain developed early in history.  Today’s developed countries did not have restrictions or already developed countries above them to be restricted.  They were able to develop freely without others dictating the way those countries had to do things, economically and socially.  Today, though, developing countries do not have the option to develop at their own pace.  These developing countries have to accelerate the process to be able to compete on the same level as developed countries.  Speeding up this development process tends to devastate the social and economic structure of a country.  The error then is this: Developed countries are dictating how developing countries should develop, when the development process is different for each country. 

A simple explanation follows: Looking at the United States during colonialism, there are obvious signs of human rights violations.  During that time period, though, this wasn’t so much considered as violations of human rights.  Things like slavery and child labor were a normal part of civil life.  As the United States evolved its political and social values, human rights became more of an issue.  Today the United States takes this topic pretty seriously and the United States is now one of the leading countries developing the rules and regulations for international human rights advocacy institutions.  Now look at a developing country.  Certain Asian countries have child labor and sometimes even slavery.  These countries began developing at a later time than the already developed United States, so these developing countries are still working through some of these issues.  It may seem strange for me to say this, but institutions currently in place to regulate human rights, or other social problems in developing countries may not be the best thing for that country.  Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of human rights, but what is the point in forcing these regulations on developing countries when they don’t follow them half the time anyway? The United States was able to work through these issues, and I’m (not, but I’m kind of) sure that these developing countries can do the same if they were allowed to developed at their own pace. 

This brings me to South Africa.  It certainly is one of the most developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, but socially, it still has a long way to go.  South Africa is a transitional democracy, which means it doesn’t necessarily have all of its ducks in a row.  Segregation is still a major issue.  Today while in the bus we say various landmarks separating white communities from black communities, and you could definitely see the difference in the development of the communities.  For some reason, when I say those concrete walls with barbed wire separating the communities I thought of the Berlin Wall.  The Berlin Wall was erected to keep East Germans on the Eastern side of Germany, and to keep them from becoming westernized.  This is obviously a type of segregation, not necessarily racial, but a separation of West from East, luxurious from simple.  I don’t necessarily believe these divisions in South Africa had to do completely with race, but also with social standing/classes.  Both in the GDR (German Democratic Republic) and South Africa we see this segregation.  For South Africa, though, these walls still stand.  This makes it clear that segregation has not disappeared, whereas in Germany it has, for the most part.  Our guide today also explained that many government officials or elitists do not want foreigners to see the various townships in Cape Town because they don’t want foreigners to now about the affects of Apartheid.  It isn’t about the crime. 

Another aspect of today that I found interesting was this notion of peace.  What is peace? What does peace mean for me? How does my definition of peace compare to someone else’s definition of peace?  Our guide today explained that we cannot have peace in war, but in order to have peace we must forgive.  He explained this notion of peace a bit through an example.  He does not believe that, for the most part, people are racist.  He does believe, however, that there are a select few who still are, and that they are the ones influencing society.  This is a type of social categorization.  He realized that dwelling on the past was useless and wouldn’t help the process of reconciliation or development.  He explained that one cannot be racist if the country was to be united.  Today also reaffirmed an aforementioned comment concerning the value of information.  He believes that the value of participation is important.  We learn more about each others cultures, and we gain knowledge through information to reduce the risk of grievances, conflict, violence, misperceptions and misunderstandings.  One of the most important and interesting comments he made though was that he believed he was not necessarily fighting race, but he was fighting the system.  Now, in order to unite the country, the labeling of people needs to be done away with.  We are all Africans, color is not important.  He wants to build a non-racial South Africa.

Some of the questions I had today: If everyone has a different view of peace, then how can true peace ever be achieved? Where is the consensus?  Lastly, if you do comment on this blog, I would love to see what your definition of peace is.