For more than half a century, Africa has sought its path between two aspirations often presented as complementary but which in practice sometimes seem to be in tension: political democracy and economic development. The issue deserves to be discussed without taboo, but also without simplification.

While several countries in the continent continue to fight poverty, unemployment, weak infrastructure and institutional instability, the example of some countries in East Asia raises increasing questions. How has Singapore become one of the most prosperous countries in the world in a few decades? How did China lift hundreds of millions out of poverty? Why is South Korea, which was poorer than many African countries in the 1950s, one of the world's most advanced economies today?

The Asian miracle: a success that questions

When we observe contemporary East Asia, it is difficult not to be struck by the scale of the transformations carried out in a few decades.

Several common features appear in these trajectories: absolute priority to education, relatively competent administrations, coherent industrial strategies, massive investment in infrastructure and — especially — strategic projection capacity over several decades, where many developing countries have experienced frequent policy changes.

The temptation of the strong state model

In the face of these successes, some observers believe that multi-party democracy could hinder development in poor countries. The reasoning is structured:

It is not democracy that develops a country, but the quality of the state.

One of the major developments in contemporary research in development economics is the shift in debate. The question is no longer whether a country is democratic or authoritarian. The real question is whether the State is capable or incapable.

History shows that a weak state associated with democracy rarely produces satisfactory results. But it also shows that a weak state associated with an authoritarian regime generally produces equally disappointing results. The determining factor seems to be institutional quality more than the nature of the regime.

The cultural question: the taboo subject

Any reflection on development ends up meeting the cultural issue. Why do some societies seem to accept collective discipline, compliance with rules, or short-term sacrifices for long-term goals?

Many observers point out that East Asian societies seem to place greater emphasis on discipline, education, collective effort and respect for authority. Conversely, several analysts believe that some African societies are more marked by family solidarity, community loyalty and personalization of social relations.

These differences probably exist to some extent. However, it would be dangerous to conclude that cultures mechanically determine the economic destiny of nations.

Collective behaviour is not immutable. They change as a result of institutions, education and economic transformation. History offers a basic education: cultures evolve.

The cult of the leader: an African political fragility

There is, however, a phenomenon that deserves special attention. In many African States, political life remains highly personalized. Institutions are often overshadowed by individuals.

• Political parties are organised around personalities rather than ideologies.
• Personal fidelities sometimes take precedence over institutional rules.
• Power tends to concentrate in the hands of charismatic leaders presented as incarnations of the nation.

This customization promotes clientelism. Access to public resources then depends more on proximity to power than on merit or impersonal rules. Gradually, the state ceases to appear as a neutral arbitrator to become the instrument of a clan, party or coalition of networks.

This evolution feeds frustrations, tensions and sometimes crises of succession. When a political system relies essentially on a man, his departure becomes a potential source of instability. This is precisely the opposite of the Asian miracle: in Singapore, institutions have become stronger than Lee Kuan Yew, not the opposite.

Institutions imported too quickly?

One of the most interesting debates concerns the institutional legacy of colonization. At independence, most African states adopted constitutions largely inspired by European models. The assumption was simple: replicating Western institutions would gradually replicate Western results.

But this approach neglected a fundamental reality. Western democracies are the product of centuries of historical evolution. They have been built through civil wars, revolutions, religious conflicts, social compromises and long institutional maturation. African countries had to build simultaneously the state, nation, modern economy and democracy within a few decades.

In a number of cases, electoral mechanisms were put in place before the institutions capable of governing them were truly consolidated. The plow before the ox, sort of.

Democracy and development: a false dilemma?

The debate is often presented in binary form: should we choose between democracy and development? This formulation is probably misleading. The most prosperous countries in the world today are generally both developed and democratic. Conversely, the poorest states are not necessarily democratic.

True opposition does not seem to be between democracy and authoritarianism. Rather, it seems to oppose the Strong States to weak States. A strong state does not necessarily mean an authoritarian state. It is primarily a State capable of implementing its decisions, enforcing rules and pursuing coherent national objectives.

What Africa can learn from Asia

Africa is probably not meant to mechanically copy the Chinese or Singaporean model. The demographic, historical, geographical and cultural contexts are too different. On the other hand, several lessons appear to be particularly relevant.

These elements seem to have played a much more important role in Asian success than merely limiting political freedoms.

Towards an African path to development

The real challenge for Africa may not be to choose between the Western model and the Asian model. It could be build its own synthesis.

History shows that no imported model is reproduced identically. Nations that succeed are generally those that adapt experiences that are alien to their own realities rather than those that copy or reject them as a whole.