The Danger of Disillusionment
My colleague, Andrea, is currently traveling without regular access to the Internet, but wrote the following post for the blog.
Moving further with our discussion of crime in Mozambique (I talked about it here and here), it is interesting to note that inequality is the first driver of the problem mentioned in the study conducted by Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. Confirming our initial instincts, the research states that “a study conducted by the Universidade Eduardo Mondlane and the World Bank suggests that poverty reduction is slowing down and inequality is becoming a greater concern”, and that the situation is linked to an increase in violence and crime.
They quote another study, by Emernegildo Mulhovo, of the Mozambican Centre for Civil Society Learning and Capacity Building, that shows a very sad relation between a democratic turn and insatisfaction in Mozambique. It says that “although the establishment of a liberal democracy in Mozambique resulted in the multiplication of democratic institutions and room for democratic participation of citizens in development processes, the standards of living of the population are
worsening and consequently creating an atmosphere of dissatisfaction and frustration”.
It is not, of course, that a democratic opening in the country caused the worsening of the living standards. But it did offer a greater measure of comparison and more opportunities for frustration as those new spaces of participation fail to deliver on their hopes.
False opening is a dangerous thing. I see a lot of formal paths to participation and involvement, and almost no chance of real change, be in the power structure, be it in the economic structure (unless of course you want to join the winners).
1 Comment
Leave a comment
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
Recent Comments
- Barak on The Persistence of Justice
- PEstrada on The Persistence of Justice
- Barak on The Persistence of Justice
Archives
- May 2013 (9)
- April 2013 (13)
- March 2013 (19)
- February 2013 (21)
- January 2013 (16)
- December 2012 (12)
- November 2012 (14)
- October 2012 (21)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (8)
- July 2012 (13)
- June 2012 (17)
- May 2012 (6)
- April 2012 (9)
- March 2012 (16)
- February 2012 (20)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- ElectionGuide.org
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund
- Zunia.org




Josh, In my work in Brazil, on participatory budgeting more specifically, it’s very clear that if participatory openings do not bring rather immediate and clear benefits to participants, then people rationally drop out. Once they drop out, the word gets around, and it’s extremely difficult to call people out for the next round of what they perceive will be more of the same.