In the political rhetoric of the West democracy is a prominent goal in development policies. However many of the countries receiving most development aid are far from democratic. We ask here why it is the case that the West time and again supports and underpins autocratic leaders and regimes in the developing world. One hypothesis is that there is a strong mechanism of wishful thinking at work. Western leaders seem to look for what they judge to be “enlightened” leaders in third world countries, perhaps having the “enlightened despots” of their own history in mind, having produced, if not democracy, at least order and development. The focus in the mainstream development discourse – such as the Millennium Goals – on “output” as a measure of development, with no mention of gains in democracy and human rights, is another possible explanation. Examining views expressed by Western leaders and academics on two autocratic leaders, Paul Kagame of Rwanda and the late Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, it is shown that they indeed are projected as “enlightened”, and that their democratic deficit is mostly excused, when they are perceived to deliver on other developmental goals.

This article tests the hypothesis on whether tourism is an important institutional factor in reconciling the conflicting goals of conservation and development. The study entails data from field surveys across protected areas including the Serengeti National Park and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in northern Tanzania, and the Corbett National Park in northern India. With human development defined in terms of 'stages of progress' (SOP) delineated by the respondents themselves, the study finds indicative evidences of the validity of the posed hypothesis in the two nations, in varying proportions. Factors not related to tourism, like incomes from livestock, have affected development in Tanzania, though not in India.

This special issue takes a closer look at the role and meaning of political opposition for the development of democracy across sub-Saharan Africa.Why is it that the room for political opposition in most cases is severelylimited? Under what circumstances has the political opposition been able toestablish itself in a legitimate role in African politics? To answer thesequestions this special issue focuses on the institutional settings, the nature and dynamics within and between the political parties, and the relationship between the citizens and the political parties. It is found that regional devolution and federalist structures are areas where the political oppositioncan find room to organize and gain local power, as a supplement to influence at the central level. Important factors behind support for the opposition are a realistic appreciation of the level of democracy, dissatisfaction with corruption and pro-democratic values. Generally, however, opposition parties are lacking in organization and ininstitutionalization, as well as in their ability to find support in civil society and at promoting the issues that voters find most important. Overall, strong executive powers, unchecked by democratic institutions, in combination with deferential values and fear of conflict, undermine legitimate opposition activity.

Citizens of the three East African countries Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda differmuch in their expressed support for the political opposition and in their trust inthe ruling political institutions of the president, the electoral commission and theruling party. Citizens in Uganda and Kenya have becomemore sceptical towardstheir ruling institutions, while citizens in Tanzania are still very trusting andexpress much stronger deferential values than is the case in the other two countries, eventhough Tanzanians have experienced less of democratic changes.How can this difference be explained, and to what extent is democracy beinginstitutionalized in the three countries? Using Afrobarometer data it is shownthat democratic constitutional values are an important reason for supportingthe opposition in Kenya, but much less so in Uganda and Tanzania. In Kenya,democratic constitutional values are negatively related to support for theruling institutions, while in Tanzania, the same values strengthen support forthe government. A positive evaluation of democratic procedures andgovernment output explains much of the support for the ruling institutions,while a perceived high level of corruption and a low estimation of delivereddemocratic procedures lend support to the opposition. Kenya appears to havereached a more advanced democratic awareness than the other two countries.While some important democratic institutions have taken root in the threecountries, there is still a long way to go before the region has attained stable democracy.