Introduction
Shortage of resources does lead to major conflicts within the country. The connection between shortage of valuable natural resources and armed conflict takes place as a combination of three causes. Firstly, constant use and qualitative erosion of the natural resource reduces its size. Secondly, increasing population involves more and more people using the natural resource, thereby causing its size to shrink further. Lastly, if the natural resource is distributed unequally, some people may receive shares too small to live on – the only solution they have is retaliation in the form of armed conflict (Urdal).
Neo-Malthusians contend that such natural resources , are invariably connected to food production. Developing nations have huge populations that heavily depend on 4 main natural resources for food production: fresh water, land to grow crops, forests and fisheries. If these 4 natural resources are sufficiently available, the population is content. But if the resources are scarce, then it leads to adverse effects that exacerbate the chances of armed conflict. Such adverse effects are widespread poverty and migration that increase the already existing estrangement between societal segments on basis of religion, class, ethnicity or language. Heightened tensions and increase in competition further widens the gap between the societal segments, with some people feel increasingly deprived and socially dissatisfied, that ultimately leads to armed conflict. Global examples of what Neo-Malthusians call ‘Eco-violence’ are South Africa, where scarcity of natural resources caused the sudden occurrence of civil violence in the 1990s, and Chiapas where rebellion took place because natural resources were largely appropriated by the elite classes, who with the aid of the government, constantly disregarded the constitutional and statutory property rights of the poor classes (Urdal).
Main body
Demand for natural resources has definite effects on the performance of governments and the development of economies. Disproportional and widespread demand for certain natural resources such as oil has made the performance of governments of countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait well below par, and the economic development of these countries too has been hindered. The high global demand for oil has been accompanied by an astronomical rise in prices. The price of oil passed the $ 122 barrel milestone in May this year, with Goldman Sachs predicting the price could spiral up to $ 200 in the next 2 years (Macalister).
In a traditional economy, the government taxes its citizens who in turn forcefully request that the government display efficiency and be properly responsive to them. This pact creates a political connection between the government and its people. Oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have a reliable and excessively large supply of income from oil, so they do not tax their people. Their governments, headed by members of the Royal family at all important posts, look upon on a vigilant and result-oriented civil service and civil society as a source of danger to the advantages of wealth and power they are enjoying, and may take measures to prevent the perceived threat. They also tend to provide resources to favourable constituents in order to maintain their advantageous position. The easy availability of offshore tax sanctuaries supply ample opportunity for corrupt politicians to conceal their wealth. As an overall consequence, the people are badly served by their government, and in case they protest, the huge income from oil sales allows the government to maintain highly paid armed forces to keep the population under control.
The high demand for natural resources affects a nation’s economy in two major ways. The first is a lack of diversification. Economic diversification may be overlooked or withheld due to the short-term high income from natural resources. Even if some diversification projects are undertaken, they run the risk of being improperly guided and managed. There is also loss of job opportunities that would have been available if there were properly established and well managed diversified industries (Wikipedia.org). This is happening in oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where diversification industries like aluminium and plastic are small, not managed well, employ very few people and hardly make any profit. On the other hand, Bahrain, which has the least amount of oil reserves in the Gulf , has made tremendous strides in diversifying its economy especially in the tourism and financial services sectors {it is presently the financial hub of the Gulf with its impressive network of onshore and offshore banks).
The second adverse effect on the economy is the government’s tendency to indulge in excessive borrowing. In anticipation of more income in the years to come, some governments begin incurring debts despite getting income from natural resources. The country’s natural resources are projected as collateral, thus paving the way for additional credit. But if the global price of the natural resource begins to drop due to less demand, and if the real exchange rate drops, the governments are faced with a situation where they have less income with which to settle a proportionally costlier debt. This happened in case of OPEC countries Nigeria and Venezuela. They accumulated debt while riding on the back of the oil boom in the 1970s. But when oil prices dropped due to less demand in the 1980s, banks ceased giving credit to them and both countries digressed into arrears, incurring penalty interest fees that inflated their already high debts into larger proportions.
There is a trend towards democracy when there are conflicts over resources. In the face of regular internal conflicts caused by shrinking natural resources, governments tend to choose democracy because it provides the only solution whereby a nation can provide assurance of the rule of law and fundamental rights to the people, including the right to voice their grievances, the right to eat, and the right to be provided with water, education and reasonably clean and healthy living conditions. Democracy is also the only way to provide a voice to the feeble and susceptible sectors of the populace even while it adheres to the decision of the majority. Most significantly, democracy provides justice and equality to everyone without taking into account religion, race, gender or other factors that could be employed as tools of discrimination and exclusion (Maathai).
Conclusion
Many African governments have realized the importance of democracy as the only way to solve their problems. South Africa became a multi-party democracy and is even urging other nations in the area to emulate its example. Liberia, that was recently embroiled in civil war became a democratic country and elected Africa’s first female leader, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as head of state. Other African nations that have chosen democracy are Angola, Burundi and Sierra Leone (Dobriansky).
References
Dobriansky, Paula J. “A Decade for Democracy in Africa.” U.S. Department of State. 2006. Web.
Maathai, Wangari. “An Unbreakable Link: Peace, Environment and Democracy.” Harvard International Review. 2008. Web.
Macalister, Terry. “Oil Breaks $ 122 on Forecasts for Further Rises.” Guardian.co.uk. 2008. Web.
“Resource Curse.” 2008. Web.
Urdal, Henrik. “Ecoviolence? Links between Population Growth, Environment Scarcity and Violent Conflict.” Journal of International Affairs. 2002. Web.