I have been struggling with finding sources for one argument I’m trying to make in my paper. It is that, while the change of political parties in a country is deemed necessary in fostering democracy and good governance, the same doesn’t guarantee a successful democracy. The dangers of one party staying in power for too long is well know -for instance, incumbent parties could get used to power and in many ways forget about their subjects. This has happened almost all over the world and especially in poor countries: from Alberto Fujimori’s alleged mining-friendly laws, an action that robbed off a majority Peruvians mineral wealth, to Congo’s unending mess since the 1960s.
My worry though is that a mere change of political parties without cultivating the necessary democratic culture amongst the people would make a country even worse than it was. This has happened in Malawi and Zambia, for example, when massive corruption and embezzlement of public funds under Presidents Bakili Muluzi and Frederick Chiluba, respectively, was way beyond what the people had experienced prior to democratization in the 1990s. These democratically-elected leaders even opted to turn into dictators by attempting to change their countries’ constitutions to allow them to run for third and subsequent presidential terms. Muluzi tried to do this in the year 2002 but the Malawi National Assembly turned him down. The story goes on and on.
However, I find myself unable to find other sources aside these historical analogies, which I’m convinced that they do help -but are insufficient to make a strong case. Please help!