Africa in the World_Reading Memo

The ongoing globalization processes has been increasingly connecting our world during the last years. Over time we can see how the very different dimensions of globalization have reach every part of the world, the economic conexions that not always appear as relations between equal trade partners, the cultural globalization that exports narratives and imaginarios born in the very essence of western capitalist consumer society, or the increasing migrant fluxes between continents. Anyway what it is clear is that globalization is a reality that is defining the course of our time, and changing the way to understand communication, and distance, therefore under this light it is very interesting to rethink the role that Africa will play in this changing world system and the place that will occupy in the complex international society that is being built.

            Which is the role of Africa in the world?, traditionally Africa has been exporter of raw materials, and importer of manufactured goods, that means that his economy has always been strongly dependance from foreign trade. As a consequence of this, his relation with foreign powers(colonial and neo colonial) have always been unequal, and defined by a winner/loser dichotomy within the world system. The structural change that African economy needs to superate this condition and built strong and stable economies beyond natural resources dependency, is not really on the agenda of this great powers. Also it is remarkable in order to understand how are defined the ties of this dependence the role of economic organizations as World Bank, and International Monetary Fund that have conditioned his developing and help programs to the so called structural adjustment programs. This programs based in the liberal mantra that free trade is always source of economic growth have forced some african countries to cut public spending, reduce trade tariffs and arancels, privatize states companies, or increase exports among others, with the hope of long term economic growth, but at the expense of high social damage in the short time.^[1]

            Until 2014, in fact it seemed that African economy was getting into a hugh rising that could finally mean some important transition for the continent. That year sub-saharan Africa's GDP was 1775 trillion, after 12 years of almost not interrupted rising (in 2002 was 367.108 billion), however the next two years the economic growing decrease considerably again.^[2] The problem is precisely the dependant character of his economy that is subdue to the evolution of the capitalist world economy.Besides that, it is expected from many African countries to growth in the future, but anyways it is very clear that if this countries doesn,t find the way to build an economic system beyond the structure of dependence they will never achieve the sustained and stable growth that is needed for the human development of the continent.

The geopolitical role of Africa in the world is a matter that should not be forgotten also, it is true that right now African countries doesn´t occupy a significative position in the decision making of world geopolitics but the dynamic will be to progressively increase this importance, while western hegemony will increasingly decrease. Many experts have already pointed that in the close future United States role as world hegemon will be disputed by china(close african ally), European powers, and EU, (great african trade partner) in the meantime will suffer the increasing aging of his populations that would surely reduce his economic capability, and so his geopolitical power. In this context is also expected that the so called BRICS countries rise in economic and political importance,and define the geo political map of the future, and south Africa is one of this countries, and has already playing this hegemonical role within the frontiers of the continent . African countries still have a long way to walk but if they find the way to sustain a stable economic growth in the future they may considerably rise his importance in the world decision making in the future.

            When talking of the place that Africa plays in the world we can not avoid to talk about culture, globalization and the changes that our world have been experiencing on respect of cultural global fluxes and the imaginarios that contain.Which are the imaginarios that western world receive from africa? how is constructed the perception of the continent? This questions are very important on the time to reflect about the role that Africa play in the world nowadays. For western civil society it is very easy to be pessimistic about africa when most of the news they receive from the continent are related to terrorism violence and conflict, however it is very important to deconstruct this image and show a perspective of Africa with the whole complexity of the continent, with his shadows but also his lights.^[3]There is also a paternalistic vision reinforced by the calls for help that NGOs promote through his fundraising campaigns, that strongly damage the perception of the continent promoting the idea that his salvation is in ``our´´ hands. The labour of NGOs is for sure laudable, but it will never face the structural problems of dependency, underdevelopment or violence, and they just can reduce the damage and suffering of the people. Many development anthropologist have already face this issue pointing that development is important but also is to understand how we construct the idea of development throughout the meaning of underdevelopment, and the ``other,´´how development must fist deconstruct the whole narrative where is based, to understand that our labour in Africa is not to convince them to follow our idea of ``progress´´, but to help the continent to find his own one.^[4] The difference may be the one between charity and solidarity that is very well explained in the words of Eduardo Galeano, who sustained that we need solidarity rather than charity, because the first is horizontal and ejected between equals while the second is vertical degrading and never change the structure of power.

            In summary it is important to work in the redefinition of African image in the globalized world, go beyond the stereotypes and enlight the richness of african culture, and tradition engaging them with a process of economic and human development.^[5] It is also important to rise explanatory discourses about the historical responsibility of western powers that through neocolonialism have reinforced the structure of underdevelopment, all in order to rise fairer narratives about the continent. Otherwise it will be very difficult to get a real involving of western powers, and organizations in the implementation of the transformations that the continent need, beginning by the  end of economic dependence, and unequal trade connexions.

---

^[1] Ismi, Asad. Impoverishing a Continent: The World Bank and the IMF in Africa. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. July 2004.

^[2] World Bank: https://data.worldbank.org/region/sub-saharan-africa.

^[3] The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/28/africans-worry-how-africa-portrayed-western-media.

^[4] Edward,W Said. Orientalismo. Debolsillo. 2008

  Escobar, Arturo. Anthropology and development.International social science journal.1997

^[5] Kakonge,O.John.The role of culture in Africa's development. Pambazuka news. 2017

Terrorism_Reflection Memo

We started off with the question: who are these terrorists groups in Sub-Saharan Africa and whether they differ from other terrorist groups in Africa?  Furthermore, what do these groups have in common and how do they differ?

First of all it is important to note which groups are currently active in Africa. I think it is safe to say that there are five main terrorist groups active in mainly northern Africa. The first one is Al-Qaeda in the Maghrib, which has been active since 2007 and has its aim to overthrow the Algerian government. During the civil war in Libya in 2011, they have slowly moved fighters into Libya in order to establish a base there as well. They cover the area of Algeria, Libya, Mali and Niger. Then in the Horn of Africa Al-Shabab (2006) is active in Somalia, but also performs attacks in northern Kenya. The Lord Resistance Army (LRA) is active in Uganda since 1987, but after fights with government forces they were forced to move to the DRC, South Sudan and Central African Republic. Furthermore there is Boko Haram in north Nigeria, but they spread across the lake Chad region. Lastly we have the Islamic State active in Libya since 2013. This group also used the chaos in Libya after the oust of Ghadaffy to set foot in the country.

What four out of these five groups have in common, is the fact that they are Sunni Islamist, except the LRA, which preaches a fundamentalist Christian religion. What these groups furthermore share   is their indiscriminate use of violence against civilians. They all seem to stick to the idea, if you are not with me, you are against me. This idea, I would argue, is supported with evidence from the four articles we had to read this week. It is interesting to note that while the LRA and Boko Haram do not share a common religion, both of them are quite notorious for their crimes against humanity, for example by abducting and raping women and forcing children to join their armies. I am wondering why specifically these two groups are so well known for their brutality and why they participate in that, especially compared to the other three, who mainly stick to the ‘conventional’  tactics of terrorism?

 I think it was also interesting that we talked about the mobilisations of the different groups. Dowd and Drury were clear when comparing the bases of mobilization  of the LRA and Boko Haram. In both cases, grievances and marginalisation of the northern population were the main motives of the population to join the different groups. The other Sunni Islam groups mainly draw their support from actual believers. Take for example Al-Shabaab: being an offshoot of the Islamic Courts Union which was formed by several sharia courts in Somalia. Al-Shabaab has remained support from at least some part of the Somali population for over 11 years right now. This has partly to do with the strong tribal structure in Somali, but also with the fact that people believe in the Al-Shabaab cause.

One comment coined by my fellow classmate is that he found the term terrorism to be generic. He mentioned that by not referring to any specific activity, the term who is a terrorist is a subjective issue. He further stated that it is difficult to link it with a religious ideology and that it is difficult to call those who feel marginalized by the government and can, and have no other way then to turn to terrorist groups, really terrorists. It seemed my colleague meant that because people cannot rely on government to solve their problems, they have to turn to terrorism.

My thoughts on this are the following: first of all I would like to state that although there is not an official definition on terrorism, many researchers and even U.N. reports come up with roughly the same definition: terrorism is an act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. When one applies this broadly accepted definition, it makes it easy for us to label who is a terrorist, or who is not. I think with this definition the term is not generic at all, and allows us to not be subjective about it. Someone in the class mentioned that it is important for ‘marked’ terrorists that it is for them important to control the narrative, for example, Nelson Mandela turned from terrorist, to a worldly statesman. However, the tactics that his Umkhonto we Sizwe used were and would still be labelled as terrorism.

In the case of Nelson Mandela he fought for anti-apartheid, a goal that over time gained a lot of international support and followers, hence he came so popular and the previous actions he had allowed were, I guess, forgotten about or seen as legitimate? But what we see nowadays, and especially with the Muslim terrorists, is that they are fighting for something that is globally not accepted, namely an Islamic state where strict sharia law is implemented. I think that due to the fact that this is not globally supported, people who join these groups, for whatever reason, will for always be labelled as terrorist because they support a, internationally seen, wrong cause. Furthermore, as long as they use indiscriminate violence against civilians and commit crimes against humanity, they condemned and labelled terrorist, in order for the international community to fight them.

Another point we discussed during the class is the responses of the different governments and the international community. There will always remain the discussion whether governments should engage in diplomatic talks with terrorists groups, or engage them military. I think this topic was really well described in the article of Lind, Mutahi and Oosterom. They showed the example of Kenya’s military approach towards the increasing threat of the Al-Shabaab in northern parts of Kenya and argued how this basically was not directly the effect of external influences, but had mostly to do with internal influences, namely previous state violence against marginalized groups. By securitizing the Al-Shabaab threat the government had been able to adopt new laws and institutions that would further marginalize the Somalis living in Kenya. What is interesting to note in this case, is that, again, the state was securitizing the Al-Shabaab threat in order to mobilize more military personnel in the so called opposition and swing states in the lead up to the 2017 August elections. During the weeks before the elections, an operation was launched to bomb the Boni forest in Garissa county, a state that has been a opposition stronghold.

In Kenya’s case we see that a military approach towards terrorism can be used to strengthen the grip of the incumbent government instead of actually dealing with the problem. Data has shown that Kenya’s military approach has not been able to tackle Al-Shabaab in Kenya and that Al-Shabaab keeps attacking targets in northern Kenya. I think that Kenya’s upcoming government, whoever that will lead in the future, has to come up with a solution for Al-Shabaab, either an effective military one, or a diplomatic one.

Terrorism_Reading Memo

From this week’s readings, an interesting topic that emerged was the diverse ways in
which people are mobilized into different African terrorist groups. First, marginalization is a
common theme in the recruitment of fighters for the LRA, Boko Haram, and Al-Shabaab. In both
the cases of the LRA and Boko Haram, sub-national cleavages between northern and southern
Uganda and Nigeria serve as great sources of tension. While in some cases grievances may have
been originally propagated by former colonial rule, it can also be used in contemporary conflicts
to recruit fighters by projecting the “other side” as a pertinent threat in need of a response.
Furthermore, this tension can be exacerbated by the rotation of power between northern
and southern elites. While I originally thought that the rotation of power between different
groups is something that would inherently promote equality in representation, it is clear that its
effects actually creates further social tensions. This is because as power moves between north to
south, different groups are marginalized at different times with each rotation. Furthermore, when
this rotation is made formal and is then not respected, such as in the case of President Goodluck
Jonathan’s re-election in Nigeria, violence can break out and further political inequality. As
pointed out in the reading, marginalized groups are more likely to engage in civil war over other
forms of violence because they lack alternative avenues of accessing power. So, as different
groups are continuously marginalized in this cycle, it seems tensions will only continue to rise
and feed into this aspect of mobilization. In the case of Al-Shabaab in Kenya, the group’s
recruitment tactics largely cater to the historically unequal treatment of the Somali population by
the Kenyan government. Furthermore, as the government brands Al-Shabaab’s radicalism as a
foreign rather than a homegrown issue within marginalized Somalis, they misses the intricacies
the group’s of domestic mobilization efforts.

Along with the commonality of marginalization, another significant component of
recruitment seems to lie in responses of the government, media, and civilians. As clearly shown
in the case of the Ugandan state, the Nigerian state, and Nigeria's neighboring states,
governmental responses to insurgency often come in the form of harsh security campaigns.
These can be heavily armed and marred with civilian abuses and casualties, as governments may
fail to distinguish between civilians and militants. Furthermore, as governments have greater
access to a wider arsenal of weaponry than do terrorist groups, they can easily do more damage
than those they wish to suppress. I agree that this fuels the grievance and victimhood that
underpins mobilization, and ultimately exacerbates the issue at hand.

Additionally, in covering terrorism over other stories, the media may project certain
terrorist groups as more powerful than they truly are. Because there is “drama in challenging the
state” that will attract viewership, it can be argued that terrorist groups receive a disproportionate
amount of media coverage to other deadly issues, such as automobile accidents and the spread of
disease. From this, prospective fighters may attracted to these groups under false pretence, and
the assumption with this argument is that this pretence is therefore avoidable. While this
argument brings up valid issues, such as that of over and underrepresentation, I don’t see how the
media could cover such issues without running into this problem. Furthermore, whether
something is more or less deserving of attention can often be whittled down to opinion, though
increasing viewership surely plays a key role in the selection of news stories.
In the response of civilians, too, there can also be great and unintended backlash. Because
of civilian insecurity, which is in part derived from dangerous state responses and in part by
civilian-targeted terrorism, some communities have formed local militias for their protection.
This, to me, seems like a very natural response if the state shows that it cannot protect its
citizens, and especially if the state is also an evoker of violence. In the case of Boko Haram, the
reaction to local militias caused an increased frequency in the violence against civilians. This, in
turn, hurts more civilians, which will receive even more media coverage, and will inevitably
continue the cycle of terrorist recruitment. Again, as the state cannot protect its people, it’s hard
to see an alternative way for civilians to protect themselves without aligning with the terrorist
group itself, or with the state violence.

Resources_Reflection Memo

In our most recent class, we discussed the connections between resources and violence,
focusing mainly on the Democratic Republic of Congo and touching lightly on Sierra Leone.
From Monday’s discussion, two of the topics raised were particularly fascinating to me, and
through my reflection I hope to engage these ideas and to ask further questions. Firstly, I want to
discuss both the flawed concept and defining of the conflict in the DRC as a mineral or resource
war, and then investigate whether changing simple wording would also change its actuality.
Furthermore, I’d like to put this in context with the role of micro actors in the continuation of
violence, and then further this by discussing how the international community may appropriately
respond.

Despite the prevailing narrative of mineral-fueled violence, from the literature and class
discussion, it is clear minerals are not the sole motive or financial means of war in the DRC. As
pointed out in the reading, if this were the case, which it is not, then the theaters of war would be
where minerals are most lucrative. Furthermore, the idea that minerals or certain resources have
inherent value, is flawed. I agree with the argument that the value put on resources is socially
constructed, because who initially has the resources seems to have little effect on anything of a
social or economic nature until there is a demand for it. A clear example of this is shown by the
DRC’s plentiful natural supply of tantalum, which went hardly noticed until its price on the
international market skyrocketed. While the DRC had the same large supply all along, tantalum
did not make it a richer place, nor did it cause fighting among its people. On the same note, I
also agree that distinguishing certain resources from one another proves unhelpful in the
discussion about the DRC’s conflict. All wars are fought with resources despite their specifics,
and thus, are resource wars. So, would a renaming of the conflict, in turn, center its focus more
appropriately? No, as re defining the conflict may be just as problematic as leaving it as it is. The
danger in confining it to any specific title would once again streamline the narrative, possibly
downplaying or simply ignoring it’s vital components. Furthermore, believing any war is
singular to one motive, and simply one word, is in its nature extremely reductive.

An example of a downplayed, yet vital component in the DRC’s conflict, is the role of its
micro actors in the continuation of violence. As pointed out in class, natural resources do not
motivate violence, societies do. One of the initial topics of discussion was how many ways, other
than through minerals, that wealth is accumulated. This includes roadblocks, taxations on
virtually everything, looting and pillaging, along with much more. What makes this so pertinent
in the continuation of violence is that it is participated in by average citizens as well as soldiers,
insurgency groups, disenfranchised peoples, and so on. Because it is inclusive of nearly every
level in the societal structure, to some extent everyone is using aspects of it as their means of
survival. As pointed out by one student, if the state cannot protect you, you are essentially forced
to align yourself one way or another for your own self-preservation. This is not greed, but
survival in a cycle with no alternatives. So, the question can be posed: in terms of the role of the
international community, how can they properly respond? As international actors are largely on
the demand side of goods, would cutting back demand or altering regulations break the cycle of
violence within Congolese society? This, as clearly shown by the failure of the Dodd-Frank Act
put forth by the United States, can easily backfire. Though, sections 1502-1504 were created in
an effort to foster transparency by curbing the flow of revenue fueling Congolese violence, little
regarding the actual security situation improved. In part, this is because it was focused on the
minerals and resources side of the conflict, which as discussed earlier is not exclusive to other
actors in the DRC. In this respect, thoroughly investigating a variety of actors in a conflict can
only be beneficial to understanding it wholistically, both in regards to business, but especially
when creating legislation.

Primitivising Conflict_Reading Memo

Throughout modern history the interest in the African continent was rather low. Since the first colonization expeditions the continent became part of European history and an “object” of interest. Indeed, undiscovered human and natural sources attracted European powers who seized the land without any respect to local populations. However, from the very beginning there was little interest in the way of life of African people's nor in their histories, languages, cultures. More worldwide interest got African countries during the decolonisation process after the Second World War when the two super powers both the US and the Soviet Union tried to gain the sympathy as many African regimes as possible to demonstrate their domination. Finally again during democratization processes after the end of the Cold War Africa got more international attention, this time not by great powers but by the media who brought conflicts in Africa to the people worldwide. However, I argue that the interest has always been very selfish and short-term. Africa was, is and will be crucial for the world. Still, there is lack of deeper knowledge and interest about it. Instead, there is generally superficial interest in the African continent and its people based on widely spread stereotypes. Those are created by a general lack of interest of the “West”, poor media coverage together with lack of information. Let me present some main ideas that came to my mind when I was reading the literature for lesson II.

The first main reason for superficial interest in African issues is definitely the existence of stereotypes. Many of them are based on the “creation” of Africa as part of “our” history, by us, indicating and confirming Africa's incapability and dependence. Those stereotypes about African inferiority are deeply rooted in “Western”, or as I prefer to call them “Northern societies”[1]. For instance, in European schools African history is usually taught from the colonisation as if there were no history before; African countries are being labelled as “developing”; reducing Africa to one homogenous area or society by e.g. talking about “African culture” or “African people” etc.

Those stereotypes drive the work of journalists too. Since the end of the 1980s Africa became more present in “Northern” media. For example, pictures of children suffering from famine in Ethiopia started a “worldwide pity” mainly reflected in pop culture. Unfortunately, many of the reports usually were confirming existing stereotypes about “poor, savage, uneducated, incapable African people”. The current media landscape demands short, simple stories with attractive pictures. Given the complexity of conflicts in Africa many journalists simply don't write about them or they need to simplify them to draw attention to them as it was the case of the film “Kony 2012”.  

The film and the campaign is definitely an example of the very simplified and “northern” perspective of conflicts in African countries. I think that the question whether it is good or not to draw such huge attention to a particular conflict is very difficult to answer. It seems that international attention should help to bring a positive change. However, too much global attention overlooks and basically wipes out all the other efforts of local people. Since I am convinced that long-term positive changes have to come “from the bottom”, from people in site, I am very sceptical to foreign interventions. International attention is important and can influence a lot but is it always a step in the right direction? And what comes next? Campaigns such as “Kony” are based on one main idea or aim and they don't present any plans for the following development which in my opinion makes them very short-term. Efforts of local people's organizations and associations are deeper because people in site have a much bigger interest in working on long-term solutions because the following development will influence them and the lives of their descendants. Therefore, I think that instead of using social media to gigantic campaigns they can be used to smaller ones, directed and controlled by people from the affected countries, and supported (financially, technically, know-how) from abroad. The progress will be slower but at the same time more genuine and considered.

When I watched “Kony 2012” I was surprised how less attention was actually given to people from Uganda. It seemed to me that it was more a promotion film about the director, about his son and about the uprising American youth. In the beginning the director says that media allow us to intervene. But do they indeed? And who are we intervening for – for people in trouble or for our conscience's sake? If it really was for the Ugandan people, children, the campaign would not take place in such a range because people would show real interest and look for information about the country, about the history, about the government. It was paradoxically people's disinterest that enabled the campaign. 

The film also reminded me of the well known film “Hotel Rwanda” where the Rwandan protagonist asks the American journalist to spread the pictures of the Rwandan genocide as soon as possible so that American people rise up and make the government to intervene. The journalist answers: “People will see this footage and say: 'Oh my God, it's horrible.' And then they go and eat their dinners.”

There has been too much external interventions in Africa and most of them based on “northern” perceptions of the world. International support and solidarity remain very important components of further evolution in Africa but they should not be forced nor central as it is often the case.

---

[1] „The North“ or „Northern societies“ meaning countries of the Northern hemisphere but mainly Europe, North America. Often also called “the global North” in contrast to the undeveloped or developing “global South”.

State in Africa_Reflection Memo

In the last class on African Security we discussed „modern“ state in African countries.  Two interesting questions were raised. Firstly, it was a question on the origin of neo-patrimonialism and its perception by the African populations. Secondly, we had a little discussion on the hybrid state perspective analogy based on chapter 1 of Chabal's book.

            Let me start with the former, on the origins of neo-patrimonialism in African states and its perception. The origin of patrimonialism is inseparable from Weber's theory on domination which is, respectively, tied to the personalization of the state in Africa and hierarchical, centralized structures. Those factors create an invisible and unwritten mechanism of exchange between power holders and other actors within the society in (re)distributing public resources. To put it simply, the chief (the head of state, the President) controls the resources which he considers as his own property, his patrimony. Of course, to exercise his domination over other people he cannot be alone. Since the patriarchal agents (based on family ties) are too fragile and insufficient, he uses the patrimonial technique: redistributing the resources among chosen individuals in exchange for their fidelity and loyalty. The reciprocity and hierarchy establishes a cliental system where the public goods are no longer distinguished from the private goods. It is a type of political domination along interest rather than blood relations.

            Both the personalization and centralization of political power have their origins in colonial administration which in different ways denaturalized traditional authorities by replacing them by their own foreign administrators. The French colonizers implemented their centralized and hierarchical administration structure on their colonies which were directly dependent on the “métropole” – France. The British preferred the so called indirect rule which was supposed to involve more local customs and traditions. However, in both cases the colonial administrators in site had one main task: maintain order at lowest possible costs. They were given limited resources and combined with their geographical distance and slow communication possibilities with “home” the administrators became the most powerful people in the community since they possessed and distributed resources. Their personality became part of the domination.

But why do we talk about neo-patrimonialism? The term defines the combination of two logics: the patrimonial political domination relying on clientelism within a formal state framework. This framework was officially institutionalized during the independence era, including new constitution promoting centralization with a President as head of state, officials etc. and embedded the legal rational structures where every function becomes a potential source of patrimonial logic. Still, this type of political domination is not a state in the legal rational sense.

This point leads to the second issue raised in class: the hybrid state perspective which according to the book chapter focuses “on the effects of the mixing of the Western norms introduced under the colonial rule and the values inherent to African social systems.” It is described as a rather positive case stressing the successful adaptation of the Western state model. However, based on the reactions of some of my classmates I would say that the perception of the “hybrid state” was rather negative underlining the failed implementation of the Western state model in many African countries. According to their opinion the “modern” state failed to integrate indigenous cultural, ethnical, linguistical, traditional values and perspectives. Besides, the notion of “nation” was mentioned as an identity basis defining most of the European “modern” states, and which differs significantly from the situation in Africa where we cannot speak about nations yet. After explaining me all those negative aspects of the “modern” state implementation in Africa we came to the question – how to deal with them? Anybody could give an answer to that. Indeed, it is an extremely difficult question. Nevertheless, I think that there are some approaches, which probably won't be able to give a full answer, but still could at least discover possible directions. First of all, when talking about Africa and the state we should stop depicting it so negatively. An example from class: Neo-patrimonialism could be seen also from a more positive perspective than a kind of corrupt system. It could be seen as a simply different system of political domination. The fact that something is different doesn't mean it is worse. Secondly, we also should try to avoid the direct comparisons with European nation- and state-building even though they are tied to the state-building in African countries. It is important to change the perspective and observe rather than judge. This goes back to the part in the Chabal's chapter where he says that the partial success of state in Africa enables comparisons with European states. One cannot and should not compare them. Divergences such as the timing, neo-patrimonial relations, absence of a real political opposition, and the foundation of African political parties on ethnicity rather than social groups, etc. show that the states may implemented similar frameworks but based on different ideas and perceptions.

I know that those are ideas for a theoretical discussion but still, I believe that even being aware of the way we talk about things can change them in fact. At least it can change the way people perceive them. In my opinion, nowadays it is impossible to remove or reject the “modern” state in Africa because it is already (although in many countries only partially) part of the African countries. Still, what can be changed from the external side (meaning the West) is “liberating” the view on clientelism and different forms of “modern” state emerging from different circumstances, and its future development. I don't think that the legal rational state is not at all suitable to African countries because despite its imperfections it still offers a framework for sharing different opinions, for protection and for a functioning of a society. The question here is not how to change the state in Africa but how to adapt it to particular experiences of countries, regions or groups of people. I think that in the not far future we'll witness decentralization, federalization, changes in borders, and the emergence of new, smaller states. All of that resulting from initiatives from the bottom, from the people. And for once Western states should just observe the changes on the African continent.

Terrorism_Reading Memo

I would like to mention here the approach of the authors to the searching of solutions or the right government response to the terrorists´ violence that is occuring inside of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya or also other African countries. All the authors agree that the military response can be probably effective to some extent however cannot really solve the whole problem and definitelly is not the best answer to terrorists´ violent attacks.

All of them suggest that there are better ways of responses. They name for example the need to negotiate with terrorist which is an answer that most of the governments do not take into account at all. They also argue that it is important to solve the problem from the very basics of it and not just the outcome which military responses do. Another problematic feature of the military response is the fact that it supports the victimhood of terrorists which in effect can actually help them to gain public support for their actions or even to recruit new members. Therefore the authors highlight the importance of economic, political and social reforms that would lower or even better cease entirely the marginalisation of various groups inside of the countries and the even the economic differences amongst them.

While I definitelly agree with the socio-economic and political reforms as a great solution to this problem, even though it takes a lot of time to show results, I am not really sure about the negotiation – solution. I don´t believe that members of terrorist groups actually want to negotiate. Since their actions are usually coming in hand with an ideology I don´t think that some negotiation would stop them doing what they are doing. Even though I admit that there might be exceptions but the question is if Boko Haram or Al-Shabaab could be one of them.

Other point I would like to notice is the decrease in violent activity of Boko Haram. Caitriona Dowd and Adam Drury in their article Marginalisation, insurgency and civilian insecurity: Boko Haram and the Lord´s Resistance Army talk about the possible future concerning the Boko Haram and they suggest that there might come a decline in their activity however this article was written in 2017 and the charts made by Uppsala Conflict Data Programme (UCDP, 2017) that maps violent activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria show that the decline has already happened with its peak being in around 2013 and 2014. So they are correct about that fact however a bit late I think.