This week readings explain us the behaviour of
African states. It shows us the clientelist networks, state brutality and offer
some explanations of the situation in contemporary Africa. As the readings for
last week, these articles also show us how our understanding of Africa is
desperately low and that we have to change that if we want to bring some
positive changes to the continent.
Chabal and Daloz present few theories why the state in Africa has more informal and personal character. They explain the clientelist character when leader provides goods to his clients and assign people to offices because of their loyalty and not qualification for the job. We often hear about the colonialism as main reason for non-functioning African state. This reading was very interesting for me because it shows the other side – that the influence of colonialism is overestimated, and that there cannot be much of a conflict between the “modern state” and traditional aspects of the community because the “modern state” as we see it in west was never fully implemented and even colonial power used personal relations and informal rule etc. According to them, today´s situation is similar to the pre-colonial one. It makes me realize that I have never heard much about the pre-colonial systems and relations in Africa. This article also makes me wonder if patrimonial relations are really that natural in Africa. Are they more welcomed than the western-type state? What do Africans think about these two options? Or do they favour some third option even more? Is western-type state that unnatural for Africa? How should ideal African state look like? Also, I am curious how does this work, how can you become client of a leader – is it based on some common roots or you can just pay to someone to protect you and give you some resources?
In the other chapter of their book (chapter 6) they speak about different types of violence – criminal and political, and also about for example warlords, privatization of war and the illegal activity in Africa. They explain that the patrimonial system is not seen as criminal but as legal, because it does not lead (unlike criminal activity) to the advantage for just the perpetrator but he will redistribute the resources. It brings me back to my question – how people in Africa see the patrons? And is it different in each country? I recall that there was said in their book that the patrimonial state is seen as normal even in democratic countries. The violence also seems to be “normal” in Africa and there is no clear solution. Should the West change their approaches and help or is it better if they stay out of Africa completely? Will this increase the chances of development of functioning state and decrease of violence?
Richards also talk in his chapter about the patrimonial state. He deals with some of its problems – for example when there is a lack of resources and the patrimonial state thus lacks legitimacy. He describes some history phases in Sierra Leone. He writes that diamonds are important part of that system but are mostly used by rebels etc. to sponsor their fighting and there are not enough resources to be distributed which can bring some problems. How important role diamonds actually played in that conflict? And is the best solution in this situation to renew the patrimonial state (which was on hold) or should there be different solution and different system?
Finnström talks in his chapter about the situation in Uganda which is interesting and useful additional information to the last weeks readings and knowledge. It was interesting for me to find out that USA designed LRA as terrorist group and ruled out negotiations, making Uganda another part of war on global terrorism. From the last week I have got the impression that US went to Uganda because of domestic pressure and that the military option was favoured mostly by Ugandan government. Can LRA be considered terrorist group? In the articles it was mostly described as rebel group. Of course, they commit some horrific violence and brutality and there is no universal definition of terrorism. But last week, it was said in the readings that LRA does not have to seem to have any goal (anymore), only want to keep the power. If that is true it is not a political goal, which is often part of most of the definitions of terrorism, and cannot thus be seen as terrorist group. Also how can US rule out negotiations when local people believed that peaceful solution is more appropriate and, unlike military options, will not increase the violence. Why we keep ignoring local people? Do we really want to help Africa or are we still using it only to achieve our, Western, goals? The article also says that the local government feel obligated to do what their international donors want them to do and not listening to local population, which once again shows that Africa seems to be (even though it probably cannot be made the generalization and would be too simplified) about our desires and not the needs of local population. This article shows us also the violence committed by the government who, as we were said last week in the narratives, are the “good guys.” It shows us that nothing is that simple and makes me wonder even more why we keep these beliefs even though, as this readings clearly show, we have the knowledge. I am not sure if we can say we have lack of knowledge about Africa, as these articles shows we have knowledge but it seems we are ignoring it.
The last article, written by Morten Bøås, explains the situation in Democratic republic of Kongo and in Somalia. It is very interesting to know that even though those two states are considered to be failed it does not mean the complete absence of state. It is very weak and not functioning properly but that does not mean they are completely absent and there can even be some stable parts. It is again our Western standard that is judging it. I never realized that these places are not just pure anarchy, is not something you will hear if you do not read scientific articles about Africa (and even then this information is sometimes missing). One of the most important passages of this article was the one explaining the characteristics of the relations within the state – the clan and religious importance in Somalia and the problematic citizenship laws in Democratic republic Congo. How is this created in other countries? Are they mostly clan based, religion based or do they connect to each other through common citizenship? Or completely different thing? Is it influenced by history or also other aspects?
Chabal and Daloz present few theories why the state in Africa has more informal and personal character. They explain the clientelist character when leader provides goods to his clients and assign people to offices because of their loyalty and not qualification for the job. We often hear about the colonialism as main reason for non-functioning African state. This reading was very interesting for me because it shows the other side – that the influence of colonialism is overestimated, and that there cannot be much of a conflict between the “modern state” and traditional aspects of the community because the “modern state” as we see it in west was never fully implemented and even colonial power used personal relations and informal rule etc. According to them, today´s situation is similar to the pre-colonial one. It makes me realize that I have never heard much about the pre-colonial systems and relations in Africa. This article also makes me wonder if patrimonial relations are really that natural in Africa. Are they more welcomed than the western-type state? What do Africans think about these two options? Or do they favour some third option even more? Is western-type state that unnatural for Africa? How should ideal African state look like? Also, I am curious how does this work, how can you become client of a leader – is it based on some common roots or you can just pay to someone to protect you and give you some resources?
In the other chapter of their book (chapter 6) they speak about different types of violence – criminal and political, and also about for example warlords, privatization of war and the illegal activity in Africa. They explain that the patrimonial system is not seen as criminal but as legal, because it does not lead (unlike criminal activity) to the advantage for just the perpetrator but he will redistribute the resources. It brings me back to my question – how people in Africa see the patrons? And is it different in each country? I recall that there was said in their book that the patrimonial state is seen as normal even in democratic countries. The violence also seems to be “normal” in Africa and there is no clear solution. Should the West change their approaches and help or is it better if they stay out of Africa completely? Will this increase the chances of development of functioning state and decrease of violence?
Richards also talk in his chapter about the patrimonial state. He deals with some of its problems – for example when there is a lack of resources and the patrimonial state thus lacks legitimacy. He describes some history phases in Sierra Leone. He writes that diamonds are important part of that system but are mostly used by rebels etc. to sponsor their fighting and there are not enough resources to be distributed which can bring some problems. How important role diamonds actually played in that conflict? And is the best solution in this situation to renew the patrimonial state (which was on hold) or should there be different solution and different system?
Finnström talks in his chapter about the situation in Uganda which is interesting and useful additional information to the last weeks readings and knowledge. It was interesting for me to find out that USA designed LRA as terrorist group and ruled out negotiations, making Uganda another part of war on global terrorism. From the last week I have got the impression that US went to Uganda because of domestic pressure and that the military option was favoured mostly by Ugandan government. Can LRA be considered terrorist group? In the articles it was mostly described as rebel group. Of course, they commit some horrific violence and brutality and there is no universal definition of terrorism. But last week, it was said in the readings that LRA does not have to seem to have any goal (anymore), only want to keep the power. If that is true it is not a political goal, which is often part of most of the definitions of terrorism, and cannot thus be seen as terrorist group. Also how can US rule out negotiations when local people believed that peaceful solution is more appropriate and, unlike military options, will not increase the violence. Why we keep ignoring local people? Do we really want to help Africa or are we still using it only to achieve our, Western, goals? The article also says that the local government feel obligated to do what their international donors want them to do and not listening to local population, which once again shows that Africa seems to be (even though it probably cannot be made the generalization and would be too simplified) about our desires and not the needs of local population. This article shows us also the violence committed by the government who, as we were said last week in the narratives, are the “good guys.” It shows us that nothing is that simple and makes me wonder even more why we keep these beliefs even though, as this readings clearly show, we have the knowledge. I am not sure if we can say we have lack of knowledge about Africa, as these articles shows we have knowledge but it seems we are ignoring it.
The last article, written by Morten Bøås, explains the situation in Democratic republic of Kongo and in Somalia. It is very interesting to know that even though those two states are considered to be failed it does not mean the complete absence of state. It is very weak and not functioning properly but that does not mean they are completely absent and there can even be some stable parts. It is again our Western standard that is judging it. I never realized that these places are not just pure anarchy, is not something you will hear if you do not read scientific articles about Africa (and even then this information is sometimes missing). One of the most important passages of this article was the one explaining the characteristics of the relations within the state – the clan and religious importance in Somalia and the problematic citizenship laws in Democratic republic Congo. How is this created in other countries? Are they mostly clan based, religion based or do they connect to each other through common citizenship? Or completely different thing? Is it influenced by history or also other aspects?
These
readings were, again, very interesting. I like that they are connected to the
ones last week so they can increase our knowledge, even though they are raising
many more new questions for me. I do now have huge knowledge about Africa and
that is why these articles shows many areas I would like to know more about.
Mostly the patrimonial state and how is it seen by local people, if it is seen
as the best solution or just the lesser evil? And, also the role of western
world, can we do something to help by changing our approach (as many articles
suggest that we should) or would we help Africa the most if we simply
disappear? How can the ideal state in Africa be created and based on historical and cultural aspects, how
would the ideal state in Africa even look like?
No comments:
Post a Comment