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.