State in Africa_Reflection Memo

In discussing Patrimonialism and clientelism in the context of the nature the African state, one significant observation has to do with the fact that, the indigenous political institutions in Africa thrived on the relationship between the patron and the client, in that, the former exacted loyalty from the later on the basis of the formers monopoly over resources and his ability to distribute same within that indigenous political establishment. But it is important to state that such arrangements were localised and limited to the scope of influence of the particular ruler in pre-colonial times. Such rulers were sovereign in their own right and thus were not responsible and accountable to any higher authority.  What colonialism succeeded in doing was to make the position of the local ruler dependent on the colonial establishment through a series of colonial Ordinances which eventually eroded the sovereign nature of the indigenous political authorities. Thus, whether or not a local ruler continued in his or her position was dependent on how that ruler was viewed by the colonial authority as being loyal or not. Given the peculiar nature of the evolution of the African state, such arrangements turned the local ruler into a client with a new patron being the colonial authority. However, to the indigenous people, the local ruler maintained his influence as a patron. Colonialism therefore transformed the practice and elevated it to the level of the colonial state.

Again, given the fact that at independence, the nascent African state had all the external trappings of a modern western state and yet lacked the norms and values which underpinned the western liberal democratic state, African political elites determined that the only logical and plausible way of building a modern nation-state, was to tap into that structural resource which had ensured the success of the colonial enterprise-Patrimonialism. 

A second observation has to do with the fact that the existing international political order within which African states emerged did not only reinforce patrimonialism and clientelism but perpetuated it. The bi-polar nature of the world and the raging cold war meant that newly emergent African states had to align with either of the super powers in order to gain prominence and become relevant in the international system. Regime survival was equally dependent on ones degree of alignment.     The super-powers themselves also propped up regimes to the extent that a particular regime could provide the necessary ingredients required for the absolute loyalty of the state.

For example Mobutu Sese Sekou of Zaire now DR Congo, had his brutal and dictatorial regime supported by America and the West for over three decades because the territory possesses all the mineral resources which the West needed and Mobutu could ensure that resources were distributed in a manner which ensured the loyalty of the political elites to him whilst he transmitted that loyalty to the global power. Another example in Africa was the Regime of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.

This is not to absolve African leaders of any blame since there were other alternatives which they could have explored.