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.
No comments:
Post a Comment