CENTRALIZED POLITICAL SYSTEMS may demand a quota of rice from farmers, which will then be redistributed to the entire

community. Similarly, laborers may be recruited to build irrigation works, a palace, or a

In bands and tribes, political authority is not centralized, and each group is economically and
politically autonomous. Political organization is vested in kinship, age, and common-interest
groups. Populations are small and relatively homogeneous, with people engaged for the most
part in the same sorts of activities throughout their lives.
- However, as a society’s social life becomes more complex—as population rises,
technology becomes more intricate, and specialization of labor and trade networks
produce surplus goods—the opportunity increases for some individuals or groups
to exercise control at the expense of others.
In such societies, political authority and power are concentrated in a single individual (the
chief) or in a body of individuals (the state).
Chiefdoms
A chiefdom is a regional polity (a politically organized society) in which two or more local
groups are organized under a single ruling individual—the chief—who is at the head of a
ranked hierarchy of people.
An individual’s status in such a polity is determined by the closeness of his or her relationship
to the chief. Those closest are officially superior and receive deferential treatment from
those in lower ranks. The office of the chief is usually for life and often hereditary.
Typically, it passes from a man to his son or his sister’s son, depending on whether descent is
traced patrilineally or matrilineally.
Unlike the headmen or headwomen in bands and tribes, the leader of a chiefdom is generally
a true authority figure, whose authority serves to unite members in all affairs and at all times.
1. For example, a chief can distribute land among community members and recruit
people into military service.
2. Chiefdoms have a recognized hierarchy consisting of major and minor authorities
who control major and minor subdivisions. Such an arrangement is, in effect, a
chain of command, linking leaders at every level. It serves to bind groups in the
heartland to the chief’s headquarters, be it a mud and dung hut or a marble palace.
temple.
The chief may also amass a great amount of personal wealth and pass it on to off spring.
Land, cattle, and luxury goods produced by specialists can be collected by the chief and
become part of the power base. Moreover, high-ranking families of the chiefdom may
engage in the same practice and use their possessions as evidence of noble status.
An example of this form of political organization may be seen among the Kpelle of Liberia in
West Africa. Among them is a class of paramount chiefs, each of whom presides over one of
the Kpelle chiefdoms (each of which is now a district of the Liberian state). The paramount
chiefs’ traditional tasks are hearing disputes, preserving order, seeing to the upkeep of trails,
and various other supervising functions. In addition, they are now salaried offi cials of the
Liberian government, mediating between it and their own people. Also, a paramount chief
receives government commissions on taxes and court fees collected within his chiefdom, plus
a commission for furnishing the rubber plantations with laborers. Moreover, he gets a
stipulated amount of rice from each household and gifts from people who come to request
favors and intercessions. In keeping with his exalted station in life, a paramount chief has at
his disposal uniformed messengers, a literate clerk, and the symbols of wealth: many wives,
embroidered gowns, and freedom from manual labor. In a ranked hierarchy beneath each
Kpelle paramount chief are several lesser chiefs: one for each district within the chiefdom,
one for each town within a district, and one for each quarter of all but the smallest towns.
Each acts as a kind of lieutenant for his chief of the next higher rank and also serves as a
liaison between him and those of lower rank. Unlike paramount or district chiefs, who are
comparatively remote, town and quarter chiefs are readily accessible to people at the local
level.
Paramount
Chief
district district district district
chief 1 chief 2 chief 3 chief 4
town chief town chief town chief town chief

Although leaders of chiefdoms are almost always men, in some cultures a politically astute
wife, sister, or single daughter of a deceased male chief could inherit such a powerful town chief town chief town chief town chief
position as well.

EXAMPLE: One historical example is Aimata, who succeeded her deceased half-brother town chief town chief
Pomare III as leader of the Polynesian chiefdom of Tahiti in 1827, ruling as Queen Pomare IV
until her death fi fty years later. Chiefs usually control the economic activities of those who town chief
fall under their political rule.

Typically, chiefdoms involve redistributive systems, and the chief has control over surplus
goods and perhaps even over the community’s labor force. Thus, he (and sometimes she)
Traditionally, chiefdoms in all parts of the world have been highly unstable, with lesser chiefs
trying to take power from higher ranking chiefs or paramount chiefs vying with one another
for supreme power. In precolonial Hawaii, for example, war was the way to gain territory and
maintain power; great chiefs set out to conquer one another in an eff ort to become
paramount chief of all the islands. When one chief conquered another, the loser and all his
nobles were dispossessed of all property and were lucky if they escaped alive. The new chief
then appointed his own supporters to positions of political power. As a consequence, there
was very little continuity of governmental or religious administration.
State Systems
The state is a centralized polity involving large numbers of people within a defined territory
who are divided in social classes and organized and directed by a formal government that has
the capacity and authority to make laws and to use force to defend the social order.
This is the most formal of political organizations and represents one of the hallmarks of what
is commonly referred to as civilization. From the perspective of the political elite in control of
the state, its formation and endurance are typically represented as something positive—as
progress. This view is not necessarily shared by those who exist on the political underside and
do not possess much personal freedom to say and do as they please. A large population in a
state-organized society requires increased food production and wider distribution networks.
Together, these lead to a transformation of the landscape by way of irrigation and terracing,
carefully managed crop rotation cycles, intensive competition for clearly demarcated lands,
roads, and enough farmers and other rural workers to support market systems and a
specialized urban sector. Under such conditions, corporate groups that stress exclusive
membership proliferate, ethnic differentiation and ethnocentrism become more
pronounced, and the potential for social conflict increases dramatically. Given these
circumstances, state institutions, which minimally involve a bureaucracy, a military, and
(usually) an official religion, provide the means for numerous and diverse groups to function
together as an integrated whole.
Although their guiding ideology is that they are permanent and stable, since their first
appearance some 5,000 years ago, states have been anything but permanent. Whatever
stability they have achieved has been short term at best; over the long term, they show a
clear tendency toward instability and transience. Nowhere have states even begun to show
the staying power exhibited by less centralized political systems, the longest lasting social
forms invented by humans.
state In anthropology, a centralized polity involving large numbers of people within a defi
ned territory who are divided into social classes and organized and directed by a formal
government that has the capacity and authority to make laws, and use force to defend the
social order.
nation A people who share a collective identity based on a common culture, language,
territorial base, and history.
An important distinction to make at this point is between state and nation. As noted in
Chapter 1, a nation is a people who share a collective identity based on a common culture,
language, territorial base, and history. Today, there are roughly 200 internationally
recognized states in the world, most of which did not exist before the end of World War II
(1945). By contrast, there are about 5,000 nations (including tribes), many of which have
existed since “time immemorial.” Rarely do state and nation coincide, as they do, for
example, in Iceland, Japan, and Swaziland. About 73 percent of the world’s states are
pluralistic societies, having within their boundaries peoples of more than one nation.
Often, smaller nations (including tribes) and other groups find themselves at the mercy of
one or more dominant nations or ethnic groups controlling the state. Frequently facing
discrimination, even repression, some minority nations seek to improve their political
position by founding an independent state. In the process, they usually encounter stiff
opposition, even violent confrontations.
So it is with the Kurdish people inhabiting the borderlands of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey (Figure
23.2), the Palestinians whose lands have been occupied by Israel for several decades, and the
Chechens in the Russian federation, to cite but a few examples. While the outcome of armed
struggle may be the formation of a new state (such as Bosnia’s recent split from Serb-
dominated Yugoslavia), some nations have forged their own states without open violence.
Papua New Guinea in the southern Pacific, which became an independent state in 1975, is
one example of this.
An important aspect of the state is its delegation of authority to maintain order within and
outside its borders. Police, foreign ministries, war ministries, and other bureaucracies
function to control and punish disruptive acts of crime, dissension, and rebellion. By such
agencies the state asserts authority impersonally and in a consistent, predictable manner.
Western forms of government, like that of the United States (in reality, a superstate), of
course, are state governments, and their organization and workings are undoubtedly familiar
to most everyone.
An example of a not-so-familiar state is Swaziland in southern Africa. One of the world’s few
true nation states, it is home to the Swazi—a Bantu-speaking people. Although the Swazi are
primarily farmers, cattle raising is also practiced—and highly esteemed. In fact, the ritual,
wealth, and power of their authority system are all intricately linked with cattle. In addition
to farming and cattle raising, there is some specialization of labor; certain people are
specialists in ritual activities, metal smithing, wood carving, and pottery making. Their goods
and services are traded, although the Swazi do not have elaborate markets. The traditional
Swazi authority system was characterized by a highly developed dual monarchy (now a thing
of the past), a hereditary aristocracy, and elaborate kinship rituals, as well as by statewide
age sets. The king and his mother were the central figures of all national activity, linking all
the people of the Swazi state: They presided over higher courts, summoned national
gatherings, controlled age classes, allocated land, disbursed national wealth, took
precedence in ritual, and helped organize important social events. Advising the king were the
senior princes, who were usually his uncles and half-brothers. Between the king and the
princes were two specially created tinsila, or “blood brothers,” who were chosen from
certain common clans. These men were his shields, protecting him from evildoers and serving
him in intimate personal situations. In addition, the king was guided by two tindvuna, or
counselors, one civil and one military. The people of the state made their opinions known
through two councils: the liqoqo, or privy council (dissolved in 1986), composed of senior
princes, and the libanda, or council of state, composed of chiefs and headmen and open to all
adult males of the state. The liqoqo could advise the king, make decisions, and carry them
out. For example, they could rule on questions about land, education, traditional ritual, court
procedure, and transport. Swazi government extended from the smallest local unit—the
homestead—upward to the central administration. The head of a homestead had legal and
administrative powers; he was responsible for the crimes of those under him, controlled their
property, and spoke for them before his superiors. On the district level, political organization
was similar to that of the central government. The relationship between a district chief,
however, and his subjects was personal and familiar; he knew all the families in his district.
The main check on any autocratic tendencies he might have exhibited rested in his subjects’
ability to transfer their allegiance to a more responsive chief. Swazi offi cials held their
positions for life and were dismissed only for treason or witchcraft. Incompetence,
drunkenness, and stupidity were frowned upon, but they were not considered to be suffi
cient grounds for dismissal.
POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND THE QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY
Whatever form a society’s political system may take, it must find some way to obtain and
retain the people’s allegiance. In uncentralized systems, where every adult participates in all
decision making, loyalty and cooperation are freely given, since each person is considered a
part of the political system. As the group grows larger, however, and the organization
becomes more formal, the problem of obtaining and keeping public support becomes
greater. Centralized political systems may rely upon coercion as a means of social control.
This, however, carries a measure of risk since the personnel needed to apply force often must
be numerous and may grow to be a political power. Also, the emphasis on force may create
resentment and lessen cooperation. Thus, police states are generally short-lived; most
societies choose less extreme forms of social coercion. In the United States, this is reflected
in the increasing emphasis placed on cultural, as opposed to social, control. Laura Nader (see
Anthropologist of Note) is well known for her anthropological research concerning issues of
power, including social and cultural control.
Also basic to the political process is the concept of legitimacy, or the right of political leaders
to govern— to hold, use, and allocate power. Like force, legitimacy is a form of support for a
political system; unlike force, legitimacy is based on the values a particular society holds. For
example, among the Kapauku of western New Guinea discussed above, the legitimacy of the
tonowi’s power comes from his wealth; the kings of Hawaii, and of England and France
before their revolutions, were thought to have a divine right to rule; and the head of the
traditional Dahomey state in what is now Benin, West Africa, acquired legitimacy through his
age, as he was always the oldest living male. While the basis for legitimacy varies across
cultures, power based on legitimacy always results in authority. It is distinct from power
based solely on force: Obedience to authority results from the belief that obedience is
“right”; compliance to power based on force results from fear of being deprived of liberty,
physical well-being, life, or material property. Thus, power based on legitimacy is symbolic
and depends upon the positive expectations of those who recognize and accept it. If the
expectations are not met regularly (if the head of state fails to deliver economic prosperity or
the leader is continuously unsuccessful in preventing or dealing with calamities), the
legitimacy of the recognized power figure erodes or may collapse altogether.
Cambridge university press
UGANDA - Serafino Asemba presents his case to an Alur traditional court in Panyimur. Inset:
Serafino Asemba at the fig tree taking an oath to tell the truth.
“When giving your statement, you must hold a live tree. That’s how the ancestors hear you.
If you tell us lies we can feel it,” Ombidi added.
“The liar will faint, collapse, sweat profusely or stammer. That is why people fear coming to
the court if they know they are not going to tell the truth,” he says.
In the hot knife ordeal, only someone telling the truth is thought to not be burned when a
red hot knife blade is stroked across his leg. ---
Some rural people support traditional justice out of deep disillusionment with democracy
and its institutions in South Africa. “I trust the chief because he knows me, he knows where I
was born, he knows where I live,” said Mthembu Nelisiwe, a woman from a small village in
KwaZulu-Natal Province. “I can speak to him face to face. The people in Parliament don’t
know me.” Frustrated with allegations of corruption and incompetence involving the current
government, some people say they yearn for a simpler, more orderly time when chiefs and
kings ruled.
“We are having a lot of problems with kids who don’t want to go to school, who are drinking
and getting pregnant,” said Dingeni Jobe, a traditional leader in rural KwaZulu-Natal. “I feel
that power needs to be given back to the chiefs so we can rule in a right way.” Traditional
courts clearly play an important role in resolving local disputes. In Manhlaneni, a village in
Eastern Cape Province, Chief Luthando Dinwayo presided over a hearing recently in a tiny
courtroom with a corrugated tin roof. The closest magistrate court was 15 miles and an
expensive bus ride away, while this courtroom was within walking distance for the people
involved.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/world/africa/south-africa-looks-to-apply-tribal-
law.html)

Centralized Political Systems
political authority and power are concentrated in a single individual (the chief) or in a body of
individuals (the state)
Chiefdom
serves to unite members in all affairs and at all times
can distribute land among community members and recruit people into military service
usually control the economic activities of those who fall under their political rule (can
demand rice quota)
 Evidence of noble status: gaano kalapit to the chief, or wealth
Chiefdoms have a recognized hierarchy consisting of major and minor authorities who
control major and minor subdivisions. Such an arrangement is, in effect, a chain of command,
linking leaders at every level.
Aimata, who succeeded her deceased half-brother Pomare III as leader of the Polynesian
chiefdom of Tahiti in 1827, ruling as Queen Pomare IV until her death fifty years later.
Kpelle of Liberia in West Africa.
paramount chiefs’ traditional tasks are: hearing disputes, preserving order, seeing to the
upkeep of trails, and various other supervising functions
they are now salaried officials of the Liberian government, mediating between it and their
own people.
a paramount chief receives government commissions on taxes and court fees collected
within his chiefdom, plus a commission for furnishing the rubber plantations with laborers
he gets a stipulated amount of rice from each household and gifts from people who come to
request favors and intercessions
a paramount chief has at his disposal uniformed messengers, a literate clerk, and the symbols
of wealth: many wives, embroidered gowns, and freedom from manual labor
In a ranked hierarchy beneath each Kpelle paramount chief are several lesser chiefs: one for
each district within the chiefdom, one for each town within a district, and one for each
quarter of all but the smallest towns
town and quarter chiefs are readily accessible to people at the local level.
Unstable – Hawaii
State systems
A large population in a state-organized society requires increased food production and wider
distribution networks. Together, these lead to a transformation of the landscape by way of
irrigation and terracing, carefully managed crop rotation cycles, intensive competition for
clearly demarcated lands, roads, and enough farmers and other rural workers to support
market systems and a specialized urban sector.
Nowhere have states even begun to show the staying power exhibited by less centralized
political systems, the longest lasting social forms invented by humans.
STATE V.S NATION -
the Kurdish people inhabiting the borderlands of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey (Figure 23.2),
After World War I and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the victorious Western allies made
provision for a Kurdish state in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres. However, that promise was
nullified three years later, when the Treaty of Lausanne set the boundaries of modern Turkey
and made no such provision, leaving Kurds with minority status in their respective countries.
[35] This fact has led to numerous genocides and rebellions, along with the current ongoing
armed guerrilla conflicts in Turkey, Iran, and Syria / Rojava. Kurds have an autonomous
region in Iraq named the Kurdistan Region, while Kurdish nationalist movements continue to
pursue greater cultural rights, autonomy, and independence throughout Greater Kurdistan.
the Palestinians whose lands have been occupied by Israel for several decades
israel is the world’s only Jewish state, located just east of the Mediterranean Sea.
Palestinians, the Arab population that hails from the land Israel now controls, refer to the
territory as Palestine, and want to establish a state by that name on all or part of the same
land. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over who gets what land and how it’s controlled.
the formation of a new state (such as Bosnia’s recent split from Serb-dominated Yugoslavia)
- In Bosnia-Herzegovina, a referendum on independence took place in March 1992, but was
boycotted by the Serb minority. The republic declared its independence from Yugoslavia in
May 1992, while the Serbs in Bosnia declared their own areas an independent republic.
Papua New Guinea in the southern Pacific, which became an independent state in 1975
(During World War II, the New Guinea campaign (1942–1945) was one of the major military
campaigns and conflicts between Japan and the Allies. Approximately 216,000 Japanese,
Australian, and US servicemen died.[33] After World War II and the victory of the Allies, the
two territories were combined into the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. This was later
referred to as "Papua New Guinea".
The natives of Papua appealed to the United Nations for oversight and independence. The
nation established independence from Australia on 16 September 1975, becoming a
Commonwealth realm, continuing to share Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. It
maintains close ties with Australia, which continues to be its largest aid donor. Papua New
Guinea was admitted to membership in the United Nations on 10 October 1975.)
is Swaziland in southern Africa – nation state
Eswatini officially the Kingdom of Eswatini
The traditional Swazi authority system was characterized by a highly developed dual
monarchy (now a thing of the past), a hereditary aristocracy, and elaborate kinship rituals, as
well as by statewide age sets.
The king and his mother were the central figures of all national activity, linking all the people
of the Swazi state: They presided over higher courts, summoned national gatherings,
controlled age classes, allocated land, disbursed national wealth, took precedence in ritual,
and helped organize important social events.
senior princes, who were usually his uncles and half-brothers
2 tinsila, or “blood brothers,” who were chosen from certain common clans were his shields,
protecting him from evildoers and serving him in intimate personal situations
2 tindvuna, or counselors, one civil and one military
two councils:
the liqoqo, or privy council (dissolved in 1986), composed of senior princes - advise the king,
make decisions, and carry them out. For example, they could rule on questions about land,
education, traditional ritual, court procedure, and transport.
libanda, or council of state, composed of chiefs and headmen and open to all adult males of
the state
The head of a homestead had legal and administrative powers; he was responsible for the
crimes of those under him, controlled their property, and spoke for them before his
superiors.
On the district level, political organization was similar to that of the central government. The
relationship between a district chief, however, and his subjects was personal and familiar; he
knew all the families in his district.
Swazi officials held their positions for life and were dismissed only for treason or witchcraft.
Incompetence, drunkenness, and stupidity were frowned upon, but they were not
considered to be sufficient grounds for dismissal.

POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND THE QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY

Whatever form a society’s political system may take, it must find some way to obtain and
retain the people’s allegiance. In uncentralized systems, where every adult participates in all
decision making, loyalty and cooperation are freely given, since each person is considered a
part of the political system. As the group grows larger, however, and the organization
becomes more formal, the problem of obtaining and keeping public support becomes
greater. Centralized political systems may rely upon coercion as a means of social control.
This, however, carries a measure of risk since the personnel needed to apply force often must
be numerous and may grow to be a political power. Also, the emphasis on force may create
resentment and lessen cooperation. Thus, police states are generally short-lived; most
societies choose less extreme forms of social coercion. In the United States, this is reflected
in the increasing emphasis placed on cultural, as opposed to social, control.
Also basic to the political process is the concept of legitimacy, or the right of political leaders
to govern— to hold, use, and allocate power. Like force, legitimacy is a form of support for a
political system; unlike force, legitimacy is based on the values a particular society holds.
For example, among the Kapauku of western New Guinea discussed above, the legitimacy of
the tonowi’s power comes from his wealth; the kings of Hawaii, and of England and France
before their revolutions, were thought to have a divine right to rule; and the head of the
traditional Dahomey state in what is now Benin, West Africa, acquired legitimacy through his
age, as he was always the oldest living male. While the basis for legitimacy varies across
cultures, power based on legitimacy always results in authority. It is distinct from power
based solely on force: Obedience to authority results from the belief that obedience is
“right”; compliance to power based on force results from fear of being deprived of liberty,
physical well-being, life, or material property. Thus, power based on legitimacy is symbolic
and depends upon the positive expectations of those who recognize and accept it. If the
expectations are not met regularly (if the head of state fails to deliver economic prosperity or
the leader is continuously unsuccessful in preventing or dealing with calamities), the
legitimacy of the recognized power figure erodes or may collapse altogether.