Critical African Studies

ISSN: 2168-1392 (Print) 2040-7211 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcaf20

Editorial: understanding how ‘Africa works’?

Alexander Beresford

To cite this article: Alexander Beresford (2014) Editorial: understanding how ‘Africa works’?,
Critical African Studies, 6:1, 1-5, DOI: 10.1080/21681392.2014.888879

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681392.2014.888879

Published online: 06 Mar 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2752

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcaf20
Critical African Studies, 2014
Vol. 6, No. 1, 1–5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21681392.2014.888879

EDITORIAL
Editorial: understanding how ‘Africa works’?

It is with great sadness that the African Studies community has learnt of the death of Professor
Patrick Chabal. Patrick was a member of the Critical African Studies Advisory Board and he
will be greatly missed. This journal previously housed a debate on his recent work Africa: The
Politics of Suffering and Smiling in one of our first issues (cf. Critical African Studies, Vol. 1,
Issue 2, 2009), and it is perhaps fitting that at this sad time the journal returns to focus on
some of the core issues that Patrick debated during his long and illustrious career.
Chabal’s book that he co-authored with Jean-Pascal Daloz, Africa Works (Chabal and Daloz
1999) contributed to an on-going debate about the seemingly endemic nature of patron–client ties
at the centre of African social and political life. Chabal and Daloz famously declared the urgent
need to reconceptualise how we understand what, on the surface, appears to be the dysfunctional
and chaotic modus operandi of African state politics. They implored political scientists to find
order in the ‘chaos’; to understand the ‘instrumentalisation of disorder’. ‘Africa works’, they
claimed, but not in a way that was easily recognizable to Western political scientists. Just
because African politics was not conducive to the kind of economic and political development
predicted by modernization theorists, this did not mean Africa was in some way bereft of mod-
ernity. Chabal and Daloz (1999, 144–147) assert that Africa’s ‘modernity’ should not be measured
by how well its political institutions mimic those of the Western world, and that it should instead
be understood on its own terms.
The ‘Africanised’ political modernity Chabal and Daloz identified was grounded in the logics
of reciprocity within patron–client relationships. Engaging with Hyden’s (1983) concept of the
‘economy of affection’, they argued that:

The aim of political elites is not just to gather power. It is more fundamentally to use that power, and
the resources which it can generate, to purchase, as it were, the ‘affection’ of their people. (Chabal and
Daloz 1999, 158)

African politics thus ‘works’ through the distribution of the resources of the state (power, status,
wealth, access to markets, etc.) through informal, deeply personalised patron-client networks,
rather than the formal, impersonalized channels of the Weberian legal-rational state that suppo-
sedly characterizes ‘modern’ Western statehood. A cyclical relationship emerges in which
resources are distributed through patronage networks to regenerate the political power of ‘big
men’, and political power (access to state spoils) is used to replenish the resources needed to
maintain these networks. As Allen (1995, 304) famously argued: ‘to have power was to have
the means to reproduce it; to lose power, however, was to risk never having the means to
regain it’.
This neopatrimonial politics is, therefore, not synonymous with corruption (though corruption
is a pervasive symptom of it). Instead, it reflects a social structure, tied to the state, through which
power is disseminated, maintained and cultivated. Such political structures should not be exoti-
cised as a uniquely African dynamic, rooted in some form of age-old tradition that is impervious

© 2014 Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh

2 Editorial

to Western rationality and modernity: neopatrimonial political systems are a product of the colo-
nial encounter. They are, as Cooper (2002) put it, ‘not “African” institutions, nor are they
“European” impositions; they emerged out of a peculiar Euro-African History’. African states
are thus successors to the colonial state because, like the colonial state, they are reliant on an exter-
nal, legal recognition of their sovereignty, and the resources that they can access as a result from it
(loans, aid, rents, investment, etc.) are essential for their maintenance of political power. A ‘gate-
keeper state’ complex thus emerges where controlling access to the state and its resources
becomes the primary preoccupation of ‘big men’ in positions of state authority, who must, like
their colonial predecessors, ‘sit astride the interface between a territory and the rest of world, col-
lecting and distributing resources that derived from the gate itself’ (Cooper 2002, 157).
For political elites, power thus becomes a zero sum, winner-takes-all struggle for control of
the legally recognized state and its resources. But such power struggles are not just the domain
of the political elites, however. They permeate all levels of society, reaching from statehouse to
village, as people strive to gain some form of access to resources through local patronage net-
works. Bayart (2009, 222) famously discusses this as part of the ‘politics of the belly’, where
both elites and ordinary people are forced to engage in a ‘life and death social struggle’ for
access to state resources (the national cake). Some will get a thick slice, some will be lucky to
eat crumbs, but all are nonetheless drawn into the struggle. Maintaining a ‘big man’s’ political
authority rests, therefore, not necessarily on augmenting positive developmental outcomes for
the nation as a whole, but on being capable of meeting the needs of his political family,
because while the father/patron is expected to eat, he must also ensure his children/clients are
able to eat as well (Schatzberg 2001). This often leads to short-termism, rather than long-term
developmental planning because:

The logic of neopatrimonialism is focused on the proximate: the local and the communal. Its legiti-
macy depends on the ability to deliver to those who are linked with political elites through the
micro-networks of patronage and clientelism. There is no scope within such a perspective for defer-
ring to a larger but less immediate macro-rationality, most significantly to the greater good of the
country as a whole. Clients will not necessarily accept sacrifices for more ambitious national goals
in a context where it is assumed that patrons only work for their clients. So that the claim by one
Big Man that he must reduce expenditures on his clients because resources are needed for national
development would not normally be credible or acceptable. (Chabal and Daloz 1999, 161)

For Chabal and Daloz (1999, 162), neopatrimonialism thus remains an entrenched feature of
African politics, one that even revered leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Julius Nyerere
would be unable to overhaul because:

The fact remains … that the ability of such exceptional leaders to move the political system beyond its
present rationality is limited, not primarily because of a lack of ambition but much more fundamen-
tally because of the nature of existing forms of political legitimacy. In the end, there is an interlocking
neopatrimonial logic between the deep ambitions of the political elites and the well-grounded expec-
tations of their clients.

As they themselves admit, this pessimistic assessment is ‘far from cheering’ (Chabal and Daloz
1999, 162). But is it valid?
Allen (1995) famously warned Africanists against trying to homogenize our understanding of
politics in Africa, pointing to the manner in which not all African states follow exactly the same
path into one-dimensional neopatrimonial ‘spoils’ politics. In doing so, he echoes the call of
Chazan et al. (1992, 14) for us to recognize that ‘there is not one but many Africas’. Indeed,
while Chabal and Daloz’s ambitious attempt at forging generalizable conclusions about
 Editorial 3

African politics is commendable, recent studies have nonetheless highlighted the importance of
examining the heterogeneity of the neopatrimonial politics system.
Scholars working for the ‘Africa Power and Politics Programme’ have argued that neopatri-
monialism is not entirely incompatible with a developmental agenda and strong GDP growth
rates. Kelsall (2011, 76), for example, argues from case studies of Cote d’Ivoire, Malawi and
Rwanda that ‘provided mechanisms can be found to centralize economic rents and manage
them with a view to the long term’ that ‘neopatrimonialism can be harnessed for developmental
ends’. He argues that developmental institutions should try to work with, rather than against, the
grain of neopatrimonial political systems; taking the political systems as they find them and navi-
gating within them, rather than expending all their efforts attempting (often in vain) to transform
them. This conclusion is shared by Booth and Golooba-Mutebi (2012) who argue that Rwanda in
particular exhibits a form of ‘developmental patrimonialism’ because of the ruling Rwandan
Patriotic Front’s (RPF) capacity to curtail short-term rent-seeking behaviour (e.g. petty corrup-
tion) in order to generate ‘long-horizon’ rent-seeking opportunities in the form of economic
growth from which the RPF’s various holding companies can profit. In short, turning efficient
neoliberal economic management into a resource-generating vehicle for patronage.
Is it possible for neopatrimonialism to be developmental? How can non-state actors, non gov-
ernmental organisations (NGOs) and ordinary Africans navigate neopatrimonial politics for their
own benefit? It is to these questions that this issue turns with a series of articles grounded in
detailed ethnographic studies from across the continent.
Pete Kingsley compares how health professionals and international health NGOs interact with
local neopatrimonial political systems in Kebbi State, Nigeria. Engaging with Kelsall’s arguments
about ‘going with the grain’ of neopatrimonialism, Kingsley argues that doctors have been rela-
tively successful in negotiating with, and navigating around, the local state. He finds that they are:

nimble enough to exploit opportunities (such as upcoming elections) and sufficiently deft to blend
occasional confrontation with supportive engagement. They are skilled at moving between roles
and registers – one day the dutiful supporter of the government, the next a public-minded physician
ready to raise the alarm for his imperilled patients, the day after that, dutiful once more.

He argues that this makes them capable of capitalizing on the malleable, negotiable nature of local
neopatrimonial politics. On the other hand, Kingsley finds that, despite pursuing similar goals, the
international health NGO is not as flexible in its strategies, and that international pressure for
transparency and accountability renders it difficult for the organization to achieve its aims. Kings-
ley’s study does not romanticize the relative success of the doctors, however, and warns that their
‘flexibility in tactics implies a concomitment flexibility in ethics’, echoing Kelsall’s (2011)
warning that ‘going with the grain’ of neopatrimonialism may serve to undermine democracy
and encourage further the pursuit of spoils. Such dilemmas confront all developmental actors
in Africa and arguably lie at the centre of debates regarding their future conduct; debates that
should also prompt social scientists to rethink our own understandings about the developmental
potential of neopatrimonial politics.
Kathy Dodworth also explores the tactics and strategies of NGOs in their dealings with the
state, this time with a focus on the work of two NGOs in Bagamoyo, Tanzania. Dodworth is con-
cerned with how NGOs undertake to legitimate themselves through continuously repositioning
themselves vis-à-vis the government. Once again, Dodworth’s study illuminates a dynamic and
ever-changing political playing field rather than a static local politics of neopatrimonialism.
This forces the NGOs to adopt a highly flexible and adaptable strategy for dealing with local gov-
ernment authorities. This involves cosying up to the local state in certain circumstances, position-
ing themselves as a pliant partner of government and thus bolstering their own legitimacy by
4 Editorial

borrowing from government authority and the deeply entrenched discourse of the ‘development
state’ in Tanzania. In other instances, however, Dodworth notes how they are sometimes com-
pelled to change tactics and will resort to ‘crafting a separation and distance from the government
when it is expedient to do so’. They are, she concludes, ‘neither “surrogates” of the state nor
intrinsic adversaries but strategists in a political playing field who continually and creatively
craft their space and opportunity to act’.
The third article in the issue by Davide Chinigo examines top-down governmental reforms in
Ethiopia and how, at the local level, such reforms reconfigure the relationship between the state
and farmers and how, crucially, farmers are confronted with a dilemma as to whether to swim with
the tide of reforms or attempt to resist them. Once again, the article examines issues relating to the
notion of the ‘developmental state’ in Africa, drawing on local experiences of the state in the
Oromiya region. Chinigo argues that under the cloak of ‘decentralisation’, the agrarian reforms
actually serve to enhance and extend the power of the ruling party into the rural areas while
also creating ‘considerable opportunities for corruption and patronage’. He finds that in a
context ‘where land is an increasingly scarce resource, the power accorded to local officials’
over land allocations ‘is central to the reproduction and legitimation of patronage relations’.
Farmers thus find themselves in an unenviable position where, due to the asymmetrical power
relationship between themselves and the local party, they are forced into publicly demonstrating
their support for such reforms, lest they be cut adrift from the favour of local officials. And yet this
disciplinary patronage relationship is also resisted, and Chinigo explores how through the ‘hidden
transcript’ of farmers’ resistance one can witness the manner in which such inequitable power
relationships are challenged.
Felix Conteh and David Harris’ article draws attention away from the focus on developmental
issues of land and health to instead focus on how neopatrimonial politics affects the practice of
politics during elections. Drawing on a detailed case study of Sierra Leone’s 2012 national elec-
tion, they highlight the manner in which the electoral contest continues to be characterized by
patronage, vote buying, fraud and violence. Conteh and Harris argue that Sierra Leone’s demo-
cratization should not be understood as a gradual process towards becoming a more liberal,
Western model of democracy, and that if anything, what has been consolidated is a very particular
‘Sierra Leonean’ type of democracy. In doing so, they reaffirm Chabal and Daloz (1999) argument
that we must understand Africa’s political modernity on its own terms rather than in relation to
Western political practice. Their case study also highlights the on-going manner in which elec-
tions actually serve to entrench neopatrimonial politics in Africa rather than leading to a move
away from such political practice (Lindberg 2003). What their study highlights is the dynamic
ways in which ‘the unwritten neopatrimonial rules of the system have been incorporated,
adapted, somewhat expanded and occasionally set aside within electoral politics’.
In a similar vein to Chinigo’s piece, Stephanie Terreni Brown examines the manner in which
state governance serves to marginalize local communities. She examines how sanitation infra-
structure provision in Kampala, Uganda has evolved over time, arguing that the current state
of the infrastructure still bears the footprint of colonial attempts to systematically exclude
certain populations from access to basic sanitation. She argues that the absence of basic sanitation
infrastructure in the global South is often presented as a ‘crisis’, illustrative of a deficient level of
urban modernity. However, Terreni Brown uncovers a political rationality behind this underdeve-
lopment; what Chabal and Daloz (1999) would call ‘the instrumentalisation of disorder’. The
manner in which infrastructure is only extended to commercial and upper-class areas of
Kampala ‘perpetuates distinctions between in/formal and un/sanitary urbanity’ and produces ‘vul-
nerability, marginality and abjectivity’ for the majority of Kampala’s residents. This serves pol-
itical ends because ‘power is consolidated on the basis of exclusion and exemption’ and the
 Editorial 5

absence of sanitation infrastructures ‘became one way of managing, or withholding, the rights of
“informal” urban inhabitants’.
The final article has a completely different focus from the other articles within this issue.
Alexander Bud examines the Nigerian film industry aka Nollywood, which has gained increasing
international attention in recent years to such an extent that some now claim it to be the second
largest film industry in the world and a significant employer in the Nigerian economy. Bud dis-
putes these claims but nonetheless examines how such narratives have prompted significant dis-
putes in recent years as the Nigerian state has sought to increase its control and influence within
the industry. Bud examines how various actors within the film industry have reacted to such
reforms, once again highlighting the multiple repertoires of engagement with the state which
local actors use in order to navigate the outreach of state elites.
Through this diverse range of case studies the issue, therefore, offers some important empiri-
cal insights into how, as social scientists, we should understand the contemporary nature of state–
society relations in Africa. They offer a window into the heterogeneity of neopatrimonial systems,
as well illustrating some of the shared logics of neopatrimonialism that can be identified across
this varied range of cases. They do not aim to provide a definitive impression that ‘Africa
works’, but they nonetheless contribute to our understandings of these important questions
lying at the core of African Studies.

References
Allen, Chris. 1995. “Understanding African Politics.” Review of African Political Economy 22 (65):
301–320.
Bayart, Jean Francois. 2009. The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Booth, David, and Frederick Golooba-Mutebi. 2012. “Developmental Patrimonialism? The Case of
Rwanda.” African Affairs 111 (444): 379–403. doi:10.1093/afraf/ads026
Chabal, Patrick, and Jean-Pascal Daloz. 1999. Africa Works: Disorder as Political Instrument. Oxford:
James Currey.
Chazan, Naomi, Peter Lewis, Robert Mortimer, Donald Rothchild, and Stephen John Stedman. 1992.
Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Cooper, Frederick. 2002. Africa since 1940: The Past in the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hyden, Goran. 1983. No Shortcuts to Progress: African Development Management in Perspective. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Kelsall, Tim. 2011. “Rethinking the Relationship between Neo-Patrimonialism and Economic Development
in Africa.” IDS Bulletin 42 (2): 76–87. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00213.x
Lindberg, Stefan. 2003. “‘It’s Our Time to Chop’: Do Elections Feed Neoptrimonialism Rather than Counter
It?” Democratization 10 (2): 121–140.
Schatzberg, Michael M. 2001. Political Legitimacy in Middle Africa: Father, Family, Food. IN: Indiana
University Press.

Alexander Beresford
School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK