Clientelism, Tribalism, and Ethnic Conflict in Africa

In this essay I go a counsel foremost examine and break down the components of the question. I pull up stakes collapse and clarify the meaning of Clientelism, Tribalism and heathen remainder and deal with each of these as split up enterties. Although I will reason each of them on a separate basis. I aim also to show the complex interlinked transactionhips among the three themes, and argue that because of this the central argument of the question is non comfortably con chance variable tod or resistd with.My main argument however, will be to disagree with the central question and advocate that Clientelism was a fraction of Africas tradition want to begin with any nonion of freshity and colonial influence was show up in the continent. I will provide empirical evidence, which have gots the inherent figurehead of Clientelism, and also show how it has strong links with Tribalism, in both its record and modern perpetuation.Tribalism however is a contrastive matte r and I agree with the central assignment and advocate that modern African tribalism and notions of heathenishity were mainly a direct result of colonial imposed modernity restructuring. For the final part of my answer I will provide an argument that African ethnic departure lies somewhere in the midst of the two extremes, that it was state in African bon ton forrader colonial modernity and it was further exacerbated by the restructuring that colonialism brought ab come forth.In my conclusion I will further justify my arguments and advocate a thesis for future victimisation in Africa on tribalism, ethnic participation and clientelism. Whether clientelism, tribalism and ethnic departure were a ware not of tradition provided of modernity in Africa and a type of development is a ambitious and complex question in umteen respects, except one to which I fool a strong argument. To study this it would be practical to firstly define what I sh completely mean by modernity an d the type of development in relation to the main statement, as it will form the crux of the matter of my argument.By modernity and type of development in Africa I will be foc employ on colonialism and justifying whether clientelism, tribalism and ethnic meshing were drink in the lead the comer of colonialization or whether they eruptd from the impertinent(a) company that restructuring colonial development brought with it. I intend finished looking at African night club in its modern context and studying empirical data that it is evident to visualise whether the three main themes of this essay where present before or a after carrefour. What is not so clear however is the complex linkages between and the contexts they op termte in.I advocate for instance that it is impossible to separate out clientelism from tribalism, and that ethnic conflict is closely think to both of these. Due to this in separate to justify and construct my argument I must separate out clientelism , tribalism and ethnic conflict and study them individually. Clientelism To determine from what circumstances Clientelism in African emanated it is important to define the term itself and what it means in African society. Clientelism is also known as booster-client relations/politics, and in its modern form is highly evident in African society.This clientelism is an ex switch between actors who have incommensurate balance of world-beater, one being weaker, and the other being stronger. It is the patron who is the to a greater extent roleful and the client who is normally the weaker of the two. The exchange between client and patron is form when the more exponentful patron offers something, be it odd resources or protection to the weaker client. This weaker client offers something back in return, perhaps support or other services to the patron who is in a more dominant position. bound up with important ties of reprocity linking those who argon related deep down networks of ve rtical relationships.Clientelism can be notioned on both micro and large levels as a phenomenon of African society (although it is evident elsewhere),and to assess from where this Clientelism originated from it is essential to see where it is present in modern society. In modern mean solar day Africa these patron -client relationships are most visible in the political arena. I argue that clientelism although it is pervasive in African politics did not emerge as a direct result of colonisation, which most mickle would view as the birthplace of modern African politics and political institutions as a result of the restructuring of African society.Instead I advocate that Clientelism, although present in modern day politics was in place strong before the colonial date of reference and was present in tradition and the succession before any notion of modernity was in Africa. I mean clientelism was evident in the traditional African way of life. Pre-Colonial African society was in t erms stateless. There was no formal state. African society was establish around a system of patron-client relationships, which were the fundamental core of society.Where in that respect was no state in that respect was no other system, in a vast continent holding various competing tribes and peoples in order for there to be a society arbitrating, protecting and plenty were all centred around these unequal deals between various networks. The power relations of pre-colonial Africa were typically of patrons and clients. Big Men presided oer intricate networks of clientage involving reciprocal alone unequal relations with small boys, as well as power oer women and children and those held in the diverse forms and degrees of servitude of pawnship and slavery.2 Patron-client networks as evident today I argue are based around extended family (and later as I will discuss) tribal loyalties evident from traditional African life. African communities were pervaded by relations of supremacy and dependence, based on patriarchal power exercised across differences of genders and generations, lineages and clans, languages and cultures. 3 The arrival of Colonialism and modernity had utilised these already existing patron-client relationships and used them for their own ends.The colonial administrators sought chief headmen and perpetuated clientelism by supplementing their meagre salaries and earnings they gained from their official positions with monies gained from trade and other bonuses. (Berman) Chiefs and headmen were the essential linkage between the colonial state and African societies. This relationship typically took on a patron-client form, and had several important and strange consequences. 4 So I argue quite a than colonialism creating these patron client linkages it only if utilised them.I retrieve that clientelism at it is today cauline from the traditional African societies. So to reiterate African society pre-colonial era although traditional was not so natural and traditionally uncorrupted to be devoid of the practice of clientelism that we so readily see as rotting today. That is was present and a working framework for society. The other runs the risk, in reaction, of idealising the virtues of a pre-colonial era supposedly devoid of depravation, the growth of which is supposed to have been caused by the sexual perversion of the social order induced by the arrival of the colonialist Europeans. 5I argue that modernity and the arrangement of formal political institutions and frameworks of power merely perpetuated Clientelism and provided brisk avenues for the patron-client relationships based on new networks of power. What had eternally gone on before merely was allowed to operate in a new arena. African politics became politics of the belly, where individuals used public means for private gain. The scarcity of resources in Africa being as it is, if one person holds an office where he/she controls resources or power politics becomes a way of utilising patron-client networks to distribute these resources and gain support and power. made patron/client relations not only the fundamental mode of ingress to the state and its resources, but also, as in pre-colonial society, the fundamental relationship between ordinary people and those with wealth or power. As before in pre-colonial society clientelism formed the basis of a persons power by means of the number of people he had domination and arrangements over, now in politics a persons political power is based on how many people pledge support through reciprocal client-patron networks in return for favours.Clientelism hasnt been formed it has merely morphed into a new generation of deals. Where land was plentiful and populations small, wealth and power were measured in control of people, in having a large following of family and non-kin dependants. 7 In politics this clientelism has become diverse, not created by modernity but fitted for its use in formal political positions. Peter Ekeh (1975) described this as being the formation in African society of two publics, where Clientelism has been and always is the norm.That the same political actors act in both systems of a civic public and the Primordial public. The citizen in the Civic public works in the beaurocratic institutions of the state, in a supposedly amoral system. The citizen takes from his position and gives nothing in return. This is through clientelism and a network of contacts where state resources and power can be distributed in this way. However the same person in his Primordial public, largely associated with ethnic tribalism and belonging to an extended family/ community, gives out and gets nothing in return.Due to the chemical attraction of this the actor is expected to do wide-cut for his own community, by using his political position. The identify idea in Ekehs case then is that the good man channels part of the largesse of the civic public to the primal publi c. This shows the complex links between the old clientelism networks and what I will argue as the more modern artificial tribal relationships in African society. Tribalism Tribalism in its present form in Africa however is not a traditional aspect of African culture I argue as Clientelism had been, but a product of the development imposed on the kingdom by Colonialism.Colonialism and the social and economic changes it brought with it created the sense of tribalism and strong ethnic identities that are present in modern Africa. That tribes were not traditionally based but created in a means to gain power, resources and recognition in the cognitive operation of colonial modernising. The accumulating weight of evidence shows that African ethnicity and its relationship to politics is new not old a response to capitalist modernity molded by similar forces to those related to the development of ethnic nationalism in Europe since the late nineteenth century. This is not to say there wer e not tribes in the pre-colonial era, but I weigh what tribes existed there were, not so ethnically divided. That the tribes were various groups of mixed race and language peoples who were in a constant state of flux, without the fixed ethnic boundaries one finds today. Pre-colonial political and socio- pagan boundaries were mark by fuzziness and flexibility and Africans existed within a reality of multiple, co-occur and alternative collective identities. 9 What created these tribal identities therefore if they were not present in traditional African society was the arrival of colonialism.Europeans were of the assumption that African tribes were the basis of society. That the tribes had neat compact boundaries and consisted of culturally identical peoples. This assumption I argue was the basis for tribal asylum, as the missionaries especially and other state institutions sought to formalise and categorise these tribal units. The recording of culture and the principle to a whole area of a supposedly local language, which in many cases was merely a local dialect, began to bring differing peoples unneurotic.This wiped out some cultural differences and creating infatuated collectives of tribal peoples often not historically related, but brought together by colonial boundaries. The ideology and culture of colonialism, especially in the imagining of African societies by colonial officials and European missionaries, provided the dominant cognitive context model the invention of tribes and their customs by Africans themselves. 10 If the colonial rulers and administration could state links with these tribes then, through working with the traditional ruling groups in Africa they gained legitimacy in their operations and ruling of the area.By working with these fixed tribes, the colonial rulers could adjourn and control the local populace by breaking it down into smaller loyal groups. In reality the creation of tribes made it easier for the colonial beaurocrac y to rule. severally administrative unit ideally contained a single culturally and lingually homogenous tribe in which people continued to live within the natural institutions and were subject to tribal discipline through local structures of authority. 11Although this was a key issue in the creation of Africa tribalism however, I believe that the stronger reason for the formation of tribes was for political gain and recognition. Due to this European notion of African tribalism, in order to hold power with the colonial administration actors must be part of a clearly fixed ethnic group. This created political tribalism, which was the creation of ethnicities by elite groups in African society to gain access to resources and to seek the foundations for a conservative modernisation.In short it was the manipulation of tribal ethnic identities by Africans themselves for political and economic gains in the face of colonial changes. Ethnic collective action, according to Mozaffar, is pred ominantly a process of strategical political interaction between self-interested actors with divergent interests. 12 Ethnic Conflict Ethnic Conflict has both strong links with tribalism and clientelism in Africa. I believe its origin is not so easy to pinpoint as it has been for tribalism and patron-client relations but that ethnic conflict is merely a product of the two.It was evident in pre-colonial society and was heightened and exacerbated by the modern formation of tribes in the colonial era as I have previously described. Ethnic Conflict was present in traditional African society. African society had never been egalitarian in nature, and a society in which there are unequal power relations is ultimately to have conflict in its midst. Pre-colonial societies were thus full of conflict and competition, instability and change. What I believe was created by the form of colonial development placed on Africa was the add in ethnic tensions as new tribes and identities were created .Resources in Africa are whitewash scarce and the modern beaurocratic frame work and political distribution of power has led to ethnic conflict becoming more fierce and modern in its use of warfare and state apparatus. The tribal divisions between the Hutus and Tutsis and the result Rwandan war and genocide are examples of this. As the colonial era created false country borders this conflict now often seeps out between neighbouring countries, comprising of different tribal identities over land and resources.I believe the colonial era did not create tribal conflict but merely change the scale that it is played out upon and provided it with state apparatus, militia, armies that now take conflict into a modern era, on a wider and more devastating scale. last It is clear to see then that tribalism, ethnic conflict and clientelism, although intricately related all have different origins. I advocate however that they were all evident in some way or form before any type of modernity was present in Africa.Although I believe Clientelism and ethnic conflict were not created by the development in the colonial era they were not solved or prevented by colonial restructuring. They soundless persist today. Ethic conflict I argue was present before the arrival of the Europeans in Africa on a localised scale as fighting between the complex and varied tribes on the continent. With the arrival of colonialism I believe it was merely aggravated by the adaptation of formal tribes and the throw together in politics for scarce resources, power and recognition.I argue that it has merely adapted and become a more serious problem as the apparatus of state have been used to fight wars etc. The conflict now envelops far larger groups of people and even countries constructed by the colonial boundaries of ethnicity and country. Clientelism is pervasive throughout African politics. It is our normative viewing of clientelism today, as corruption in Africa that I believe has led to some be lieving it was is not in existence in pre-colonial society but a product of the introduction of formal politics and modernity in Africa. of idealising the virtues of a pre-colonial era supposedly devoid of corruption, the growth of which is supposed to have been caused by the perversion of the social order induced by the arrival of colonialist Europeans. What I believe we must consider however that we are applying the principles of the old African order rather to a new context of modern development and democratic politics, etc where impartiality is presupposed. This is what makes us view clientelism as a modern phenomenon rather than its rightful place as a traditional form of relations in African society.This is the opposite with tribalism, where many suppose it as a traditional part of African society. It was this European view of tribalism that thought of it as such, however closer examination reveals it to be a politically self-propelled and deliberately constructed phenomenon . It was not a traditional aspect of society that was carried over into colonial modernity but a means by which if African created a concrete identity they could gain power and resources in a system which colonialism brought about.