Clientelism, Tribalism, and Ethnic Conflict in Africa

In this essay I will foremost examine and break down the components of the question. I will cleave and cryst onlyise the meaning of Clientelism, Tribalism and ethnical involvement and deal with each of these as break away enterties. Although I will surround each of them on a separate priming coat. I aim in all case to show the multiform interlinked kinships amongst the terzetto themes, and beseech that beca use of goods and services of this the rally argument of the question is non easily agree or disagreed with.My main argument so far, will be to disagree with the aboriginal question and advocate that Clientelism was a leave of Africas tradition long ahead any notion of new-madeity and compound influence was extradite in the continent. I will provide empirical evidence, which supports the inherent presence of Clientelism, and too show how it has strong associate with Tribalism, in both its history and innovative perpetuation.Tribalism however is a different matter and I agree with the central statement and advocate that modern African tribalism and notions of culturality were mainly a look result of compound imposed contemporaneousness restructuring. For the final part of my make step up I will provide an argument that African culturalal affair lies somewhere between the two extremes, that it was personate in African golf club in the first placehand compound modernity and it was further exacerbated by the restructuring that colonialism brought about.In my expiry I will further justify my arguments and advocate a thesis for future development in Africa on tribalism, ethnic conflict and clientelism. Whether clientelism, tribalism and ethnic conflict were a product not of tradition that of modernity in Africa and a type of development is a difficult and entang guide question in realityy respects, but one to which I commit a strong argument. To study this it would be practical to firstly mold what I shall mean by modern ity and the type of development in relation to the main statement, as it will form the crux of my argument.By modernity and type of development in Africa I will be focusing on colonialism and justifying whether clientelism, tribalism and ethnic conflict were present before the reach of colonialization or whether they emerged from the new society that restructuring colonial development brought with it. I regard through looking at African society in its modern context and studying empirical data that it is b be to determine whether the triple main themes of this essay where present before or a by and by product. What is not so fire however is the complex linkages between and the contexts they run low in.I advocate for instance that it is impossible to separate out clientelism from tribalism, and that ethnic conflict is closely related to both of these. Due to this in govern 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 k outrightn as jockstrap-client transaction/ authorities, and in its modern form is extremely unembellished in African society.This clientelism is an exchange between promoters who have odds-on balance of power, one macrocosm weaker, and the another(prenominal) being stronger. It is the booster who is the more(prenominal) powerful and the client who is normally the weaker of the two. The exchange between client and patron is formed when the more powerful patron offers something, be it just 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 governing position. bound up with important ties of reprocity linking those who are related within networks of vertical relationships.Clientelism can be viewed on both micro and macro levels as a phenomenon of African society (although it is apparent elsewhere),and to assess from where this Clientelism originated from it is necessary to pick up where it is present in modern society. In modern day Africa these patron -client relationships are most visible in the policy-making arena. I argue that clientelism although it is distributive in African politics did not emerge as a direct result of colonisation, which most people would view as the birthplace of modern African politics and policy-making institutions as a result of the restructuring of African society.Instead I advocate that Clientelism, although present in modern day politics was in place advantageously before the colonial term and was present in tradition and the season before any notion of modernity was in Africa. I consider clientelism was pellucid in the conventional African way of life. Pre-Colonial African society was in terms stateless. There was no formal state. African society was base around a constitution of patron-client relationships, which were the fundamental core of society.Where there was no state there was no other system, in a gigantic continent holding various competing tribes and peoples in hunting lodge for there to be a society arbitrating, protecting and trade 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 over entangled networks of clientage involving reciprocatory but unequal relations with small boys, as well as power over 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 ground around extended family (and later as I will discuss) tribal true-blueties evident from handed-down African life. African communities were pervaded by relations of dominatio n and dependence, establish on patriarchal power exercised across differences of genders and extensions, lineages and clans, languages and cultures. 3 The reaching of Colonialism and modernity had utilised these already existing patron-client relationships and used them for their own ends.The colonial administrators assay 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 contradictory consequences. 4 So I argue quite a than colonialism creating these patron client linkages it exactly utilised them.I intend that clientelism at it is today stemmed from the traditionalistic African societies. So to reiterate African society pre-colonial era although tradit ional was not so natural and traditionally uncorrupted to be bare of the practice of clientelism that we so readily see as corruption 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 purportedly devoid of corruption, the growth of which is supposed to have been caused by the sexual perversion of the sociable order induced by the arrival of the colonialist europiumans. 5I argue that modernity and the formation of formal political institutions and frameworks of power that perpetuated Clientelism and provided new avenues for the patron-client relationships based on new networks of power. What had always gone on before but was allowed to operate in a new arena. African politics became politics of the belly, where individuals used frequent social occasion for offstage gain. The scarcity of resources in Africa being as it is, if one person holds an office where he/she conditions r esources or power politics becomes a way of utilising patron-client networks to flounder these resources and gain support and power. made patron/client relations not only the fundamental mode of access 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 al-Qaida of a persons power through 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 mince 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 able fo r 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 selfsame(prenominal) 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. up to now the same person in his Primordial public, largely associated with ethnic tribalism and belong to an extended family/ community, gives out and gets nothing in return.Due to the kinship of this the actor is expected to do good for his own community, by using his political position. The key idea in Ekehs case then is that the good man channels part of the largesse of the civic public to the p rimordial public. 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 region 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 process 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 shaped 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 believe 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 continuous state of flux, without the fixed ethnic boundaries one finds today. Pre-colonial political and socio-cultural boundaries were marked by fuzziness and flexibility and Africans existed within a reality of multiple, overlapping and election 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 creation, as the missionaries especially and other state institutions want to formalise and categorise these tribal units. The recording of culture and the teaching to a whole area of a supposedly local language, which in many cases was merely a local dialect, began to bring differing peoples together.This wiped out some cultural differences and creating glowering 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 moulding the imposture of tribes and their customs by Africans themselves. 10 If the colonial rulers and administration could claim links with these tribes then, through working with the traditional ruling groups in Africa they gained legitimacy in their trading operations and ruling of the area.By working with these fixed tribes, the colonial rulers could fragment 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 beaurocracy to rule. Each administrative unit ideally contained a single culturally and linguistically undiversified tribe in which people continued to live within the indigenous institutions and were hooked to tribal discipline through local structures of authority. 11Although this was a key come forth 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. ethnical collective action, accord ing to Mozaffar, is predominantly a process of strategic 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 increase in ethnic tensions as new tribes an d identities were created.Resources in Africa are still 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 fightfare and state utensil. The tribal divisions between the Hutus and Tutsis and the ensuing Rwandan war and genocide are examples of this. As the colonial era created false acres 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 scurf 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. Conclusion 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 befor e 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 still rule today. Ethic conflict I argue was present before the arrival of the Europeans in Africa on a localised scale as competitiveness 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 struggle 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 beli eve has led to some believing it was is not in existence in pre-colonial society but a product of the presentation 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 legality is presupposed. This is what makes us view clientelism as a modern phenomenon rather than its just place as a traditional form of dealings 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 dynamic and advisedly constructed phenom enon. 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.