Neopatrimonial Rule in Africa

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Throughout this book we ask whether regime transitions in sub-Saharan Africa resemble democratization in other parts of the world. The nature of political authority and its embodiment in political institutions differ in Africa in several significant respects from other world regions that have undergone fundamental change in recent years. We contend that these differences critically affect the dynamics and outcomes of distinctive democratization processes in the sub-Saharan region. This chapter introduces this thesis by briefly reviewing the nature of formal and informal political institutions in postcolonial Africa. We then develop several hypotheses linking these institutions to specific traits of regime transitions in Africa in the early 1990s. We cast the argument comparatively in order to highlight differences among political regimes, both between Africa and the rest of the world but also among African countries themselves. NEOPATRIMONIAL RULE The institutional hallmark of politics in the ancien régimes of postcolonial Africa was neopatrimonialism. The term is derived from the concept of patrimonial authority, which Max Weber used to designate the principle of authority in the smallest and most traditional polities. In patrimonial political systems, an individual rules by dint of personal prestige and power; ordinary folk are treated as extensions of the “big man's” household, with no rights or privileges other than those bestowed by the ruler. Authority is entirely personalized, shaped by the ruler's preferences rather than any codified system of laws.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: