Neopatrimonialism and its Development in Africa

Giulia Valeria Anderson, Research Analyst, Leadership & Governance Policy Lab
gvaleria@africacfsp.org

Neopatrimonialism is a universal concept, especially when placed in the context of African politics. However, there is no precise definition of the term, only a basic theory capable of explaining its general denomination. The neopatrimonialism regime is fundamentally based on a social hierarchy system, in which the sovereign uses the resources of the state to ensure the loyalty of his clients within the population.¹ It is an informal type of sovereign-citizen relationship, which can go from the highest structures of the state to all the individuals of the villages. In Africa, this type of regime evolved extremely quickly because of colonialism. In fact, colonialism is sometimes considered a ‘must happen’ turning point for most African countries. This paper will explore the concept of neopatrimonialism while considering Africa as an explanatory focus. However, before dwelling on the application of the neopatrimonialism regime on the African continent, it is also important to analyze the roots of this regime-type and the defining characteristics.

1. Neopatrimonialism: Roots and Regime-type

Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, a political sociologist and the first to coin the term neopatrimonialism, stated that the system is explicitly based on an attitude of criticism.² However, his studies were extremely brief, and it was French scholar Jean F. Mèdard who developed the term in academia. Mèdard argued that neopatrimonialism was a threat to the peaceful transition of African countries and societies in general, due to the strong power that the sovereign could acquire overtime after its colonial rule.³ According to G. Roth, the system also works under a form of a personal domain, since it operates “on the basis of a loyalty that requires no faith in the personal qualifications of the sovereign but is inseparably linked to material incentives and benefits given by him.”⁴ So, the government is legitimized by those who obey when they acquire certain merit or gift, consequently a personal domain control. While this might appear as a form of corruption, it is distinctly different.

Neopatrimonialism may also sound like traditional patrimonialism. Max Weber, who coined the term, believed that the regime was traditional within a legal-rational domain. This domain is not based on precise and well-defined rules, but on the authority of the people who occupy a position of power according to traditional lines.⁵ This Weberian idea is also understood as a kinship-based patriarchal dominion in which power is exercised by an older male sovereign. However, traditional patrimonialism is not based only on the benefits that the sovereign draws to himself, but also on a system of loyalty, clientelism, and patrimonial services, which is an important variable for the administration. Therefore, the definitions of traditional patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism are very similar. However, patrimonialism places the logic of patriarchalism beyond kinship, thus on a combination of tradition and arbitrariness, while neopatrimonialism is a government of a mixed typology, made up of an unstable and complex government with no loyalty system in place.⁶

2. Neopatrimonial Characteristics

Among the characteristics on which neopatrimonialism is based, first is the absence of any type of distinction between private and public domains. Simply put, the sovereign can manage public land as his own, for both personal and clientele use, and can therefore customize territories, attributing their resources to whom and how they want.⁷ Notwithstanding this control, this system can lead to civil confusion between private and public norms, because the state officially establishes bureaucratic parameters that prescribe what to do and how to act.

Despite these issues, neopatrimonialism also has positive characteristics: it can extend authority to the farthest outskirts of the country, provide political stability (albeit in the short term), and can facilitate community integration. The state is treated as an extension of the leader’s property. In this, the sovereign is helped by his clients who pay in exchange for their support. Formal rules become less important with neopatrimonialism and the development of these informal networks as power is solely in the hands of the sovereign with no distinction between the private and public sphere.⁸ Neopatrimonialism is thus the antithesis of the Weberian ideal of a bureaucratic-rational state, and of his conception of patrimonialism based on traditional legitimacy becoming a form of government based on the ability of the leader to be able to personalize their own power and avoid any responsibility.⁹

3. How Neopatrimonialism Developed in Africa

At the end of colonialism, and especially during the 1990s, a sharp increase in democratic transition occurred in Africa, despite many countries regressing due to civil wars and/or severe restrictions on political and civil rights. The main cause of this democratic instability in Africa, of free but not fair¹⁰ elections and difficulties of consolidation is related both to the high levels of corruption and to the possibility for authoritarian governments to preserve power behind the facade of a legal pseudo-authoritarianism. Democratization, and the spread of citizenship rights in Africa, shifted power relations between clients and patrons to the advantage of the former. Especially since the introduction of democracy not only helped African countries, but also paved the way for corruption, patronage, and neopatrimonialism.¹¹ The political corruption phenomenon occurs when there is an exchange of public decisions for a sum of money; clientelism; or the exchange is based on the guarantee of a form of protection by the holder of political power towards those who offer their consent to the same. In African states, corruption erodes clientelism, despite the latter having an important impact on the development of a party system.

Only after the second phase of colonization, in which the will to establish a first and growing legal-rational bureaucracy developed, a process of Africanization began. Africanization was characterized by an interior conflict that resulted from the contrast between a desire to maintain the bureaucracy inherited from the colonists and the establishment of local authoritarian regimes. Notwithstanding these conflicts, there was a strong will for transition which was extremely difficult to achieve. First, because of the vastness of the territory of the states, which made total control impossible; second, for the various ethnic groups and tribes who wanted to remain independent; and third, because of colonial heritage.¹²

Colonialism also left a positive impact in Africa regarding the affirmation of democracy, because not only were citizens now accustomed to democratic influences (from France and England) but also because during the last years of colonial rule those who held roles as officials and administrators were citizens of the African states themselves, causing a significant increase in the level of literacy among indigenous populations. Because many obtained this improvement in literacy, this new intellectual class did not intend to return to the pre-colonial authoritarian regime as they knew about this new system. In African countries where a crisis arose and social imbalances were stronger, there was a progressive disengagement of society towards the central state. When this process of erosion affected the armed forces, a collapse of the government and its bureaucratic organs became inevitable alongside violent coups. In these countries, consequently characterized by a weak democratic transition, a strong central military, and no political power, neopatrimonial governments with high levels of corruption and patronage took shape.

In Africa, neopatrimonialism influences the economic and political system, especially where resources are distributed based on a bond and proximity to the one who holds power. The result is a low level of governability and legitimacy of the institutions, a symptom of the weakness of the state, and serious social and political instability. In such situations, the state detaches itself from the sense of responsibility for the problems of real life, dealing only with enforcing the laws over which it assumes total control. The supremacy of the government over the people is an expression of a collapsed state, of an unstable country where the military is used against the power of the sovereign several times, and where revolts are suppressed.¹³ It is clear that the significance of neopatrimonialism and the extent to which it has permeated African politics requires deep exploration. To note, a considerable variety of forms of government activity exists across the continent ranging from quasi-democratic to authoritarian. This is evidenced in the latest study by Afro-Barometer¹⁴ which illustrates how most regimes in Africa today are non-consolidated hybrid systems and that all regimes were considered at some point in their history, as patrimonial or neopatrimonial.

Furthermore, it can be argued that neopatrimonial practices are not only a feature of African regimes but also the main characteristic of post-colonial politics in Africa. Many scholars contend that the evident popularity of neopatrimonialism persists because it is represented by leaders as “an inevitable step in some linear progression”¹⁵, necessary to evolve from the label of ‘backwardness’ imposed on sub-Saharan countries after decolonization. It can be said that neopatrimonialism is the first stone of the African political establishment, although some scholars, as for example Médard, argue that it is an indication of underdevelopment and backwardness and that the phenomenon prevents development. Others, as Raniolo, insist that it is a political system that fits with African social structures.¹⁶ Since before colonialism the networks of the patronage system were deeply entrenched, it should not be surprising to find that the new post-colonial states managed to adapt the foreign bureaucratic institutions inherited from the colonies. Of course, such structures persist because many within the African social strata derive their main source of income from them. An entire community can benefit from the favors granted by the political leadership or the sovereign. By virtue of this consensus, neopatrimonial policy has managed to permeate all political levels, from the distribution of resources to the change of development plans in its favor, and the diversion of aid funds to ensure the survival of the system. Finally, by extension, neopatrimonialism ends up indicating the evolution or manifestation of new paradoxes of liberal-democratic regimes grappling with intense processes of privatization of the public and economization of politics, and overall, with the predominance of relations over the law.

Conclusion

While neopatrimonialism is a very recent term that refers to classical and pre-modern political systems, the concept is widely adopted today within modern world politics. However, one must not think that the neopatrimonial regime can only be found in Africa. If one applies this study to other countries, such as Argentina, the United States, Italy, China, and many others, it is clear that neopatrimonialism is rooted in almost all governmental systems. Certain countries have less prevalence where it is hard to identify and others with more distinct characteristics. Further, even if the reason the regime evolved is different from the African ones, it does not mean that it is not neopatrimonial.

The research carried out in this analysis, opened a brief reflection on how varied political systems can be and how the configuration of a state depends on the smallest problem. This paper focused on the consequences that certain systems produce, such as the neopatrimonial regime-type. These unusual effects can at least cause minimal domestic damage and at most ignite international interest. Neopatrimonialism, despite its diversity within the various countries in which it is present, always has the purpose of preserving political power in the hands of one or many. In conclusion, neopatrimonialism can be found in almost every ramification of the State and for this reason, it is inevitably found in many countries in Africa.

Please Share this Article