[** AFRICA FORUM is an H-Africa series featuring essays by
Africanists around the world. AFRICA FORUM #7 is presented
by Stefaan Smis and Saskia Van Hoyweghen of the Brussels
Centre of African Studies.

This English version will be followed by a French version.
Replies are welcome in any language.

Specially commissioned responses from 3 eminent scholars of
Africa will then be posted, plus a feature interview from
the D.R. of Congo.

Replies are encouraged not only on Central Africa but also
on the State in Africa and other themes raised by the
authors and respondents**]--eds.


                    AFRICA FORUM #7

  "TOWARDS A STATE-LESS CENTRAL AFRICA? SOME THEORETICAL
                      REFLECTIONS"

  by Stefaan Smis* and Saskia Van Hoyweghen** (Brussels
                Centre of African Studies)

  That Central Africa is undergoing a phase of dramatic
change, even crisis, can hardly be contested. The crisis,
which affects the whole region, is multi-dimensional:
social, economic, political and even ecological. When
looking at economic relations, we cannot look past the
economic marginalisation of the African continent
(especially since the second half of the 1980s) and its
effect on governance. Clientelistic networks within the
patrimonial states are engaged in a struggle over
ever-scarcer resources (such as land, but also development
aid). However, reducing all conflict to its materialist
source is misleading. We are, in essence, confronted with a
crisis of social structures and authority, which have
contributed to the continuation of conflicts and wars over
these ever-scarcer resources. This is a crisis of state
authority as an instrument of governance, in other words, a
failure of those institutions that are supposed to guide
change and prevent violent conflicts.

The objective of this essay is to discuss the nature of the
crisis in Central Africa from an academic/social science
perspective. This reflection is part of a research project
of the Brussels Centre of African Studies (BCAS) - Vrije
Universiteit Brussel (Free University of Brussels),
concerned with the future of the nation-state in Central
Africa.

The end of the colonial period was for long presented as the
beginning of the era of African nationalism, presenting an
ambitious project of nation-building, development and
democracy. From the start, nation building was essentially
state driven. The colonial power structure, characterised by
bureaucratic authoritarianism, surplus appropriation, market
control and coercion has remained essentially unchanged. In
practice, the state also remained the central focus for
private accumulation of wealth, reforming national economies
into patronage networks for political elites, and severely
damaging the productive side of the economy, bringing no
development at all. Instead of investing in a development
project that served a collective good and creating an
independent and efficient bureaucratic state apparatus, the
ruling elites tried to manipulate the material benefits of
state-sovereignty to reinforce their own political
authority. This state-sovereignty was not based on an
internal legitimacy but on external recognition, which was
only used to attract additional resources from outside. As
Bayart demonstrated, now nearly a decade ago, the
post-colonial administration has virtually perpetuated the
colonial state (Bayart, 1993). Chabal and Daloz have
recently reiterated that, in fact, the way in which African
political systems work should be analysed at face value and
not as a poor imitation of Western state models. The
majority of Central African states have been independent for
over three decades and we should indeed have no illusions
that, under the current circumstances, anything similar to a
Weberian model of the state or a Western style democracy is
going to develop. If we want to make a serious effort to
analyse the various conflicts of the last decade instead of
insisting on Africa's failure to correspond to our notions,
we need to abandon our definitions and start asking
ourselves how Africans perceive notions of political and
social organisation, identity, and governmental
responsibility. Hence, limiting ourselves to a study of the
dysfunctioning of the state offers too limited a
perspective. Comparing state formation in Africa with
universal theories on state formation, based on Western
trajectories, provides a too simplistic image (see, for
example, Chabal and Daloz, 1999).

Since the end of the 1980s, the practice of patrimonialism
came under growing stress due to declining internal
resources and new conditions for external patronage,
announcing the end of the broad-based patronage networks in
large parts of African and in Central Africa in particular,
as well as the end of the old post-colonial order of elite
accommodation. The nation-state model of development in
Africa may have aimed at national unity and integration, but
the way in which resources were distributed and power was
consolidated sparked competition over dwindling resources.
In many weak states, the informal political networks based
on patronage could no longer serve the interests of local
elites, forcing them to seek new strategies to extract
resources. Global changes at the end of the Cold War created
new commercial opportunities, essentially using 'illegal'
circuits (cf., for example, McGaffey and Bazenguissa, 2000;
Reno, 1998).

While it may be considered politically incorrect to
pronounce a moral judgement on the functioning of African
political systems, we cannot ignore the enormous social cost
of patronage politics and the macro-economic disaster it has
caused. The crumbling of the state as a system of authority
and order is one of the most dramatic aspects of the Central
African crisis.  It is the absence of a tool to absorb the
shock waves hitting the continent, which explains the
severity of the current crisis.

Social scientists are thus confronted with a double problem.
At a 'descriptive level' new models are needed (as Chabal
and Daloz have argued)  to look at African systems of power
and government. Considering political developments in
post-colonial Africa merely as the failure of state
formation or democracy will not further our understanding of
the dynamics that do govern African societies and political
communities. In fact, social scientists have only a limited
understanding of how power in Africa is created, reproduced
and experienced. Moreover, theories that only focus on state
failure often ignore the realities on the ground. Africa
lives its own modernity and state dysfunctioning is largely
instrumentalised by African elites in their struggle for
survival.

In fact, developments in Africa have challenged Western
science as such. For decades, Africa has served as an object
of research/a field site. Sociology was considered the
science to study 'our' (read Western) society and
anthropology was reserved for the study of other (read
non-Western)  societies. This distinction was maintained to
uphold that Africa was different. Times have changed and in
this time of globalisation, classic definitions of 'us'
versus 'them' are becoming increasingly blurred. As Doom has
argued, it is time to re-introduce 'space' and 'time' back
into social science. (Doom, 2000) The study of Africa has to
strike a balance between a structuralist and particularist
approach. In other words, while it is impossible to look at
Africa as an island separated from global changes, it is
equally important to look at the particular way in which
these developments manifest themselves in Africa (i.e., the
cultural forms of political and economic crisis). The
current crisis has, according to us, nothing to do with a
so-called re-tribalisation of African society or a return to
the past. Africa is not the victim of its past: patrimonial
politics, ethnicity etc. are modern phenomena in response to
modern changes.  Both in our scientific thinking, as in the
formulation of international policies, we need to
structurally link locally specific data with national and
international developments and stop treating Africa like an
'apartheid category' (Doom, 2000). While the formation of
identities, for example, is a global phenomenon in response
to global change (like increasing migration, economic
regionalisation, etc.), the way in which these cultural
identities manifest themselves can be highly varied.
Cultural difference should, however, not mislead us, since
it is more than the wrapping of a more important content.

But can we, on the other hand, just stand by and merely
describe how large parts of Central Africa continue to slide
further away? Would it not be possible to make a scientific
contribution to 'exercises in state capacity building' as
conflict resolution, by new innovative thinking on state
re-construction? If it is possible in Europe to
constructively discuss questions of governance and state
authority, why would the same debate not be possible in
Africa? We believe that social scientists could and should
engage in a debate on how to improve political structures in
Africa. Belgium provides a good example of how cultural
difference has been resolved within the existing borders. In
addition, the European Community provides an example of the
inter-connecting of regional and national structures. These
examples show that it is possible to combine the protection
of cultural minorities with regional governance. We are not
arguing for a transfer of European models to Africa in order
to resolve conflicts. Yet why would it not be possible to
debate creatively on the adaptation of institutions in order
to stem conflict and work towards increased peace and
stability. By avoiding such debate, the answering of some
fundamental questions is only postponed. The following
issues seem crucial to us:

1. There is a need to re-think the state as a legal
construction. If the state is an instrument of governance
over a specific territory, the question of borders in
Central Africa becomes increasingly unavoidable. (see Smis,
2000; Mbembe, 1999). It is common knowledge that these
borders are coming more and more under pressure (especially
since the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo).
There is first of all trans-border competition for natural
resources. Secondly, there is the problem of refugees and
armed movements who remain active and operate from across
the borders, posing a serious security threat to national
governments. There is also a problem of leadership and
control over the entirety of the state territory by the
national authorities. Certain Organisation of African Unity
(OAU) principles designed to safeguard political stability
increasingly are being called into question. The challenge
is hence the reconceptualisation of borders in order to
improve governance in the particular context of Central
Africa. To obtain this, one needs to take into account on
the one hand, the intangibility of frontiers as prescribed
by the OAU in 1964, but on the other hand also, the
particular character of African borders. Borders in Africa
are, in essence, zones; contrary to European borders, which
are distinct lines of demarcation. It is by accepting this
characteristic of African borders that a solution to border
problems as they arise in Africa, may be found. The
challenge is to find regional mechanisms to manage state
borders.

2. There is the problem of the formation of a nation-state.
We have already discussed the state as a physical structure
of power, but the aspect of 'nation' is equally important.
We need a better understanding of how African populations
define political membership to society. In particular, the
current context of increasing mobility (i.e. travel,
pastoralism, but most of all forced migration) gives rise to
new affinities and identities, which can transcend the state
(such as, for example, ethnic identity or religious
networks). The concept of nationality, for example, needs to
be reconsidered by looking at those realities on the ground.
In this respect, some progress has already been made by a
group of intellectuals from within the Great Lakes region
who have engaged in discussions on the idea of
pluri-national citizenship. We should be aware that a
precise fit between nation and state is not in any case
possible (or necessary). Beyond nationality and citizenship,
other identities like gender, ethnicity and race have
acquired a new political importance. A new field of studies
has emerged, occupying itself with the study of the politics
of space and place, identity and transnationalism. However,
the state as a political structure in Africa has not fully
disappeared. On the contrary, these new identities have
often defined themselves against the state or have aimed to
conquer it. The case of Rwanda is a good example. The
Rwandese diaspora defined itself as Banyarwanda, referring
to a particular - nearly mythical - place of origin, to
which return was desirable. The identity eventually became
the spinal cord of a political movement in order to justify
a return by force and conquering of the state. This politics
of 'home sickness' culminated in the return of over half a
million of people from exile.

3 For social scientists, it is essential to understand
exactly how social identities relate to the state and how
political communities are formed.  While there are
indications that social identities are becoming
de-territorialised, there is another development that is
often overlooked or dismissed, namely the exclusion of
populations considered non-indigenous. We do not only
encounter this in the Kivu Provinces (with respect to the
Banyamulenge case) but also in Senegal, in Tanzania (a
country with a long tradition of hospitality which has
nevertheless recently begun to develop a more hostile
attitude), Zimbabwe (with the formulation of land claims
against a white minority that has become part of an African
society), and in various other countries with pastoral
populations. How can the notion of belonging to a political
community be made more inclusive? In order to stem conflict,
this is perhaps one of the most important challenges.

4 The increasingly violent competition over scarce resources
also calls for better analysis of environmental management
(such as forest resources).  Research should contribute to a
re-thinking of the role of the state (versus international
actors and versus local populations) in the field of natural
resource management and the protection of the environment.
It should equally contribute to our understanding of the
relationship between social identification and the
regulation of access to natural resources. Much violence in
Central Africa is in various ways related to conflict over
scarce resources. In the densely populated region of the
Great Lakes, struggle for land equals struggle for survival
and ethnic identities are instrumentalised to justify claims
on land. However, again, this situation should not be taken
as a fait accompli but should be constructively engaged.

We can but conclude that the challenges facing Central
Africa are numerous.  The essential questions discussed
above need to be confronted at some point, not only by
scholars but also mainly by those in power in the region.
The intellectual capacity is there to undertake such a task
and to send a different message to the world. Africans
themselves need to take the initiative for positive change
(see in this regard, the works by Thandika Mkandawire cited
below). It is, in the end, the responsibility of today's
African leadership to send a positive signal.


 *Stefaan Smis is a university assistant, Faculty of Law,
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, completing a PhD on the right to
self-determination.  His main research interests are human
rights law, African perspectives on international law, and
legal aspects of territoriality.

 ** Saskia Van Hoyweghen is a research assistant, Law and
Politics Depts., Vrije University Brussel, and Vice
President of the Brussels Centre of African Studies. She has
worked on problems of land, villagisation and post-genocide
reconstruction in Rwanda and is currently interested in
issues of migration, identity and state formation in the
Great Lakes Region.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jean-Francois Bayart, 1993, _The State in Africa. The
Politics of the Belly_, Harlow: Longman.

Patrick Chabal and Jean-Pascal Daloz, 1999, _Africa Works.
Disorder as Political Instrument_, Oxford: James Currey.

Ruddy Doom, 2000, 'Changing Identities, Violent Conflict and
the World System' in: Ruddy Doom and Jan Gorus, eds.,
_Politics of Identity & Economics of Conflict in the Great
Lakes Region_, Brussels: VUB Press, pp.15-91.

Janet MacGaffey and Remy Bazenguissa-Ganga, 2000,
_Congo-Paris. Transnational Traders on the Margins of the
Law_, Oxford: James Currey.

Achille Mbembe, 1999, 'At the Edge of the World. Boundaries,
Territoriality and Sovereignty in Africa', _Codesria
Bulletin_ no.s 3/4, pp.4-16.

Thandika Mkandawire, 1999, 'Shifting Commitments and
National Cohesion in African Societies,' in: Lennart
Wohlgemuth et al., eds., _Common Security and Civil Society
in Africa_, Uppsala: Nordiska Afrika Institutet.

Thandika Mkandawire, 1999, 'African Intellectuals and
Nationalism in the Changing Global Context' keynote address
to International Conference on New African Perspectives',
University of Western Australia, 26 Nov. 1999.

William Reno, 1999, _Warlord Politics and African States_,
Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner.

Stefaan Smis, 2000, 'The Legal Status of International Land
Boundaries in Africa' in: Ruddy Doom & Jan Gorus, eds.,
_Politics of Identity and Economics of Conflict in the Great
Lakes Region_, Brussels: VUB Press, pp.191-214.

------------------

AFRICA FORUM is an H-Africa series that features essays by,
and interviews with, Africanists around the world. AFRICA
FORUM seeks contributions from veteran and younger
Africanist scholars in any field of African studies.  While
the usual procedure is that H-Africa's editors approach
leading scholars, subscribers are encouraged to send to the
editors names of anyone they feel would be prepared to
contribute.

Contact:
Dr. Peter Limb
Co-editor, H-Africa
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~africa/africaforum/index.html
-------------------

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS