Skip to content

State Failure and Africans

At the urging of Oz of Mootbox, some months ago, I downloaded a podcast from the Cato Institute. While listening to the podcast I was almost screaming out at the suggestion of one of the panelists. Military strategist and historian Edward N. Luttwak suggested that African governments should be left to fail instead of being propped up by aid from developed countries. His argument, the substance of which is not exactly original, is that African states did not evolve like modern states did in Europe, and so the relationship between the people and the state in Africa is not the same as one would find, for instance, in Western Europe and Northern America.

Peter Ekeh and the two publics
Anybody who is familiar with the literature on state and civil society in Africa would be aware of a similar analysis. Prof Ekeh wrote, in a now much-quoted article,  that an average African has two publics, one was the civil public of the nation-state, while the other is the more relevant immediate group. The immediate group could be the age-grade, the hometown association or even the larger ethnic group. He argues that it is morally acceptable – and maybe even expected – that one robs the civil public of the nation-state to feed the more immediate public. Conversely, it is more of a moral hazard, and therefore more frowned upon, for one to steal from the hometown association or the age-grade association. (For more about Professor Peter Ekeh see here. To get the 1975 paper you would need a subscription, so if you would really like to have a copy leave me a message and I could try to arrange that.)

Back to Edward N. Luttwak
Mr Luttwak suggests that western governments leave failing African states to fail, arguing that that failure would lead to the growth of a more organic structure that is closer to the reality of African societies. Mr Luttwak’s mistake is that the African people of his imagining are long dead and gone; the Africans of today live in a world where there is a state, and where the state has its functions, and they are oh so well aware of that. Go to any village in western Nigeria and you would find how much of a reference point the state is, even if that reference is more about its absence and inefficiency. Ask them what they want and they would likely tell you that they would like the government to remember them, shortly after telling you that ‘ijoba o ranti wa’ (Yoruba for ‘the government does not remember us’). I might be economically liberal in many ways, but I understand the importance of a state. Just ask the directors of Lehman Brothers, or even the private-jet owning bosses of the big car-manufacturing companies in the US. The state is important, and perhaps even more so in less developed countries.

Somalia now
Probably the most vivid case for the importance of the state is that of the most (in)famously failed of all African states: Somalia. The problem that is the failed state of Somalia is most highlighted by piracy along its coasts. Most recently, the pirates have become much bolder and their attacks have become more frequent. For instance, the Sirius Star, one of the world’s largest oil tankers, was recently hijacked. The Economist reports:

As if to underline the point, the tanker’s capture on November 15th, with $110m of crude oil bound for America, was followed by several other hijackings by Somali pirates, including a Thai tuna boat, a Turkish chemical tanker, an Iranian freighter loaded with wheat and a Greek bulk carrier.

Still think there is no need for the state?
There is a great need to police the Somali waters, and one of the ways to do that is to strengthen the capacity of the state to police its own waters. Just so this is not taken as a call to simply equip the state with the latest warships, I hurry to add that increasing the capacity of the state should be a comprehensive approach. That approach has to include incentives to not become pirates. Job creation and the provision of basic infrastructure should be part of these incentives. While there is a need to link the two publics of Professor Ekeh, there is no over-flogging the importance of that civil public.

Hat tip to Mootbox

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Opinion.

Tagged with , , , , , , , .

View Comments

By loomnie – November 23, 2008

  • "Why should Africa be the please to try out new ideas about how the state is not organic, ideas that have at their core the chaos?"

    Go and tell people in DRC or CAR or Chad or Sudan or Niger that the status quo is not chaos ?

    I mean, to an extend, that was the argument people used to defend dictatorships and such.. Democracy is chaos, democracy is messy, democracy can turn violent so let's help the Mobutus of this world!

    There are risks and rewards in everything. The question is to figure out if the risks are worth the rewards.
  • But, what if it's impossible to make these existing states meaningful to the people ? What if by their conception, their birth, their design, they're set to fail ?

    States exist and people want them. And because I believe there is a demand for them, I don't believe for a second that the end of the existing one will result in anarchy. People would organize and create those institutions.

    And because those institutions would be designed by them, there is a chance that they'll be able to do things post-colonial entities are incapable of doing.
  • RA,

    Thanks for pointing out the case of Somaliland. Like you said, it is democratic to a large extent, probably more so than many other African countries. And get this, I do not say that a state needs to be funded, or even recognised, by other states to be a state. If it can perform the basic functions of the state, which include physical security, like you stated, and it is able to control revenues in its territory to a certain extent - which the Somaliland government does - then I would call it a state.

    My point is not that western governments should continue propping up failed states. I guess we all know that international backing is more often in protection of the interests of the funding/donating countries than for any other reason. What I consider is what happens when there is no state, or the image or symbolic imagination of the state. We live in a world where the state exists, even if only in the minds of people, and to take away the entity that is the 'physical' representation of that idea is to invite disorder. And we know too the lives that will be lost when there is disorder.

    See, the argument against the lack of an organic state is inorganic is an old one. I would say that we should think of how to make states meaningful for people instead. Anarchy is appealing, but the consequences might be different than an imagined Utopia.

    I am against the spirit of what Mr Luttwak said, not against the idea of propping up failed states. Why should Africa be the please to try out new ideas about how the state is not organic, ideas that have at their core the chaos? Why do people imagine that Africans are people who are not aware of what is happening in other parts of the world? Like I wrote in the post itself, the Africans of that kind of imagining only exist in the minds of those who imagine it.

    So many thoughts to put down, but I guess I will leave it at that for the moment.
  • And failed states have failed.

    That means that they do not fullfil the basic functions of a state, the ones people need a state for (physical security for a start).

    So what's the point ? How is funding Kabila actually helping people being displaced in Kivu ?

    (and i do not think Zimbabwe is a failed state but that's another topic)
  • I don't know about that, brother..

    First of all, the safety of Saudi tankers and Ukrainian ships full of weapons is not really the best argument for the existence of a state in Somalia.

    But furthermore, while there's some loonies at Cato arguing against the existence of a state, any state (my first blog entry was about one of them), the argument here is really about the continued existence of current states and the possibility of them being replaced by something else if only the international community stopped helping failed states and (this is my addition) stopped giving economic legitimacy of plenty of others.

    To make it short, entities HAVE emmerged out of the Somalia chaos, Somaliland, Puntland or even the short lived Islamic Courts state in the South. Arguably some of them have been much better states than Menguistu's unified Somalia. Somaliland for instance is a democracy (imperfect but not bad at all by African standards) that manages to survive as a state with NO HELP from anyone.

    And I think that's the kind of "organic" devellopment we're talking here.

    And yes, Africans want things from the state but how do we know it's not the second circle thing ? Do Yoruba voters express through their votes a preference for a technocratic state that would take care of the abject poverty in the Delta or in the North ? Did they express anything but "he doesn't work for us" when they voted against Obasandjo twice ?

    In short, the real issue is whever the current international order actually helps prop up dictatorships and kleptocratic states. After all, they do recognize the legitimacy of most of those heads of state, they do recognize the idea that governments ruled by tyrans and thieves should get a share of the natural ressources cash flow. Without those, the Kabilas, the Debys, the Bongos, the Sassous would be gone, period.
  • I needed to read something good, and this delivered. Thanks for the reference to Ekeh. I would like to get his essay if you can email it to me. I think I will send you a quick email.

    Anyway, I understand that African 'wahala' can be frustrating to many and so in offering suggestions for how to change things, some people will throw out the most extreme possible suggestion they can. But, people have to remember that there are many countries on the continent that have stable, peaceful, functioning governments.

    Allowing under-performing governments to "fail" in Africa - what does that mean? If it means what i think it means, then to even make that suggestion is madness! Failure in 'Africa' is not an option. EVER! 'Africa' is not just a place on a map, it is a continent of civilizations, history, culture and most importantly HUMAN BEINGS who suffer enough, as is. To allow further deterioration of the nation states structures on the continent is to invite disaster. African countries, as imperfect as some of them may be, must find a way through the chaos to develop into nation states that can feed their citizens, protect their borders and offer the means for the people to cater for themselves instead of preventing efficiency and self sufficiency.

    Look at the Congo, and all the countries that are rushing in there to get a foothold. Consider, as you mentioned, the pirates on the coast of Somalia. Or the boys in the Niger Delta. These pockets of unrest constantly and repeatedly spill over into neighboring countries expanding war, disease and suffering. We haven't even figured out Darfur, yet!

    I find it incredible that any person would wish further suffering upon a people who suffer enough, ignoring the fact that these are human beings. Africa must solve its problems, yes. And the solutions must be found via peaceful means. THAT IS THE ONLY OPTION FOR US REGARDLESS OF OUR LEANINGS AND NATIONALITIES.

    Take care, Loomnie.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »