States and power in Africa:comparative lessons in authority and control by J. Herbst - Essay Example

?AFRICAN STUDIES BOOK ANALYSIS J. Herbst, s and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in ity and Control, Princeton Press, 2000 Introduction As the world continues to become what is today referred to as a global village, the happenings and events in one part of the world concerns other parts much as it would concern them if it happened to them personally. It is in this vein that stewards in the field of political science have made good of their area of study and professional brilliance to analyze and access issues of varying global political importance in all parts of the world. Indeed, studies on African politics dates back to the colonial era when the Europeans first settled in Africa. In those days, the fundamental idea behind studying African politics was for the benefit of the Europeans in knowing how well they were colonizing the African continent (Giggs 2012). At the early stages of the post-colonial era, studies on African politics became necessary to as a tool for measuring the level of adherence to basic political principles that the Africans were expected to have learned from the Europeans. This is not to say however, that no form of politics existed in African before colonialism but that the kind of politics where undocumented and unstudied (Cooper, 2012). Today, African political studies are necessary because it has become part of a lager global phenomenon. It is against this backdrop that the attempt by Herbst (2000) to analyze African politics through a comparative system of pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial eras is worth discussing in identifying some of the major timelines that has existed in African politics since. Book’s Arguments Source of conditions now facing African state-builders Herbst (2000) argues in his book titled “States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control” that the larger concept of politics in Africa rooted under the basis of state-building is unusual and characterized with questionable contrast to what prevails in Europe. To this end, he states that “The African experience of politics amid large supplies of land and low population densities while confronting an inhospitable physical setting is in dramatic contrast to the European experience of state-building” (p. 13) This general background given about state-building in African is actually attributed to the pre-colonial era before the Europeans set foot in Africa. This is a major argument of the book and could be interpreted as that, the African perspective of modern day state-building, which is characterized by the quest for territorial conquering as compared to human empowerment and the harnessing of resources is an innate part of the African culture, that could not be changed by the influence of the European style of governance. Indeed, even at the time that the Europeans were present, African still fought over the ownership of land and so there is very little argument that can be given against the fact that the practice existed long before the Europeans arrived in Africa (Giggs 2012). Leaders as part of Fundamental problem confronting State-building in Africa Another strong argument held in the book by Herbst (2000) is that the African leader is a major part of the African problem and that change can hardly happen to Africa and African state-building if no change happens to leadership in Africa. Following this argument, Herbst laments how most African leaders have become conscious of their personal gains and interests to the detriment of the welfare of the larger populace. As a defense, Herbst touches on how the national design and domestic politics of African has been reduced to leadership entitlements in order to make sure that as much power over the land as possible comes into the hands of people calling themselves leaders of the land. What could be most wondering on the national design and domestic politics of Africa, which has been left in the hands of the African leader, is that not much is being done to analyze the impact of the same old syndrome on the continent. It is for this reason that Herbst wrote that “analyzing the implications of the vast majority of boundaries that will not change is especially important because citizens do not undertake perpetual reconstruction of their states, constantly examining whether it is the optimal size” (2000, p. 141). Subsequently, the negligence of the leadership has been transferred down to negatively affect the citizens in knowing what the real components and constitutes of the domain they possess as territory is made up of. Effects of African State-building on international relations Having examined the African problem with reference to state-building and attributed causes to it thereafter, Herbst seemed to sum it all in his arguments by touching on the effects that the present situation of African state-building has had on the larger global political landscape when it comes to issues of international relations. Such linkage of argument was important to do as it has already been established that the happenings in each independent state of the world constitutes a global political need (Cooper, 2012). Therefore, on the global correlation, it is argued that the unsolved problems of African perspective to state-building have affected international relations wrongly. This is because there is currently a system whereby the rest of the world seems to be viewing state-building from one perspective and Africa is also viewing it from another perspective. Indeed, when such a situation happens, its impact cannot be underestimated especially as Africa is a very big continent with very huge population and independent states. Commonly, the factors that motivate leaders from other parts of the world, especially Europe to champion global integrative programs when it comes to international relations is different from the motivation on the part of African leaders and thus the whole system on international relation breaks down. This is so because whiles leaders from Europe think about the successes of the larger global world, the African story becomes different. For the Europeans, is it indeed stated that “undoubtedly, their belief in their own viability was strengthened by the success of other small states. Place of Book in Literature Herbst’s work could be placed highly in literature on African Politics especially when it comes to its originality and the intriguing nature in which it was written. As part of an African politics literature, there is much going to be learned with both historical and present day premises. This is because of the way the book was structured as a comparative piece of literature on the African case of state-building, taking into consideration the three most important political seasons of Africa namely pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial. Clearly, if Herbst’s work had just been about the present day situation in Africa, there would not have been much to be admired about it because the present situation keeps showing its self up to the present generation. It is not for nothing therefore that Robert H Bates of the Harvard University insists that the book “is the most important and successful contribution to the literature on African politics since Jackson and Rosberg's Personal Rule in Black Africa" (Bates, 2012). Significance of Book There are two major significances that can be attributed to the work of Herbst. The first has to do with the impact that the work will have on thorough academic debating. As a matter of fact, most of the arguments raised by Herbst are those that were outlined in highly emphatic and thought provoking manner. There was no garnishing of the truth as they were stated in plain and clear language. With such an attitude and spirit, many are those students of African history and politics that are going to have his arguments excite controversy among. The controversies will certainly be directly at the arguments raised in the book and discussed above. Once this happens, much research will be provoked to continue into the impact of the European colonization on the state-building political fortunes of Africa. The material is therefore an important and highly significant academic material for further studies and research. This significance is especially outstanding due to the structure of the book because it would give much room for more historical backgrounds on the European transformations of African politics to be done as there had always been the notion beforehand that the European achieved as much political transformational impart in Africa as possible before finally leaving the continent. Apart from the academic significance of the book, there are much practical significance that the book brings to world leaders including African leaders who are willing to be positively provoked towards coordinated state building and reconstruction agenda. By this, reference is being made to the ability to use this material as a state formation and transformation tool. This can easily be done as the book was clear on what has been wrong over the years and the causes for such wrong doings. As a logical debate, once the cause and effect of a problem is identified, much of the work on transformation and change becomes done because basic concepts on things to avoid become learned. There will therefore be a practical application in both Africa and other parts of the world on how the topography, social structure and human capital of African can best be incorporated into a modern state-building and socializing agenda that has the larger world in mind rather than the individual welfares of some few leaders labeled as chiefs and rulers of the African state. Comparison with other books Judging from the theme and arguments in the book by Herbst, one of the best books that Herbst’s work can be compared to is that David Harris (2006) who writes on Liberia 2005: an unusual African post-confliect election. Basically, whereas Herbst sees the source of conditions now facing African state-building as emanating from pre-colonial era, Harris (2006) argues that the system and form of governance that the Europeans brought to Africa largely accounts for most of the predicaments faced by the African continent in terms of state-building (p. 23). Proof is cited with the fact that Liberia has had a bleak state-building agenda because most leaders of the country, majority of who were military leaders gave pride in owning personalized territories because in their opinion, such terrestrial ownership of land did a lot of good for the Europeans. For example it is due to the numerous advantages that the Europeans got from boundary acquisition that made them kept fighting African communities that were trying to resist colonization. On the issue of leadership also, Harris (2006) holds a personal opinion that Liberia shocked the entire community of nations when it comes to leadership transformation when in 2005, the country held civilian elections on what could generally be regarded as a level ground context (p. 13). Regardless of the few challenges in the entire conduct of the election, Harris argues that the international community accepted the ultimate results and that paved way for a new system of state-building within the African continent. The new system is much like what exists in Europe where a multiplicity of factors other than size of geographic territories is the only emphasis. With the 2005 election on Liberia, Harris sees a new era of state-building where leaders would begin looking at the larger collective interest of their citizens in relation to the impact this creates on the international community. Weaknesses of the Books and Conclusions Comparing the arguments of Herbst (2000) to what were raised by Harris (2006), it can be deduced that most of the data collection and scope of Herbst’s findings were not based on modern developments and occurrences in Africa. Even though the attempt to give a historic background to state-building in Africa is highly commendable, it would still have been highly beneficial to modern African studies if the writer had made his opinions on current develops in Africa on state-building clearly known. What is more, the writer failed to undertake a comparative analysis of the state of state-building among different African countries. This is said because judging from the modern day developments and as raised by Harris, some Africa nations have come very far on state building agendas and as such deserve some commendation. In conclusion, Herbst has done a good work in giving a historic highlight of the state-building concept in Africa but much work needs to be done among Africa studies students in understanding the current and prevailing situation. If for nothing at all, it is only when we know where we are now that we can determine where were are heading for. REFERENCE LIST Harris D., 'Liberia 2005: an Unusual African Post-Conflict Election’, Journal of Modern African Studies, 44 (3), 2006, pp. 375-395. Herbst J. States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control, Princeton University Press, 2000 Giggs R, (2012). Modern African Studies. State Press Limited: New York Cooper R. (2012). Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. PrintMark Publications: Harvard Read More