Patrimonialism in the Context of Nondemocratic States - Case Study Example

Running Header: Patrimonialism defined in the Context of ‘nondemocratic states’ Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code & Name: Date of Submission: Concept Analysis Report Patrimonialism defined in the Context of ‘nondemocratic states’ Contents Contents 2 Introduction 3 Patrimonialism in ‘nondemocratic states’ 3 a Patrimonialism Defined in the context of ‘nondemocratic states’ 4 b Alternative Definition of Patrimonialism 6 Three Related Concepts to Patrimonialism 7 a Clientelism 7 b Neo- Patrimonialism 8 c Institutional change 9 Patrimonialism in Saudi Arabia and Peoples Republic of China 9 Comparison of ‘Patrimonialism’ as Practiced in Saudi Arabia and Peoples Republic of China 11 Summary of ‘Journal on the Twentieth-Century China’ 12 Conclusion 15 Recommendations 15 References 17 Patrimonialism defined in the Context of ‘nondemocratic states’ Introduction Democracy verses Patrimonialism has been a great debate matter for quite some time now. Independence of state meant that the countries ushered in a new wave of governance characterized by increased democratic space amongst the people. However, this is not the case in a number of nondemocratic states where other forms of governance including ‘Patrimonialism’ are said to be applied. It happens that Patrimonialism is much evidenced in a number of countries in Asia, Middle East and Africa as opposed to many countries in the west which are governed through democracy. This paper looks at ‘Patrimonialism’ as embraced in a number of nondemocratic states, with a particular look at how it has been practiced in Saudi Arabia and The Peoples Republic of China. Patrimonialism in ‘nondemocratic states’ Historically, there were many countries which were governed through systems that were otherwise to democracy. The new economic demands led to a change in governance of these countries either through change of the legal structures, or political movements as the case was in countries such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. 1The West has continuously placed political patronage as one of the 21st century challenges that has affected a number of countries in Asia, Middle East as well as Africa. Systems of governance such as chiefdoms, local village councils as well as customary rule have been criticized for being non-participatory and great loopholes that promotes Patrimonialism. They have specifically been blamed for propagating political and social discrimination on the basis of gender, race or caste. The question that remains is that will these systems change, and if they do not change; do they drive or extinguish developments in these countries. This paper is centred on the informal systems of power that still are in operation in a number of nondemocratic countries. The informal systems such as clientelism and Patrimonialism have been advanced to form a great hindrance to democratization of the nondemocratic states, however this opinion is questioned by a number of analysts who argue that a black face should not be given to these system, since the systems may not be bad; rather the people in office who run these systems may be the ones who misuse power. The counter reaction to this opinion tries to argue out that power is not on the individual but on the system. Proponents of this arguments emphasize that the challenge of Patrimonialism is not the individuals but the system that has given the rulers powers to take up their political role in a way that it is indifferent from the ‘persons’ in them. 2 a Patrimonialism Defined in the context of ‘nondemocratic states’ Patrimonialism systems of governance is more prone in nondemocratic states because of the legal, historical or customary provisions that gives the leaders the power to have a say over the people, and to be an end to themselves. Patrimonialism in the context of nondemocratic states may simply be defined as a form of governance that involves the flow of power from one direction, the direction of the leader. This means that the leader has powers that overshadows all other sectors of the economy be it the public as well as the private sector. The regimes that have fully embraced Patrimonialism often are characterized through autocracy, which is leadership that significantly excludes the middle or the upper classes of people from power, instead they enjoy independence of choice on how they would like to manage the affairs of their countries. This is clearly witnessed in many nondemocratic states. In the nondemocratic states where Patrimonialism has taken the centre stage of leadership; the leaders in these countries enjoy absolute personal power in public offices. Often, it would be found that the armies of these nondemocratic states led under Patrimonialism are absolutely loyal to the leader as opposed to the nation. Weber further defined ‘Patrimonialism’ through his assertion of its two main forms Weber advanced that one of the main forms of Patrimonialism is characterized by a ‘top-bottom’ structure. This is the case where the leader, emperor, Chief, King or Sultan has the provision to rule not on the basis of established structures, but on the basis of his own legitimate authority. This he gives the example of the Roman Catholic Church, where Pope is said to be a patrimonial leader. The second from of Patrimonialism still maintains the top-bottom structure, however it has captured the Western European Feudalism, thus it has a basis for legitimate authority which may be taken outside the ruler’s given or personal authority. It should be noted that in a patrimonial system, all the relationships at the leadership level regardless of being political or administrative are personal; relationship. This is why it has been advanced to be the loophole for the misuse of power, since there is no sharp curtain that has been drawn to distinguish leadership with regard to public and private spheres. This is the case in many nondemocratic states where leadership has all the ‘say’ and all the ‘way’.3 One important thing to note when defining ‘Patrimonialism’ in nondemocratic states is to understand it as a system that is contained within. It is evident that while in democratic states are led through the democratic institutions that are transparent, accountable and provides for equal participation of people in shaping political power; Patrimonialism system of governance exercised in nondemocratic states is strongly based on unequal relations between leaders and people, exclusive privileges for the patrons (leaders), and social norms that are not documented anywhere. These systems have been common in Russia, Asia, and Middle East as well as in some countries in Africa. b Alternative Definition of Patrimonialism An alternative definition of Patrimonialism may be captured from the ‘Dictionary of Sociology’ which has looked at Patrimonialism from almost a similar angle that Weber advanced. They define ‘Patrimonialism’ not just as a form of governance as earlier put but a kind of ‘political domination’. A domination that allows the authority of the leader to be based on bureaucratic and personal will. They advance further that often this power is exercised by royal households, where power is arbitrary under full and exclusive control of the ruler. This may further imply that the domination is fully secured by other political apparatus such as conscripts, slaves, and mercenaries among others who lack an independent power-base. 4 In this definition, the powers of the rulers extend through controlling the instruments of power. This may be evidenced through extended personal grace and favors that may be accorded by the leader to a person at the expense of the limitation of the given authority that the leaders has. Essentially, in the case where an extreme development of the ruler’s discretion is witnessed then ‘Satanism’ is said to creep in as advanced by Weber, who went on to give examples of the leaders in the Chinese Empire. Patrimonialism or Satanism system of leadership is suggested to be unstable for they encourage palace revolts, and hinder development of modern capitalism which may make the people feel suppressed and oust such leadership. Three Related Concepts to Patrimonialism5 The three main concepts that are related to the concept of ‘Patrimonialism ’includes clientelism, neo-Patrimonialism, and institutional change. a Clientelism Clientelism early definition emphasized the term to be leadership characterized by the exchange of favors or votes over very long period of time. This meant that it encompassed leadership that has little concern for the people but for their votes. In other words, it would be argued to be a disguised form of Patrimonialism which is covered through giving people room to vote, but the people cannot enjoy democratic privileges from the leadership. They are just to exclusively participate in voting for the leaders in exchange of favors. Today, clientelism is used to define a political system characterized by an asymmetric relationship that exists between the leaders (political actors), who are described as ‘Patrons’ and the their clients. Key scholars have advanced the definition of clientelism to be characterized by a set of actions that leaders take based on the principle of ‘take there, give here’, this practice is said to enable both the clients as well as the patrons to take advantage of each other’s position. The term ‘clientelism’ is borrowed from the ancient Rome, where there were relationship between the patrons and the clients. This was used to understand the wider political processes such as ‘Patrimonialism’. It may be looked at the form of political leadership where both parties exploit each other. This is evidenced by the client seeking rewards, and the leadership giving favors to blur the eyes of their people from their bad leadership. b Neo- Patrimonialism This term is common in non-Western countries, and is used to refer to the leadership in these countries that is synonymous to Patrimonialism. This form of leadership refers to the non-Western countries which have embraced a similar form of governance that is likened to ‘Patrimonialism’. This form of leadership is characterized by hierarchical personalistic relations which exists between the rulers and the ruled. Other scholars have referred ‘Neo-Patrimonialism’ as the Patron-Client relation from of governance. This form of governance involves the use of state resources to maintain the patronage relations between the rulers and the ruled. It is often evidenced by the paternal authoritarian leadership, where a leader’s popularity and power is heightened, and he is symbolically marked as the father of the nation. A clear example of the Neo-Patrimonialism form of governance was witnessed in Indonesia and Philippines. This is particularly during the regimes of Marcos and Suharto regimes. To simply this definition, it may be looked at through comparing it with Patrimonialism as defined by Max Weber. Neo=Patrimonialism is then said to be the modern form of the traditional Patrimonial system of governance, and is characterized by a mix of the elements of Patrimonialism and Rational bureaucratic rule. c Institutional change This is a term used to refer to the transformation process from one form of governance to the other. It may involve changing leadership from Patrimonialism to Democratic, or even Democratic to Autocracy. It important to note that Institutional change often would not align itself to the predictable courses; instead it’s a process that unfolds according to its specific context. Patrimonialism in Saudi Arabia and Peoples Republic of China From the oil monarchies themselves, it is evident that Saudi Arabia may be said to have gone the furthest in with regard to the issue ‘Patrimonialism’, Saudi Arabia being governed through a kingdom ruled on the basis of the monarchal principle, gave room for its long term leaders to use this type of monarchial rule to extend ‘Patrimonialism’ in the country. Patrimonialism’ in Saudi Arabia has been characterized by the country’s leader’s opposition to the forces by the reformists. This fear is based on the fear of Shi’ite as opposed to the fear to democratization itself. The country has expressed its support for other country’s that exercised Patrimonialism including Syria’s Bashar al-Assad Government, which is characterized by Patrimonialism, where leadership is limited to the few elite of two tribes (Alawite sect of Shi’ism) leaving out the Sunni majority. There is an effort to quash representative government in the region, regardless of sectarian identity. Saudi Arabia leaders have embraced Patrimonialism form of leadership where the people have limited control of the leadership. Same leaders have led the country for a long time and still cling to power. The monarchial system of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom has made has ruled the country for long. Saudi Arabia’s leadership has even made advances to support other Patrimonialism form of leadership, such as that that was led by Mubarak.6 Patrimonialism has also been experienced in the Peoples Republic of China. This began with the rule in the imperial China which was purely patrimonial. Notably, in China ‘Patrimonialism’ was practiced with unique intentions. As much as initially the Western society may have been said to contribute to the practice of Patrimonialism in China’s leadership. The Chinese leaders embraced this form of leadership with different intentions. The leaders in China embraced Patrimonialism, through specific sets of social roles. Hence, the system was not intentional, but was harmony seeking. In addition, China intended to use Patrimonialism as an early opportunity towards the establishment and unification of the Imperial China, which would be centralized via officialdom. The officialdom that was established in China had significant powers, and was instituted to defend the vested interests of those in power who wanted to preserve the status quo of the people and the leadership. This they did through opposing the suggested reforms specifically those advanced at the governmental level. Officialdom was a clear characteristic of Patrimonialism, where the members of the officialdom put priority in marinating their status. Comparison of ‘Patrimonialism’ as Practiced in Saudi Arabia and Peoples Republic of China In comparing ‘Patrimonialism’ as practiced in Saudi Arabia and Peoples Republic of China, the key differences and similarities are captured as follows:7 Differences China and Saudi Arabia differ on the intention of the application of ‘Patrimonialism. China intended to use Patrimonialism as an early opportunity towards the establishment and unification of the Imperial China; whereas in Saudi Arabia, the leaders embraced ‘Patrimonialism’ as a tool to maintain their own status quo, through having special access to economic resources such as the oil in Saudi Arabia. Patrimonialism was exercised in China through the ‘Officialdom, where the members of the ‘Officialdom’ worked tirelessly to keep their status; whereas in Saudi Arabia ‘Patrimonialism’ was practiced in the context of the monarchial system of the Saudi Arabia Kingdom. Officialdom was used to maintain the political class of its members. Similarities Both Saudi Arabia and China had practiced of Patrimonialism for a long period. Saudi Arabia has had a long history of the Kingdom kind of ruler-ship led by a King; whereas in China embraced ‘Patrimonialism’ from the time of the imperial China. Both leaders, who propagated Patrimonialism either through officialdom in China and the Saudi Arabia’s kingdom, did this for eternal prosperity. They barred Democracy in their countries so as to maintain their positions and status. They wanted to keep their political power that gave them access to economic resources. Summary of ‘Journal on the Twentieth-Century China’ 8 Carter, James (2011) advances how the nature of the Chinese society describing the form of leadership that portrays significant elements of Patrimonialism. They advance further that the Chinese society was run through a traditional form of government where the authority of the leaders was given to them by the virtue of the traditions that were practiced. This led the leaders in the wider China particularly in the 20th century to have a lot of power at their discretion. Most of the people were viewed to be subjects to the leaders. The author’s further outline that Patrimonialism was enhanced in the imperial China through the people embracing a form of governance likened to ‘Sultanism’. In essence, the article points out that the existence of ‘Sultanism’ which is the extreme level of Patrimonialism was evident in the imperial China. It is held that this form of governance was practiced and maintained under the frameworks of the Chinese tradition at the time. ‘Sultanism’ was associated with the powerful communal leaders who had great power, and supportive structure, as well as instruments such as slaves, workers, and other juniors who offered service to the Sultan. There was minimal participation of the people in the governance of the imperial China; instead the people were subjects to the rule. Patrimonialism is highly witnessed under this structure of leadership that lasted in the imperial China. This was evidenced through the day to day operation of the leaders, and the relationship that was purely bureaucratic between the people, who were considered as subjects and the leaders who were patrons. Carter, James (2011) stresses the that the leaders in this form of governance in China practiced an extreme form of Patrimonialism, where the people didn’t have rights and freedom but instead were subjected to live under the bureaucratic structures that was subjected to them by their tradition as well as their leaders who had great interest in maintain their own status in power. ‘Status’ is what defined the leaders in the Imperial China, for they did all to keep their high status in the community. For this status was believed to give them authority over their subjects. 9 The concept of officialdom system in China also promoted Patrimonialism. This is because it is a form of governance based on the rulers who had great powers against the subjects. The rulers adored their ranks and the status that the system gave them. The article outlines that the officialdom was divided into three distinct ranks; the first rank comprised of ministers referred to as ‘Qing’, the second rank was the ‘grand masters’ who were referred to as ‘dafu’, and the third rank in the officialdom were the ‘servicemen’ who were known as the ‘shi’. The ranks in the officialdom was further divided into the lower, upper and the ordinary shang zhong xia. The structures had not room for democracy but pure bureaucratic form of leadership accompanied by orders and implementation through the structures. The officialdoms were enclosed system where a particular group of people were in power, it was more or less a monarchial form of rule in China. Patrimonialism was said to be evidenced within the structures of China’s officialdom. A clear example that is captured in the article involves the rule by Shaman king who ruled during the Shang times in China. This form of leadership was characterized by personal rule where the King had the discretion over all the affairs of the officialdom even when the decision that would be arrived at was at the expense of the people ruled. This shifted to a form of kingship with a king who had many officers under him. These officers included but were not limited to the provisioners, attendants, as well as ministers. All military affairs were dealt with at the top levels where the generals and the King had absolute power to make decisions. This explicitly demonstrates the extents to which Patrimonialism had become admissible in China, and how the structures of monarchy combined with officialdom became a challenge within. 10 Carter, James (2011) depicts the forms of governance that was subjected to the people in China. It clearly demonstrates that Patrimonialism was much evidenced through the various forms of government that were nondemocratic in nature. In a number of remote areas of China today, such forms of governance are still witnessed on a limited scale. The article has supplied information about their form of governance that were nondemocratic that allowed the leaders to use Patrimonialism in running affairs of the officialdoms. Conclusion11 All in all, Patrimonialism may be said to be simply a form of governance that has been embraced in many nondemocratic countries, where the leaders have all the ‘say’ and ‘way’ at the expense of the people they lead. The leaders in this form of governance get the powers through the legal, historical or customary provisions that are provided by the nondemocratic systems of governance such as monarchial, kingdoms, officialdoms, and Sultanism. This case is clearly demonstrated in the Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom form of governance as well as in China through the officialdom form of leadership. All these forms propagate Patrimonialism and are anti-democratic in nature. Recommendations The argument on whether Patrimonialism and other informal styles of political system can maintain their relevance today is still a matter of debate. The political movements that ousted several leaders in the Middle East who kept significant levels of Patrimonialism in their governance styles may speak volumes. This is in addition to the otherwise benefits of liberalization, decentralization, and democratization of the systems of governance as the case is in many countries from the west. Having said this I have three recommendations to make from this report. a. The first one is that it is important for world leaders to understand the root cause of Patrimonialism as practiced in different countries. This is because this type of governance is practiced with different intension as the case is between Chin and Saudi Arabia. b. My second recommendation is that in initiating efforts to promote institutional changes that will oust Patrimonialism in many nondemocratic states; it is important for world leaders to consider the process as opposed to just the results. Forceful changes in change of governance has proven to come with greater challenges12 c. Lastly, I recommend that the political leaders of the nondemocratic countries who maximize on using Patrimonialism to mistreat people be brought to book, so that through diffused learning other political leaders with such tendencies will shun from this form of governance. References Anderson, Norman. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. London: Stacey International, 1993. Carter, James. 2011, Twentieth Century China. Journal on the Twentieth-Century China. Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 2-3. Norman, Kate. "Political Culture, Social Movements and Governability in Macao," Asian Affairs: An American Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 54-67. Jing, C. "Re-conceptualizing “Legitimacy” for Studying Village Elections in China," Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 34-43. University of Macau. "Village Elections in China: Local State Patrimonialism or Chinese Democracy," RAP Working Paper Series, Vol. 2, no. 1 (July 2006): 1-34. Long, Sebastian. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. New York: University Press of Florida, 2010. Zhang, T. "The Singapore Casino Threat Theory and its Implications for Macao (in China)," Hobbs Journal, Vol.2, no. 26 (December 2009): pp. 14-16. Zhang, T. "The Painful Search for Change. Hobbs Journal, Vol. 1, no. 25 (November 2009): pp. 12-15. Othman, Zahir. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. London: Stacey International, 2006. Jinq, Chung. "Theoretical Reflections on Group Election Method in Chinese Village Elections (in Chinese)," Poverty Alleviation and Villagers’ Self-governance, no. 1 (2008): 25-26. Read More