Patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism

Comparative receptions and transcriptions

Bibliographic Data

ID20051551
AuthorsAlice Sindzingre (corresponding author)
Year2013
Pages37-57
Publication date2013-03-01
Open AccessNo
TypeCHAPTER
VenueNeopatrimonialism in Africa and beyond (SOURCE_BOOK)
PublisherRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.4324/9780203145623-8
OpenAlexW2471656588
ISBN9780203145623
LanguageEN
Citations received7

When Guenther Roth suggested in the late 1960s that the notion of patrimonial rule should be applied to the regimes of ‘new’ states (1968: 194), this had already been experimented in Latin Amer ica and Asia. It was another mat ter in Africa, where the concept of ‘charismatic authority’ had been more commonly used to de scribe the rise to power of nationalist leaders and par ties (Ake 1966: 6-13; Zolberg 1966). More gen erally, the adoption of patrimonialism was restrained by a deep ambivalence towards ways of conceptualizing, in so-called ‘modern’ states, features that Max Weber had associated with traditional authority. Aristide Zolberg had accordingly suggested the introduction of a dichotomy between ‘traditional’ and ‘neo-traditional’ regimes (1966: 140-1). In a sim ilar vein, Guenther Roth argued that two forms of patrimonial dominance should be con sidered – one proceeding from the survival of ‘traditional’ patrimonial regimes, and the other associated with ‘de-traditionalized’ forms of patrimonialism. In this latter model, the leader’s personal power rested upon loy alty linkages ‘in ex tric ably linked with mater ial incitements and rewards’ (1968: 196). It was in the end Shmuel Eisenstadt who settled the terminology by suggesting the addition of the neo prefix to elim in ate any ambiguity over the distinction between modern ‘traditional’ and ‘post-traditional’ regimes. Accordingly, the concept of neopatrimonialism refered less to a traditional, or tradition-derived mode of domination, than to modern bur eau cratic polit ical sys tems and domination pro cesses. The introduction of this neologism also paved the way for the ana lysis of un pre ced en ted situ ations – namely polit ical sys tems where ‘or ganized forms of polit ical life’, associated with bur eau cra cies, pop ular movements and polit ical par ties, were signi fic antly more de veloped than those of ‘traditional’ and rel at ively undifferentiated polit ical sys tems (Eisenstadt 1973: 11). Neopatrimonialism was conceived as a par ticu lar vari ant of patrimonialism – a hybrid model-type intended to account for new power sys tems in the ‘posttraditional’ soci eties of Latin Amer ica, South Asia and the Middle East (Eisenstadt 1973: 15). Africa was ab sent from Eisenstadt’s list and concerns but it is there that the dissemination of the concept of neopatrimonial rule was to be most successful. The fol low ing pages first discuss how the model of neopatrimonial state has pro gressively become the archetype of the African anti-developmental state. It isargued that this pattern was stimulated by the combination of a sharp dissociation between patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism, with the sys tematic assimilation of the latter to in teg ral and pred atory forms of domination. In its second part, this chapter contrasts this trajectory with those observed in Latin Amer ica, South-East Asia and Russia, where the ongoing use of patrimonialism, stigmatized for conceptual laxity in the 1980s, has often been counterbalanced by innov at ive lexicological adjustments. The outcome is the asso ci ation of patrimonialism with greater axiological neutrality due to the persistance of the ana lyt ical distinction between regulated or capped forms of patrimonialism (patrimonialism within the state) and pred atory forms of patrimonialism (the patrimonialization of the entire state)

Political science · African history and culture analysis · Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation · Land Rights and Reforms

Tools

Open DOILibgen