yamindinda
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 29, 2011
- 1,581
- 1,318
African political leadership that emerged after the departure of colonial masters has been characterised by ethnicity, corruption, nepotism and patronage. These traits have led to political instability, mass killings and the flow of internally displaced people and refugees as well. Many leaders across the continent when took oath they promise their people good things but when on power they do otherwise. For example, president Museveni when he ascended on power in one of his famous speeches, he accused his fellow leaders of power hunger and backwardness. President Kagame inn his speech also noted that African leaders lack responsibility and have failed to tackled the issues Africa is facing. One of these issues is the issue of political patronage. Even though Liberia was not physically colonialized but it still suffers the fate of neo-colonialism and globalisation.
Today in Africa one can vocally say that neocolonialism is alive in many African states. Hence, today’s neocolonial African states are overcome by the issue of political patronage and making leaders to become “Big Men”. One can ask whether the newly elected president George Weah to lead Liberia will be able to escape from the same fate or will turn into a big man as his fellow African leaders. This is because colonial legacy of bureaucratic authoritarianism, pervasive patron-client relations, and a complex ethnic dialectic of assimilation, fragmentation and competition has persisted in post-colonial African states. Bruce J. Berman in his article ethnicity, patronage and the African state: the politics of uncivil nationalismargues that in Africa patron-client networks remain the fundamental state-society linkage in circumstances of social crisis and uncertainty and have extended to the very centre of the state.
Patronage is derived from the word “patron” derives from the Latin ‘patronus’ (“patron”), one who gives benefits to his clients. It can be understood as the support, encouragement, privilege, or financial aid that an organization or individual bestows to another. In some countries the term is used to describe the use of state resources to reward individuals for their electoral support. As well, the term may refer to a type of corruption or favoritism in which a party in power rewards groups, families, ethnicities for their electoral support using illegal gifts or fraudulently awarded appointments or government contracts. In Africa people have become happy slaves and their eyes ceased to see the ugly face of political patronage. They have led to leaders in some African countries establish patronage systems and when on power use them to appoint their own people and anyone who have supported their political party both ideologically and economically. This lead to the offer of favors or rewards such as public office, jobs, contracts, subsidies, prestige or other valued benefits by a patron (who controls their dispensation) to a client. In politics political patronage shows when a person is rewarded for supporting a particular politician, such as campaigning or voting for them. This attitude aggravates level of unemployment, raise resentment and people who are not happy with the system decide to take arm and fight to get rid of the leader. Hence, one can argue that in the long term, political patronage can contribute to rebellion thus lead to civil wars.
Political patronage also the potential to affect economy of the country. This is because in the countries like African states, where corruption is a language of the day and has become an incurable disease, political patronage affects the economics of the country. In political campaigns political patronage can sometimes include the exchange of money for political support. Whether it is legal or illegal, political patronage can become more or less complicated, depending on where it is being used and why.
In Africa political patronage, certain politicians have unconditionally supported their leader because they know that their loyalty will be rewarded. For example, a politician may support and help the presidential candidate through campaigning and propaganda, in exchange for an appointment if the president.
Another reason that a person may use political patronage is for economic gain. Direct financial compensation, like buying support, isn’t very common. However, corporations and other business entities may sometimes support a particular candidate with the understanding that they will get something in exchange. If a certain executive director of a company or corporation, and he wanted to have certain laws changed so that the corporation could make more money, he might offer to publicly support a candidate with the understanding that, once the candidate is elected, he company will have access to government tenders through the back door. He also offers support to make his or her company to be above the rule of law during the period the governorship of his or her candidate. This therefore entrenches corruption, impunity, ethnicity and nepotism.
https://www.joburgpost.co.za/2018/0...onary-african-leader-another-african-big-man/
Sometimes people engage in political patronage in order to attain more power, and others might take part in order to receive some sort of financial or material compensation. Regardless of who is being paid and how, this fundamental promise of compensation in exchange for political support is the definition of political patronage. Whenthecandidate of a politicalpartywins an election,thenewlyelectedofficialhastheright to appoint a certainnumber of persons to jobs in thegovernment.This is theessence of thepatronagesystem,alsoknown as thespoilssystem. Appointingpersons to governmentpositions on thebasis of politicalsupportandworkratherthan on merit, as measured by objectivecriteria.
Patronage has its defenders. It is a way to maintain a strong political organization by offering campaign workers rewards. More importantly, patronage puts people into government who agree with the political agenda of the victor. Cooperation, loyalty, and trust flow from this arrangement. Finally, patronage guarantees some turnover, bringing new people and new ideas into the system. Opponents have long agreed that patronage is acceptable at the highest levels of government in Africa and have failed to understand its impacts on the rule of law. It can be argued that conflict and corruption feed on the political patronage. This is the fate of many African states and it will continue unless something tremendous is don on the minds of the Africans. For example, in some countries constitutions and judicial systems are put aside or are violated in the favour of the leader. Hence, many heads of the state, governors, and mayors are accorded capacity to select their cabinet and heads of department without referring to the use rule of law. However, history indicates that patronage systems in Africa extends from the grassroot to top level leaders and is a chain that by and large leads to inefficiency, ethnicity, nepotism and corruption.
Understanding the role that patronage politics play in a number of African states is crucial to assessing contemporary problems and solutions. Generally speaking, much of African politics is based on personal loyalty paid to individual leaders. Common features of this form of governance include the use of coercive measures to retain power and careful management of intricate networks of diverse ethnic groups. Such systems are prevalent in most states of modern Africa where they impede the advancement of institutional capacities. Arguably, they are remnants of European colonialism, and have been spread by the neo-colonialism forces to non-colonised states in Africa.
Colonial powers needed indigenous Africans to manage their huge colonies because of differing cultures, diverse ethnicities, and the lack of previously united forms of national identity within their overseas territories. European administrations solved this problem by creating small, but elite classes of local leaders within their colonies. From the colonialists, the new African elites learned the importance of the relationship between wealth and politics. Following World War II, this bureaucratic bourgeois class began to clamor for independence. Nationalization movements materialized quickly, leading economically drained European powers to rapidly cede their colonies and hand-pick African elites to fill the power void.
In the period that followed the independence, the new leaders of Africa then sought to maintain power. Although the inherited nation-states were delineated by the dubious lines agreed to during the Berlin Conference, local leaders elected to retain existing boarders. Elites that had consolidated their hold on power subsequently weakened their political opponent’s potential to grow. They appear to have utilized what Bruce Bueno de Mesquita refers to as the five rules for political survival. These rules are: “keep your winning coalition as small as possible, keep your nominal electorate as large as possible, control the flow of revenue, pay your key supporters just enough to maintain loyalty, and do not take money out of your supporters’ pockets to make the people’s lives better”.
In addition to a culture of political strive, these techniques created a political atmosphere of factionalism in which the elites could thrive. Following the collapse of colonialism, high-profile, elite leaders were perceived to have won their nation’s independence from ruling white imperialists. These African leaders effectively rallied their new constituents around nationalistic ideals that cut across ethnic divides within their states. For many years and reasons, including lack of mobility and poor infrastructure, many African leaders are still ruling with the support of diverse ethnic leaders in different geographical areas throughout their countries. This is deep rooted patronage that in turn damages the country and leaves it at the mercy of a political conflict.
It can be argued that leaders such as Jomo Kenyatta, Malawi’s Hastings Banda, Côte d’Ivoire’s Félix Houphouet-Boigny, and Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere each ruled through this kind of patronage system. They represented a type of politics called “neo-patrimonialism” and were able to retain power for years. Although many of these original leaders have transitioned from power, their systems of patronage and centralized power are maintained by a new generation of leadership.
In conclusion, year in and year out, Africa has experienced many bad leaders who have ruined the Africa’s international relations. It was demonstrated that patronage-based leadership creates an unstable political environment, corruption, unemployment etc. It is now a challenge for the new president of Liberia George Weah who now takes over from his predecessor his Johnson Sirleaf. As a former intentionally recognised former soccer player, Liberians and the entire Africa especially young generation are watching with much expectations put on him to change the view of the continent by not following the path of other African leaders who have adopted a colonial governance that does not care about the needs of the people. How I long to see leaders in Africa who are patriotic, visionary and whose interests are not rooted in political patronage but in patriotism. Leaders whose purpose and aim is not to enrich themselves but to enrich their countries and work and/ or govern not for themselves but for the current people at large and for the future generation.
Today in Africa one can vocally say that neocolonialism is alive in many African states. Hence, today’s neocolonial African states are overcome by the issue of political patronage and making leaders to become “Big Men”. One can ask whether the newly elected president George Weah to lead Liberia will be able to escape from the same fate or will turn into a big man as his fellow African leaders. This is because colonial legacy of bureaucratic authoritarianism, pervasive patron-client relations, and a complex ethnic dialectic of assimilation, fragmentation and competition has persisted in post-colonial African states. Bruce J. Berman in his article ethnicity, patronage and the African state: the politics of uncivil nationalismargues that in Africa patron-client networks remain the fundamental state-society linkage in circumstances of social crisis and uncertainty and have extended to the very centre of the state.
Patronage is derived from the word “patron” derives from the Latin ‘patronus’ (“patron”), one who gives benefits to his clients. It can be understood as the support, encouragement, privilege, or financial aid that an organization or individual bestows to another. In some countries the term is used to describe the use of state resources to reward individuals for their electoral support. As well, the term may refer to a type of corruption or favoritism in which a party in power rewards groups, families, ethnicities for their electoral support using illegal gifts or fraudulently awarded appointments or government contracts. In Africa people have become happy slaves and their eyes ceased to see the ugly face of political patronage. They have led to leaders in some African countries establish patronage systems and when on power use them to appoint their own people and anyone who have supported their political party both ideologically and economically. This lead to the offer of favors or rewards such as public office, jobs, contracts, subsidies, prestige or other valued benefits by a patron (who controls their dispensation) to a client. In politics political patronage shows when a person is rewarded for supporting a particular politician, such as campaigning or voting for them. This attitude aggravates level of unemployment, raise resentment and people who are not happy with the system decide to take arm and fight to get rid of the leader. Hence, one can argue that in the long term, political patronage can contribute to rebellion thus lead to civil wars.
Political patronage also the potential to affect economy of the country. This is because in the countries like African states, where corruption is a language of the day and has become an incurable disease, political patronage affects the economics of the country. In political campaigns political patronage can sometimes include the exchange of money for political support. Whether it is legal or illegal, political patronage can become more or less complicated, depending on where it is being used and why.
In Africa political patronage, certain politicians have unconditionally supported their leader because they know that their loyalty will be rewarded. For example, a politician may support and help the presidential candidate through campaigning and propaganda, in exchange for an appointment if the president.
Another reason that a person may use political patronage is for economic gain. Direct financial compensation, like buying support, isn’t very common. However, corporations and other business entities may sometimes support a particular candidate with the understanding that they will get something in exchange. If a certain executive director of a company or corporation, and he wanted to have certain laws changed so that the corporation could make more money, he might offer to publicly support a candidate with the understanding that, once the candidate is elected, he company will have access to government tenders through the back door. He also offers support to make his or her company to be above the rule of law during the period the governorship of his or her candidate. This therefore entrenches corruption, impunity, ethnicity and nepotism.
https://www.joburgpost.co.za/2018/0...onary-african-leader-another-african-big-man/
Sometimes people engage in political patronage in order to attain more power, and others might take part in order to receive some sort of financial or material compensation. Regardless of who is being paid and how, this fundamental promise of compensation in exchange for political support is the definition of political patronage. Whenthecandidate of a politicalpartywins an election,thenewlyelectedofficialhastheright to appoint a certainnumber of persons to jobs in thegovernment.This is theessence of thepatronagesystem,alsoknown as thespoilssystem. Appointingpersons to governmentpositions on thebasis of politicalsupportandworkratherthan on merit, as measured by objectivecriteria.
Patronage has its defenders. It is a way to maintain a strong political organization by offering campaign workers rewards. More importantly, patronage puts people into government who agree with the political agenda of the victor. Cooperation, loyalty, and trust flow from this arrangement. Finally, patronage guarantees some turnover, bringing new people and new ideas into the system. Opponents have long agreed that patronage is acceptable at the highest levels of government in Africa and have failed to understand its impacts on the rule of law. It can be argued that conflict and corruption feed on the political patronage. This is the fate of many African states and it will continue unless something tremendous is don on the minds of the Africans. For example, in some countries constitutions and judicial systems are put aside or are violated in the favour of the leader. Hence, many heads of the state, governors, and mayors are accorded capacity to select their cabinet and heads of department without referring to the use rule of law. However, history indicates that patronage systems in Africa extends from the grassroot to top level leaders and is a chain that by and large leads to inefficiency, ethnicity, nepotism and corruption.
Understanding the role that patronage politics play in a number of African states is crucial to assessing contemporary problems and solutions. Generally speaking, much of African politics is based on personal loyalty paid to individual leaders. Common features of this form of governance include the use of coercive measures to retain power and careful management of intricate networks of diverse ethnic groups. Such systems are prevalent in most states of modern Africa where they impede the advancement of institutional capacities. Arguably, they are remnants of European colonialism, and have been spread by the neo-colonialism forces to non-colonised states in Africa.
Colonial powers needed indigenous Africans to manage their huge colonies because of differing cultures, diverse ethnicities, and the lack of previously united forms of national identity within their overseas territories. European administrations solved this problem by creating small, but elite classes of local leaders within their colonies. From the colonialists, the new African elites learned the importance of the relationship between wealth and politics. Following World War II, this bureaucratic bourgeois class began to clamor for independence. Nationalization movements materialized quickly, leading economically drained European powers to rapidly cede their colonies and hand-pick African elites to fill the power void.
In the period that followed the independence, the new leaders of Africa then sought to maintain power. Although the inherited nation-states were delineated by the dubious lines agreed to during the Berlin Conference, local leaders elected to retain existing boarders. Elites that had consolidated their hold on power subsequently weakened their political opponent’s potential to grow. They appear to have utilized what Bruce Bueno de Mesquita refers to as the five rules for political survival. These rules are: “keep your winning coalition as small as possible, keep your nominal electorate as large as possible, control the flow of revenue, pay your key supporters just enough to maintain loyalty, and do not take money out of your supporters’ pockets to make the people’s lives better”.
In addition to a culture of political strive, these techniques created a political atmosphere of factionalism in which the elites could thrive. Following the collapse of colonialism, high-profile, elite leaders were perceived to have won their nation’s independence from ruling white imperialists. These African leaders effectively rallied their new constituents around nationalistic ideals that cut across ethnic divides within their states. For many years and reasons, including lack of mobility and poor infrastructure, many African leaders are still ruling with the support of diverse ethnic leaders in different geographical areas throughout their countries. This is deep rooted patronage that in turn damages the country and leaves it at the mercy of a political conflict.
It can be argued that leaders such as Jomo Kenyatta, Malawi’s Hastings Banda, Côte d’Ivoire’s Félix Houphouet-Boigny, and Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere each ruled through this kind of patronage system. They represented a type of politics called “neo-patrimonialism” and were able to retain power for years. Although many of these original leaders have transitioned from power, their systems of patronage and centralized power are maintained by a new generation of leadership.
In conclusion, year in and year out, Africa has experienced many bad leaders who have ruined the Africa’s international relations. It was demonstrated that patronage-based leadership creates an unstable political environment, corruption, unemployment etc. It is now a challenge for the new president of Liberia George Weah who now takes over from his predecessor his Johnson Sirleaf. As a former intentionally recognised former soccer player, Liberians and the entire Africa especially young generation are watching with much expectations put on him to change the view of the continent by not following the path of other African leaders who have adopted a colonial governance that does not care about the needs of the people. How I long to see leaders in Africa who are patriotic, visionary and whose interests are not rooted in political patronage but in patriotism. Leaders whose purpose and aim is not to enrich themselves but to enrich their countries and work and/ or govern not for themselves but for the current people at large and for the future generation.
