Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:54:55.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Popular Legitimacy in African Multi-Ethnic States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2008

Robert H. Jackson  and
Carl G. Rosberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The historical development of the modern state is marked by, among other important changes, the transformation of political legitimacy from the authority of princes to the mandate of the people, from dynastic to popular legitimacy. Since states are the creatures not only of their domestic environment but also of international society, we must distinguish between internal and international legitimacy. Martin Wight defines the latter as ‘the collective judgement of international society [i.e. other states] about rightful membership of the family of nations’. According to him, the convention of international legitimation that has predominated since 1945 is based on the combined and paradoxical principles of majority rule, which rejects the legitimacy of colonialism, and territorial integrity, which nevertheless accepts territorial divisions established under colonialism. We define internal legitimacy as the recognition of a state and its government as rightful by its population, which during the modern era has increasingly meant a popular recognition democratically expressed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Modern African Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 177 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 177 note 1 See Bendix, Reinhard, Kings or People: power and the mandate to rule (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1978).Google Scholar

page 177 note 2 Wight, Martin in Bull, Hedley (ed.), Systems of States (London, 1977), p. 153.Google Scholar

page 177 note 3 Ibid. pp. 168–72.

page 177 note 4 Rothchild, Donald, ‘Ethno Regionalism and Negotiable Demands in the African Policy Process’, XIIth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Rio de Janeiro, August 1982.Google Scholar

page 178 note 1 Hirschman, Albert O., The Passions and the Interests (Princeton, 1977), pt. 1.Google Scholar

page 178 note 2 See Connor, Walker, ‘Nation-Building or Nation-Destroying’, in World Politics (Princeton), 24, 3, 04 1972, p. 327.Google Scholar

page 179 note 1 Halle, Louis J., Men and Nations (Princeton, 1965). p. 25.Google Scholar

page 179 note 2 Mazrui, Ali A., Towards a Pax Africana: a study of ideology and ambition (Chicago, 1967), chs. 2 and 3.Google Scholar

page 179 note 3 According to Oakeshott, Michael, On Human Conduct (Oxford, 1975), p. 188, ‘No European state (let alone an imitation European state elsewhere in the world) has ever come within measurable distance of being a “nation-state”,’ Despite this exaggeration, it is none the less true that most states are multi-ethnic in composition.Google Scholar

page 181 note 1 According to Furnivall, J. S., Colonial Policy and Practice: a comparative study of Burma and Netherlands India (Cambridge, 1963), p. 304, a plural society is one that comprises two or more sections that live ‘side by side, but separately, within the same political unit… It is in the strictest sense a medley [of peoples], for they mix but do not combine’.Google Scholar

page 181 note 2 See Hansard Society, Problems of Parliment Government in Colonies (London, 1953),Google Scholar and What Are the Problems of Parliamentary Government in West Africa? (London, 1958).Google Scholar

page 182 note 1 Problems of Parliamentary Government in Colonies, pp. 55 and 76.

page 182 note 2 See Lewis, W. Arthur, Politics in West Africa (London, 1965), ch. 3,Google Scholar and Lijphart, Arend, Democracy in Plural Societies: a comparative exploration (New Haven 1977), ch. 2.Google Scholar

page 182 note 3 Lijphart, op. cit. ch. 5.

page 182 note 4 Ibid. p. 223.

page 183 note 1 In the future a reverse transfer, such as from Japan to some western countries, is in prospect: in this case industrial rather than political institutions.

page 183 note 2 Mackenzie, W. J. M., ‘The Export of Electoral Systems’ in Eckstein, Harry and Apter, David (eds.), Comparative Politics: a reader (New York, 1963), p. 321.Google Scholar

page 183 note 3 John Rawls distinguishes constitutions as abstract rules and as realised conduct specified by rules. A written constitution can be merely the former, but living constitutionalism always entails the latter. See A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), pp. 55–6.Google Scholar

page 183 note 4 See Jackson, Robert H. and Rosberg, Carl G.. Personal Rule in Black Africa: Prince, Autocrat, Prophet, Tyrant (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1982),Google Scholar for an exploration of the non-institunal character of African states. See also Geertz, Clifford, ‘The Judging of Nations: some comments on the assessment of regimes in the new states’, in European Journal of Sociology (Paris), 18. 2, 1977, pp. 245–61,Google Scholar and Roth, Guenther, ‘Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism, and Empire-Building in the New States’, in World Politics, 20, 2, 01 1968, pp. 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 184 note 1 See Legum, Colin (ed.), Africa Contemporary Record: annual survey and documents, 1979–1980 (London and New York, 1981), pp. A61–2.Google Scholar

page 184 note 2 Elsewhere we argue that the guarantee of international citizenship can under certain circumstances obstruct internal civil development. See Jackson, Robert H. and Rosberg, Carl G., ‘The Marginality of African States’, in Carter, Gwendolen M. and Patrick, O'Meara (eds.), Twenty-Five Years of African Independence, 1957–1982: an assessment (Bloomington, 1984).Google Scholar

page 185 note 1 See Dahl, Robert A., Polyarchy: participation and opposition (New Haven, 1971). It is ‘polyarchy’ that Lijphart believes can be achieved and maintained in plural societies by the procedures of consociational democracy; op.cit. p. 4.Google Scholar

page 186 note 1 Young, Crawford, Politics in the Congo (Princeton, 1965), p. 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 186 note 2 The Hansard Society reports of 1953 and 1956 exhibit the British concern.

page 186 note 3 Polyarchy was also retained in Botswana, but we do not consider that country to be a multi-ethnic state since the Batswana alone make up 90 per cent of the national population.

page 187 note 1 Senghor's own party reserved the most popular lable: ‘democratic socialist’.

page 187 note 2 See a seminal article by Foltz, William J., ‘Social Structure and Political Behaviour of Senegalese Elites’, in Schmidt, Steffan W., Scott, James C., Lande, Carl, and Guasti, Laura (eds.), Friends, Followers and Factions: a reader in political clientelism (Berkeley, 1977), pp. 242–9.Google Scholar

page 188 note 1 What Are the Problems of Parliamentary Government in West Africa?, p. 48. See also Whiteley, W. H., ‘Political Concepts and Connotations’, in Kirkwood, Kenneth (ed.), African Affairs, No. 1 (London, 1961), pp. 7–21.Google Scholar

page 189 note 1 Lewis, op.cit. pp. 60–1.

page 189 note 2 Quoted in ‘Violence in Sierra Leone Electioneering Campaign’, in West Africa (London), 26 04 1982, p. 1115.Google Scholar

page 190 note 1 Africa Research Bulletin: political, social and cultural series (Exeter) 20, 9, 10 1983, pp. 6972–3.Google Scholar

page 190 note 2 Cliffe, Lionel (ed.), One Party Democracy: the 1965 Tanzania general elections (Nairobi, 1967).Google Scholar

page 190 note 3 Africa Research Bulletin, 20, 10, 11 1983, pp. 7005–6.Google Scholar

page 190 note 4 Legum (ed.), op.cit. 1980–81, pp. B514–15.

page 191 note 1 Single-party elections in African multi-ethnic states appear to satisfy the two conditions noted by Albert O. Hirschman for effective and democratic monopolies, namely:ineffective ‘exit’ and effective ‘voice’. See Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: response to decline in firms, organizations and states (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. 55.Google Scholar

page 191 note 2 See Hyden, Goran and Leys, Colin, ‘Elections and Politics in Single-Party Systems: the case of Kenya and Tanzania’, in British Journal of Political Science (London), 2, 4, 10, 1972, p. 416.Google Scholar

page 191 note 3 See Jackson, and Rosberg, , op.cit. pp. 73–82.Google Scholar

page 192 note 1 Roth, op.cit. p. 203.

page 192 note 2 See Lijphart, , op. cit. pp. 38–41, and Lewis, op. cit. pp. 72–4.Google Scholar

page 192 note 3 Schattschneider, E. E., The Semisovereign People: a realist's view of democracy in America (New York, 1960), ch. 4.Google Scholar

page 192 note 4 ‘Where law ends, discretion begins, and the exercise of discretion may mean either beneficence or tyranny, either justice or injustice, either reasonableness or arbitrariness’. Davis, Kenneth C., Discretionary Justice: a preliminary inquiry (Urbana, 1971), p. 3.Google Scholar

page 192 note 5 See Black, Charles L. Jr, ‘Representation in Law and Equity’, in Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W. (eds.), Nomos X: representation (New York, 1968), pp. 131–43.Google Scholar

page 193 note 1 This practice is also common in Latin American, South Asian, and South-East Asian politics.

page 195 note 1 Wight, loc. cit. pp. 114–28.

page 195 note 2 Mair, Lucy, Primitive Government (Harmondsworth, 1962), p. 134,Google Scholar and African Kingdoms (Oxford, 1977).Google Scholar

page 196 note 1 Kuper, Leo, Genocide: its political uses in the twentieth century (New York, 1981), ch. 4.Google Scholar Also see Lemarchand, René and Martin, David, Selective Genocide in Burundi (London, n.d.), Report No. 20, Minority Rights Group.Google Scholar

page 197 note 1 Biafran secession was provoked, at least in part, by the indiscriminate killing and enforced exile of large numbers of I bos in Northern Nigeria during 1966–7.