The concluding chapter identifies three broad contributions of the book: explaining the choices made by states about language; offering explicit historical institutionalist accounts of the politics of language by centering the analysis on the state and using notions of legacies, critical juncture, path dependency, layering, conversion, and drift, among others; and, the further development, leveraging, and testing of the concept of state traditions as a theoretical and analytical focus for explaining language policy. The chapter also synthesizes the important points coming out of the case studies drawn from a multiplicity of contexts, namely that processes of state-making and state-building are central in forging the state traditions that steer linguistic policies towards specific developmental paths; that the specific nature and configuration of political institutions within a state, not only at founding but also as it evolves over time when adjusting to changing societal dynamics and circumstances, heavily condition the choices states make about language; and that political ideas and norms are central to state traditions since they tend to structure both political and policy development by conditioning the choices of political actors, pushing societies into specific paths of linguistic choices at the expense of others.

To what extent did the Patriot Revolt of the 1780s and the Batavian Revolution of the 1790s break with the old regime? Recent decades have seen a wide range of responses to this question. This chapter aims to offer a synthesis that takes in multiple perspectives. It considers revolutionary ideas, the contentious repertoire of the Dutch Revolution, and the question which institutions, places, and people were affected by the revolution. I conclude that the revolution had a deep and lasting impact on the political life of Catholics, Jews, Brabanders, and rural dwellers, among other groups, because they were accepted, for the first time since Dutch independence, as full citizens. The higher degree of political participation and the introduction of public access to government entirely changed the dynamics of citizen-ruler interactions. New political practices were not there to stay, but their memory could not be banned from people’s minds. There were also many inhabitants of the Netherlands who largely remained outside the political domain. This could be because they were actively excluded, as was the case for Orangists, women, and those living in the colonies, but it could also be the result of a self-imposed stance of non-involvement.

Over the past 200 years, rival political camps in southwest Nigeria have offered competing ideas of good governance. The Yoruba progressive tradition emphasises an epistemic approach to governance, embodied in the Yoruba concept of olaju (civilisation or development) and the figure of Chief Obafemi Awolowo. More populist challengers have long countered this elitist approach with a more socially embedded offering, emphasising closeness and connection between leaders and followers, and material exchange. This second populist tradition has been associated with the more nefarious aspects of Nigerian politics, from the distribution of patronage to the dominance of ‘godfather’ figures. This chapter adds nuance to debates about godfather politics, with analysis of key figures in Oyo state politics. By 2011, a new generation of politicians in the progressive tradition, led by newly elected Governor Abiola Ajimobi, repudiated the amala politics associated with the region’s godfathers and affirmed donor-originated ideas of good governance. In tracing how assorted politicians in Yorubaland have sought to honour the epistemic, social and material elements of governance, this chapter concludes that we should be sceptical of any claim to a monopoly on good governance.