Is ‘patrimonialism’ really the source of Africa’s poor governance? This article from the African Studies Review argues that contemporary conceptions of patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism as negative regime types associated with corruption, clientelism, and autocracy are based on a fundamental misreading of theory. Weber’s ‘patrimonialism’ is, rather, a specific form of authority derived from traditional sources of legitimacy and based on a mutual understanding of responsibilities between the ruler and the ruled. Casting aside these misconceptions will allow African scholars to better analyse the character of African states, without falling back on the notion of African exceptionalism.
Many contemporary scholars have claimed that African states are governed by a pervasive ‘patrimonial’ logic, which encourages clientelism, corruption, and economic stagnation. Even in the face of democratisation and bureaucratic reforms, forms of patrimonialism are still seen to be obstacles to Africa’s future political and economic development. This focus on patrimonialism to explain African governance has had three consequences for the study of African states:
- Patrimonialism has been established as the characteristic form of governance in Africa, producing a kind of African exceptionalism in the political science literature
- Failures of African democracy and citizen action have been ascribed to patrimonialism, precluding other sources
- Patrimonialism has also become a key explanation for poor economic performance, creating a convenient catch-all for Africa’s ills
Yet many of these usages of patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism misinterpret Weberian theory. Contrary to contemporary conceptions, Weber’s ‘patrimonialism’ was not posited as a step on the path towards rational-legal authority, nor did it assume that the intermingling of personal and private spheres was inherently negative. Rather, it sought to understand the cultural framing of beliefs about the operation of legitimate power and emphasised mutual responsibilities between rulers and their subjects. Far from being a weak, dictatorial type, Weber’s ‘patrimonialism’ recognised that leaders could and should be held accountable and that they must abide by certain norms in order to sustain the willingness of their subjects to obey.
By this account, the case of Botswana is a useful illustration of Weber’s conceptualization of patrimonialism. The country’s elites have not abandoned patrimonialism or overcome it. They have instead built a democratic state on a foundation of traditional and highly personalised loyalties. By Weber’s definition, then, Botswana is one of Africa’s most ‘patrimonial’ states. Yet, its position as one of its most successful and democratic states undercuts the idea of patrimonialism as the source of Africa’s ills. This example suggests several recommendations to scholars:
- Move beyond these mischaracterisations
- Do not invoke the concepts of patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism in the absence of supporting evidence, as it glosses over the variations in power and accountability across states
- Relinquish the notion of African exceptionalism and embrace the potential of comparative analyses across regions.
