MÉDARD: L’Etat néo-patrimonial en Afrique noire

[MÉDARD, JEAN-FRANÇOIS (ed.) (1991), États d’Afrique noire, 1st ed. Paris: Karthala, pp. 323-353]

Patrimonial logics run across all African states, though in different degrees. Researchers make a distinction between patrimonialism (Weber’s subtype of traditional mode of domination) and neo-patrimonialism (combination of patrimonial logic and burocratisation).

Some elements are worth recovering of Weber:

• Patrimonial state as ‘l’espace dans lequel le chef organise son pouvoir politique comme l’exercise de sa gestion domestique‘ (p. 326)
• The need, once the state affirms itself, to rely on an administrative staff to run the state affairs, but always based on patronage (patrimonial relationships)
• Personal loyalty to the chief as the base of relationships among the group in power
• Confusion between public and private domains (most important trait of patrimonialism for Médard)

Several alternative notions have been proposed, notably the politique du ventre (Jean-François Bayart). It seems that it refers broadly to the same practices (corruption, patrimonialism), but willing to encompass aspects such as witchcraft and considering not only the state but the links with society.

Neo-patrimonialism comes out of a mixture:

‘…les États africains sont en géneral plus néo-patrimoniaux que patrimoniaux dans la mesure où ils sont des types mixtes, mélangeant dans une combinaison complexe et instable des traits traditionnels et des traits modernes (et notamment bureaucratiques), des “répertoires” étrangers et autochtones, le traditionnel n’étant pas exactement l’autochtone, ni le moderne l’étranger’ (p. 332)

There exists, for instance, some degree of adoption of public norms.

Bureaucratic patrimonialism has served the interests of African political elites. States have grown not with developmental aims, but to provide means for accumulation (and eventually redistribution).

Neo-patrimonial African states share some traits:

• Big men: politicians convert political resources in economic resources. They must behave with largesse towards their clients in order to survive. But it’s not only leaders that manage under patrimonial logics; all public officials, in their tiny spheres of power, do. Power, hence, never gets institutionalized.
• Accumulation: politics converts into an space of material and symbolic exchange. However, extreme accumulation destroys the productive base, and thus finally erodes itself.
• Social classes: a dominant class is being born, but not formed yet. It still lacks hegemony.
• Development: being unpredictable and not institutionalized, the state is incapable of delivering development. African leaders help sustaining the neo-patrimonial order in their personal interest.

In any case, it is worth retaining that different countries show different degrees and modes of patrimonialism. Both its bureaucratic logic and the nature of leadership help explain these differences.