|
The
This collection of essays
on the state in Many of the chapters
provide strong historical accounts of the experiences of state formation,
sometimes coupled with critiques of earlier attempts to examine the state.
This works better in some cases than others. Raufu Mustapha’s
historical examination of the Nigerian state usefully identifies ‘critical
constitutive elements’ that have shaped the Nigerian state under successive
regimes, seeing continuity as much as change (169). Kidane Megistaeb’s
Ethiopian case study, in contrast, analyzes the efforts and failures of early
state-building projects, before focussing on the post-1991 ‘ethnic federalism’.
Mengistaeb provides readers with an excellent, critical account of
contemporary Ethiopian state-building. Similarly, Eboe Hutchful deftly
links together the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial state formation
experiences of Other contributions,
however, seem lacking in analytical focus. Ahmed Samatar’s study of Few of these contributions
succeed in describing how society views the state or present much in the way
of new research – the best emphasize the need for new perspectives.
Perhaps this relative empirical poverty is a problem inherent to the topic –
how does one ‘research’ the state? Moreover the authors do not provide
much in the way of innovative methodology or case studies of particular
aspects of the state. In contrast to much of the literature on The vagueness of
the state in these contributions seems to be a function of the over-broad
definitions and conceptualization of the state advanced in the introductory
essay. The authors suggest that “the state might be conceptualized as a
concatenation of four frames: leader, regime, administration, and
commonwealth” (7). As a student, this writer was taught to differentiate
clearly between the regime “rules, principles, norms and modes of
interaction;” the state “the organization of people and resources and the
establishment of policy outlines…institutions of power”; and the government “the
specific occupants of public office” (Chazan et al., Politics and Society
in Contemporary Africa, 1992,39). Going back to this classic
African politics textbook, I am struck by the continued good sense of their
analysis “state, regime and government may or may not overlap empirically. In
concept, however, they are quite distinct” (Chazan et al., 39).
However, the authors in The African State do not engage with these
issues. Their conceptual framework presumes a conceptual as well as empirical
overlap between leader (government), regime, and state. Even if this can
be justified analytically, it leads to confusion over what we mean by ‘the
state’. A further significant
weakness of the study is that no reference is made to the substantial
political science and sociological literature on state-formation. In
addition to well-known European studies, there is an extensive literature on
the The
contributions therefore suffer from an overly broad definition of the state,
a failure to engage with existing literature on the state, and a lack of descriptive
detail. Put together, these criticisms suggest that the collection’s
weakness is more theoretical than empirical. But it also suggests that a
stronger theoretical base might lead to more interesting empirical
research. Here then is the first step of an important research agenda:
to ‘bring the state back in’ without replicating European-centric theories,
or relying too heavily on their assumptions; to build a new theoretical
framework for studying the state in
|