Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Chair:
-
Lars Buur
(Roskilde University)
- Stream:
- Series D: Democratisation, authority and governance
- Location:
- GR 202
- Start time:
- 12 September, 2008 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
to follow
Long Abstract:
This panel investigates the resurgence of traditional authority in state-governance. Since the mid-1990s many African states have officially recognized traditional authorities such as elders or ‘chiefs’. This trend has coincided with a wave of electoral democratisation and can be seen as an attempt at securing grass-roots participation, as well as bolstering state outreach and legitimacy. African states have put their faith in the role of traditional authorities as both assistants of the state and local community representatives. They expect partnerships with traditional authorities to produce stability, good governance and development in weak states, thereby reducing transaction costs and facilitating grassroots collective action. Does the recognition of customary authorities challenge the centralist and authoritarian post-colonial African state? Is there a ‘new dawn’ for traditional leaders in managing public affairs or, conversely do we observe a continuity of ‘indirect rule’? Has the resurgence of traditional authority in local development significantly changed power configurations and the distribution of resources? With these questions in mind, the panel explores past and present processes of traditional authorities’ involvement in state governance.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper long abstract:
to follow
Paper long abstract:
The paper explores the recent state recognition of traditional authority in post-war Mozambique, introduced with Decree 15/2000, and asks what this implies for the position of traditional leaders or chiefs in the former rural war zones and opposition strongholds of Sussundenga District. Decree 15/2000 recognises traditional leaders as community authorities, who are envisaged as representing, giving voice to, and catering to the needs of rural constituencies. At the same time it delegates to community authorities a long list of key state functions: policing, taxation, population registration, enforcement of justice, land allocation, and rural development. In fulfilling these tasks, community authorities are envisaged as assistants of local state institutions and as the concrete entry points for the governance of rural territories and the distribution of development provisions.
The paper argues that the double-role of community representatives and state assistants situates chiefs in an ambiguous position between state demands and local community interests, which are often conflicting in the former war-zones. State recognition increases chiefs’ scope of power through not only the symbolic regalia of the state, but also the organizational capacity and police and military power that, despite much talk of weak states, are considerable in Mozambique. But state recognition can also decrease chiefs’ status because of the deeply political nature of state and development provisions. Attempts to impose reified notions of traditional authority and to politically instrumentalize chiefs to serve ruling party interests run the risk of distancing chiefs from the communities they formally represent. This suggests that the longer chiefs are able to steer the contentious terrain between Frelimo-state requirements and their local constituencies’ preoccupations and needs, the more powerful they may become. Not all chiefs are capable of doing so, and the mediating work of chiefs also generate conflicts.
Paper long abstract:
After years of violent conflict South Sudan is undergoing a delicate process of conflict transformation and state-building. In 2005 the main parties in conflict signed a comprehensive peace agreement which is being implemented in a tense context. This has opened up new avenues for negotiating state power and authority also at the local level.
During the era of Anglo-Egyptian rule a “Native Administration” based on indirect rule was installed in Southern Sudan. It was built on traditional socio-political structures which differed according to given local socio-cultural setting. Where no hereditary authorities were present such political institutions i.e. chieftainships were created. Beside the so called chiefs of the native administration a variety of different types of traditional leaders exist until today. Since independence the South of Sudan has been affected by violent conflicts. However, in areas where the Sudanese state was not physically present, no vacuum of authority appeared. Instead non-state actors such as militias and traditional authorities governed.
Nowadays even though the process of post-conflict state building brought administrators physically into villages chiefs are still crucial in many ways: They judge local courts, and they solve disputes between families and clans. In addition chiefs are important in settling conflicts between ethnic groups. Chiefs cover administrative tasks such as collecting taxes, and they act as in-between the population and the government administration. Their status is hybrid and they are perceived as being member of the administration and representatives of the communities at the same time. The Local Government Act which has not yet been approved by the South Sudanese legislative Assembly shall legally determine the competencies and activities of chiefs in the South.
In the context of the panel’s focus on the resurgence of traditional authorities in state governance in Africa this presentation will trace the role of traditional authorities and non state institutions such as networks based on clans on the local level in the post-conflict state-formation setting of South Sudan. It will shed a light on the way traditional authorities and other actors negotiate authority and influence in local political arenas.