CC BY
1
Dr. Jason Nkyabonaki (Tanzania)
INDIGENOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS AND MODERN AFRICAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: ARE THEY CONGRUENT?
© 2017 Jason Nkyabonaki
Abstract: The levelling of administrative systems in pre-colonial Africa would be to see them as systems that propagated the promotion of common good to the community. This has tempted some scholars in the recent years to meditate and gear towards the thinking of native administrative systems. The argument is that Africans had well premised themselves for self-governance before colonialism and its legacy on the continent, Pratt (1965). However, the Eurocentric scholarship authenticity propagates for modernity to be a elixir for Africans development. Some scholars such as Ekeh (1975), Riggs (1964) present Africa to be having dual systems in the post independence era. They count this duality as inefficiency for Africa should embrace and romance with modern administrative values and hence, they see the attachment of these systems to be a curse. They argue that, the two systems of administration cannot marry and when they marry the inefficiencies such as corruption, partiality result, Riggs (1964). The post independence administration worked behind the established constitutions (Westminster and Gaullist) by the former colonial masters that are Britain and France respectively. The administrative systems of indigenous and that of colonialism if are compatible, why then has Africa not developed institutions of governance to accommodate such compatibilities? If they are incompatible, what is the way out towards a harmonized system of administration in Africa? The central argument in this paper is that while scholars such as Ekeh 1975 and Riggs find the two systems to create problems for Africans administration, I argue that the hybrid system would create strong institutions as its a sine qua non condition for administration development. The quandary of administration in Africa is not due to the compatible model but rather a Western modernist view that Africans public administration has not applied in totus the western values which this paper criticises as a myopic outlook. African public administration by its virtue of reform post independence to Africanize and compatibi-lize some of the already existing and new administration principles is symbolically strength towards administration development.
The litmus test is done to see if post independence public administration attempted to amalgamate indigenous administrative values with modern administration values. If the post independence theory and practice reflect the amalgamation, then it will be put that there is congruency and vice versa. Hence, this paper argues that administration should be reflecting the people's culture, norms and taboos for the administration development to be realized.
Keywords: indigenous, administration, public administration, post-independence
Introduction
In pre-colonial times, communities in today's Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Senegal, Rwanda each had their own administrative systems which included legal system, land administration,
administration of justice based on their customs and practices. These customs were enforced by elders, clan leaders (and in some areas kings) who performed both civic and spiritual duties. This was done in both centralized and less centralized societies, Falola (1999).
According to Bockstette et al. (2002) argue that modern institutions work better when there are strong traditional institutions to build upon. In the context of African centralized groups, that a key asset of strong traditional institutions is the availability of mechanisms to hold local leaders accountable. In fragmented groups, where such accountability mechanisms were weak or absent, modernization gave unprecedented power to abusive local leaders, leading to tyranny and disorder. Its argued that institutions were not only the colonizers' strategies, but also pre-existing political conditions affected the quality of government in Africa. In other words, the colonial experience did not simply mold, for better or worse, the institutions of the colonies La Porta et al. (1999), Acemoglu et al. (2001) but was itself heavily influenced by the institutions that colonizers found upon their arrival.
Several historians stress that the key dimension of pre-colonial institutions was their degree of political centralization. In areas inhabited by centralized ethnic groups, the existence of pre-colonial chiefly hierarchy made local chiefs accountable to higher-level traditional authority. By bargaining with senior traditional leaders, colonial and postcolonial governments could foster policy coordination and implementation in those areas, leading to faster adoption of European policies and technologies (Schapera 1970). By contrast, in areas inhabited by politically fragmented groups the presence of too many traditional power holders rendered such bargaining very costly or infeasible. As a result, in those areas unrestrained local chiefs were often allowed to follow parochial and personalistic policies, leading to tyranny, disorder and ultimately halting modernization (Tosh 1978).
Historians of colonial Uganda suggest that this variation in pre-colonial institutions shaped in the success of modernization policies across Ugandan regions. The British, who colonized Uganda between 1890 and 1910, immediately understood the importance of native authorities for implementing their policies and heavily relied on traditional chiefs for building roads, organizing schools, improving sanitation, and many other activities (Pratt 1965). As a result, British rule in Uganda was characterized by a strong continuity of pre-colonial institutions. In turn, such continuity allowed pre-colonial institutions to affect the implementation of modernization policies.
The scholarship that considers pre-colonial Africa to have had no organization has made scholars such as Lucy Mair (1962) to explain that pre-colonial African governments were primitive as he puts it aptly, ' it is a fact of history that it was the European peoples who discovered the others, and in most cases established political dominion over them, and not vice versa, and the reason is not difficult to find.. .they possessed technical superiority in a number of fields'.
The foundations of Lucy Mair (1962) are incomplete for the social systems had developed before coming of colonialists and they had a foundation in the type of economy. The major determinant of the economy was the environment which influenced other variables such as population size, soil fertility and rain variance. Either the by product of these variables was a pastoral or agricultural societies were most of the societies with pastoral economy had had a decentralized administrative system while those societies with permanent crops fell under centralized administrative systems. The debate is pushed further by Political scientists who notice the presence of a dual authority structure in Africa, where central governments (be they colonial or independent) had to confront with the power of precolonial leaders, Mamdani (1996) and Boone (2003). More specifically, historians document that pre-colonial institutions heav-
ily shaped the quality of government, and hence the success of modernization efforts, in colonial and postcolonial Africa, Falola (1999).
Anthropologists and historians stress that the main distinction in Africa is that between more and less centralized pre-colonial political systems ,Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940) and report that African ethnic groups characterized by more centralized institutions were better able to modernize, Low (1965), Pratt (1965) and Schapera (1970).An example is the use of Indirect rule by the British in Uganda. This is correctly presented by Pratt (1965) who argues that the history of Uganda provides a good illustration of the role of pre-colonial institutions during the colonial period.
However, on the other hand the Ashanti state had various unifying ceremonies and symbols such as the Odwira harvest festival and the Golden Stool. Indeed, British colonial officials were impressed by Ashanti nationhood to the point where one commissioner wrote that, in Ashanti we have before us a people who have a common faith, a common past and a common thought; whereas in the Gold Coast colony we are dealing with a congeries of peoples who possess inter se but mutually antagonistic rivalries, high-sounding pretensions and intolerant parochialisms. I think it is clear that the claim of the Ashantis that they form a distinct
*
nation, leading a life apart from the Colony peoples, must be admitted to be a genuine one . Therefore, from this text one appreciates that African administrative systems were well established and capable of yielding common good to the civilians to use the concept.
Indigenous administrative systems in this paper means, a whole set of aspects in the administration of public affairs including the structures, behavioural patterns, rules, procedures, norms, role occupants and the relationships among them. These administrative systems did not operate in a vacuum. For one to comprehend the logic and philosophy behind the nature and character of administrative systems in pre-colonial Africa and the discourse on comparative studies of public administration across cultural boundaries offer a great service to that end.
Characteristics of pre-colonial administration
African indigenous administrative systems are classified under two forms less centralized and centralized states. As indicated elsewhere in this paper, an ultimate end of traditional authority was to yield common good for all despite of the form of governance. In pre-colonial times, communities in Africa had had their own legal system based on their customs and practices. These customs were enforced by elders, clan leaders (and in some areas kings) who performed both civic and spiritual duties. The community determined the powers exercised by the clan elders. These powers included keeping peace, settling disputes (involving marriage, divorce, the marital status of women, the rights of children, inheritance, election of customary
heirs and land), performance of rituals, protection of gods and shrines and guarding against
**
drought, famine and other disasters .
Historians stress those traditional accountability mechanisms of centralized groups enabled the colonialists to foster modernization programs along two dimensions. First, by co-opting senior traditional leaders, the colonialists were able to control local chiefs and induce them to rule in the interest of their communities (Apter 1961), thereby fostering the introduction of new agricultural technologies (Richards 1960, Ehrlich 1965), religion and education (Low 1965), and modern health facilities (Pratt 1965). Second, pre-existing accountability
* William Tordoff, "The Ashanti Confederacy," Journal of African History, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1962), p. 417. Diana Lee-Smith, My House is My Husband, Lund University, 1997, pp. 123-124.
mechanisms also helped the colonialists to improve coordination between local chiefs of different districts, who were all accountable to a common traditional authority. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this second effect boosted the ability of centralized groups to build roads (Pratt 1965) and to control epidemics (Low 1965).
In contrast, not only several historians document the meagre performance of modernization programs in pre-colonial fragmented districts, but they also attribute it precisely to the lack of accountability of their local chiefs. Without a traditional hierarchy of government to rely upon and unable to build new institutions from scratch, the colonialists faced the huge problem of dealing with (and monitoring) many dispersed power holders. In this context, Burke (1964) depicts the Teso local chiefs as absolute tyrants. Tosh (1978, p.182) describes the abusive behavior of Lango chiefs, who "exploited their office for personal or factional ends; and the ordinary population became alienated from the administrative structure'". He emphasizes that such behavior was a direct result of the fragmented nature of Lango traditional government and shows how it distorted reforms aimed at improving the rule of law, education, agricultural productivity and infrastructure.
Thus, historical evidence suggests that Ugandan regions inhabited by centralized groups were more successful in providing modern public goods. Further evidence confirms historical accounts of Uganda for other African countries. The colonial history of the Tswana of Botswana, Schapera (1970), Wylie (1990), the Sotho of Lesotho, Ashton (1967), Breytenbach (1975), the Swazi of Swaziland, Schapera (1956) and other centralized groups of Southern Bantu, testifies that, by increasing the accountability of local chiefs, pre-colonial centralization fostered modernization. Likewise, Boone (2003) documents that in Senegal the centralized Wolof of the groundnut basin better supported the coordination and local implementation of development projects than the fragmented Diola of Lower Casamance, where the colonial ( and later national) government had lesser ability to control the abusive behavior of local chiefs. A similar picture emerges from the history of fragmented groups of southern Cote d'Ivoire such as Baoule, Bete or Guru (Boone 2003).
In less-centralized traditional states, social control manifested itself around the "dynamics of clanship". Herein, there was a social expectation of behaviour through defined division of labour- age set based and as well customs and norms informing the behaviour of that particular society .
Chiefly, the existence of well-defined norms despite the absence of a hierarchical system headed by a sovereign and peoples participation in decision making in a public gathering which signifies the presence of democracy. The notable societies include the Sukuma of Tanzania, the Nuer of Southern Sudan, the Ibos of Nigeria and the Kikuyu of Kenya as well as the Masai of Tanzania.
The community determined the powers exercised by the clan elders. These powers included keeping peace, settling disputes (involving marriage, divorce, the marital status of women, the rights of children, inheritance, election of customary heirs and land), performance of rituals, protection of gods and shrines and guarding against drought, famine and other disasters Schapera (1970). The managing of these functions needed an administrative system that was to ensure the implementation of these activities. Before getting into the contours of the discussion, there are two schools, which look at pre-colonial indigenous administrative systems. The first school represents those who find these indigenous societies to have had no base of administrative system and claim that Africans should thank colonialism for entrenching administrative values in their societies. The other school, argues in opposite and shows
* William Tordoff, "The Ashanti Confederacy," Journal of African History, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1962), p. 417.
that pre-colonial African societies had their machinery of governance and administration, that is why colonialists employed indirect rule in appreciation of the indigenous structures. Its therefore, argued that when colonialists came in Africa, they found an administrative system which was indigenous and it was not accommodative to their logic of exploitation. Neither, the European /western administrative system could be employed directly to the communities as the logic of colonialism would not be realized which was administration for exploitation. This means that the Western system informed by human school relations would not let the exploitation of these people happen. Hence, an administrative system that was accommodative to the indigenous values of administration and modern administrative principles. The hybrid-ity system of colonial administration as the features were congruent has continued to operate with strengthening administration in post independent Africa. As its presented that when colonialists came bit in British or French or Belgian lands, there was a conjugality of some elements for administration. This is proven through the following section.
Colonial era
The major motive behind colonial administration was to serve the colonial economy which was both exploitative and oppressive in nature, because of that all administrative structures were inclined towards maximizing exploitation of native Africans. In a nut shell, administrative machineries were created with a sole purpose of protecting and safeguarding the interests of the colonial masters, and never to help the local people. European powers established colonial administration in order to benefit their metropolis through exploitation and for advancing their internal prestige (Fernwich, 2009). For example British government used, the indirect rule approach by involving the local people to participate in the colonial administration. French and Portuguese colonial administration used assimilation style to inculcate French cultures to the local leaders so that they would feel possessing the same status of their colonial masters. The legal system was created in such a way that locals would feel quite intimidated. Punishments in the event of breaking the laws were unjustly inflicted to the natives (LeVine, 1964). Suffice to say, administrative systems were pro- colonialists.
Areas of Congruency between indigenous and modern administrative principles
Pre-colonial centralization was probably strongest in the colonial period; several historians argue that pre-colonial institutions remained important also after independence. Some African countries, such as Botswana or Swaziland, reveal a clear continuity between postcolonial political leaders and pre-colonial rulers, as traditional patterns of politics influenced the nature of the postcolonial state itself (Potholm 1977, Picard 1987). Elsewhere, pre-colonial institutions continued to play an important role at the local level, where postcolonial African regimes (like their colonial predecessors) could not achieve their objectives without the cooperation of traditional power holders, Van Rouveroy van Nieuwaal (1987). This pattern emerges from the accounts of Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana (Boone 2003), where pre-colonial institutions shaped the ability of the postcolonial state to coordinate and discipline local chiefs and thus to reach the periphery. Interestingly, Herbst (2000) observes that postcolonial heads of state often had to come to pacts with traditional authorities even in countries such as Mauritania, Niger and Chad, where "states abolished or marginalized chiefs after independence only to invite them back a few years later in the face of extraordinary difficulties to govern the rural areas'' Herbst (2000)
African history shows a clear continuity of pre-colonial institutions, and stresses their crucial role in modernization. Historical accounts from both the colonial and the postcolonial periods support a "indigenous administrative system" to be compatible with modern public administration in Africa and the western values for modernization should be taken as positive for the hybrid allows to accommodate indigenous African social systems and the ecology of the globe administration, which is a progress rather than being a problem. Its in this area where Ekeh (1975) with his two publics misses a point on administration development which is a product of strong indigenous African administrative system.
Hence, africanization which was taken to be a re modification of ineffective imbalance in the post independence administrative practices was a mile stone towards the establishment of administration congruency between indigenous and modern principles. The few areas to consider in the portraying of congruency entail administration of justice, land administration and recruitment of personnel in the public duties.
a) Administration of justice
Starting on the legal system and administration system one may learn that the two systems are congruent. In indigenous system of administration, a king was a sole source of justice and the appointed officials of the king to ensure justice were liable and accountable to him, Schapera (1970). The punishments were set and established by the king who was a chief administrator of the public service. People believed more on the negotiations and mediation as well as revenge where need be. When, the colonialists came they merged the administration of justices systems and allowed the customary practices to continue and civil practices to be practiced. Administration of justice must provide stability in the society/polity which is through rule of law that is indispensable for a just society for the preservation of the life, liberty, and property of its citizens (The Economist, 13/03/2008). There was neither property nor citizens' rights for the people and in many cases the people were not citizens but subjects (Shillington, 1989: 354). In addition to the absence of the rule of law, colonial laws were by themselves very notorious and in many cases entitled, as colonial "administrators to imprison any African sujet indefinitely and without charge or trial" (Shillington, 1989: 355). The general use of native chiefs, selected not in line with traditional legitimacy but according to loyalty to the European administrator in what is described as indirect rule in British Africa, has been described by Professor Mahmood Mamdani as "decentralized despotism" (as quoted by Easterly 2006: 273). In regions were there were no chiefs, Europeans invented chiefs and imposed them on the people, and always stressed tribal differences, thereby creating differences amongst the people. Chiefs had to enforce forced labour, ensure compulsory crop cultivation, recruit labour, collect taxes and fulfil other state requirements (Easterly, 2006: 275). These chiefs were made to rule as if they were the law and the people were under their jurisdiction. The chiefs were prosecutors as well as judges, who employed the jailer to hold their victims in custody as it pleased them: Thanks to the command and support, chiefs had more power than any oriental despot (Easterly, 2006: 275).However, this reveals a congreuncy between indigenoua administartion of justice and modern administartion in Africa.
In the post independence era a president takes a charge of ensuring justice through appointments of court officials and in most cases the independence of the judiciary is questioned
in practice as the executive (administration) seem to influence the judiciary. In Tanzania, this
*
has been a phenomenon from independence to date . Nyerere for instance said if one was caught engaged in corruption, the administration did not leave the punishment to be issued by
* APRM Report 2010: Good Governance Indicators in Tanzania.
the court but the administration was to ensure that the magistrate implements administrative order. The order was for the guilt individual to be imprisoned with 12 strokes on his/her buttock on the day he/she starts her punishment and 12 strokes on the day of ending her imprisonment*. Its of no difference from the traditional administration of justice in modern public administration. Therefore, in that aspect the administration of justice is congruent between the two systems. The issue after realizing the test is successful on congruency, then this paper challenges the Ekeh (1975) two publics in African public Administration in this regard which regards the presence of congruency as a problem to be inadequate of administration development which was to accommodate indigenous and modern administrative values. Post independence African leaders endeavoured to foster the congruency between the two systems.
Hence, the Tanganyikazation, Nigeriazation or Senegalization intended to have modern legal system adhere to indigenous systems where Africa has succeeded to do so through ensuring customary laws are entrenched in the civil law. Therefore, this has increased the potential of the Africans to have a better system of administering justice.
The controversies raised from the Eurocentric view point is a political mechanism of seeing African resorting to the best ways to manage their justice different from what they think can corner Africans as a maladministrative practice, Riggs (1964).
b) Land administration
The next section discusses the land administration in indigenous era and modern times of administration. In pre-colonial Africa land belonged solely to the king and the powers of the king to own land was rooted in the customary principles. The dwellers of the kingdom or chiefdom were all to pay tribute to the king/chief through presenting the harvests they made from the land. This was called a service to the majesty. Traditional authority was the repository of political-administrative power in the pre-colonial period. To this effect, provision of services such as land administration, construction of feeder roads, latrines, dispute resolution,wells etc. were all the sole prerogative of traditional leaders during this period. The resources for the provision of these services were in the form of levies, donations, royalties and tributes. However, with the emergence of the nation state under colonial and post-colonial regimes, the modernization of basic services, and the need to provide such services on a larger scale compelled the state to assume responsibility for the provision of these basic services through its elected local government structures such as municipal and district councils. Thus, traditional authorities no longer had independent resource base to provide services for their communities. In fact, in Zambia, one of the key informants indicated that under indirect rule, the British colonial government allocated a portion of financial resources to chiefs for the purpose of developing their chiefdoms.Examples are drawn from various countries:
South Africa within this context, the role of traditional leaders was limited to mobilizing their communities to complement the efforts of the central government in the provision of these and other services. However, following the failure of the neo-liberal reform agenda, the role of traditional leadership with regard to the provision of these services at the local level has come to occupy centre stage in development thinking on the continent.
Local communities, through their chiefs and other stakeholders are being called upon to play increased roles in the development of these communities although the dominant role is being played by the state. The state's approach to service delivery is duly informed by the Municipal Service Partnerships (Department of Constitutional Development, 1999).
* Hotuba ya MwalimuJ.K Nyerere 1992-Msasani,Dar es salaam.
Botswana the various democratic structures, which include both traditional leaders as ex-officio members and elected leadership, for example, Urban/Village Development Committees and Local Councils allow for the coexistence of the two governance structures. Dikgosi work with the Government of Botswana to facilitate government's legitimate responsibility to secure the well-being of the nation through the provision of vital services such as education, health sanitation in the villages by the local councils and municipalities. Partnerships with non-governmental organizations, the community and business are practical efforts, which have provided synergies in entrenching the value of self-reliance among the Batswana. Specific projects such as youth sports activities, Boards of Trustees and community trust Funds are examples of developmental initiatives in the country.
Although there may be conflict of interest in some areas, the relationship between chiefs and local councils is largely cordial. The position of chiefs due to their social proximity to their communities means that they are better placed to advise government about the socioeconomic needs of the people and this is useful in the distribution of services and resources.
The case of Swaziland portrays that the functions of chiefs in development are stipulated in Section 11 of the Swazi Administration Order, 1998. They are the link between their communities and central government and play a vital role in maintaining the relationship by informing their communities of developments, which affect them. Although they are expected to promote the welfare of their communities, some of the main challenges to service delivery in Swaziland emanate from the fact that the mechanisms and processes of administration remain highly centralized and therefore are not immediately accessible to the majority of citizens, especially in the rural areas.
From the perspective of traditional administartive system, equitable allocation of resources and service delivery between the rural and urban areas is hampered by lack of participation in the decision making processes which lead to the identification of development priorities in the different areas Ayittey, G.B.N. (1992). These examples vindicate the congruency interms of structures between indigenous and modern administartion. In this paper ,therefore its confirmed that for africa to have a functioning administartion must resort to an hybrid system that will cater for both ecological needs of the world and particular environment of the nation.
Moreover, in modern administration a president for instance in Tanzania is constitutionally pronounced as the owner of the land and people should pay tribute through taxation. Through this line of argument, one finds out that there is congruency between the indigenous and post independence administrative system of land in Tanzania and Senegal. What Fred Riggs (1964) calls the prismatic society trend, is through assessing these countries as having modern values of administration amidst traditional values. Regarding the land administration, this is a credit of administration development as the congruencies of principles make it easy for people to afford land customarily against expensive land under civil tenure system. What could be the situation for poor people if land was administered on the basis of civil tenure system alone?
A practical experience of land administration both under customary and civil law is provided by Tanzania after the decision to nationalize land under the president*. Tanzania during the Ujamaa period land was declared as an asset of the government or president and the president would evacuate people from one area to another as far as this is all his land. The villagi-zation policy cements the argument that land administration in post independence Tanzania
* Arusha declaration document, 1967.
where a president would decide to move people anywhere to establish ujamaa villages has had no difference from the indigenous land administration under the king . In the recent situation after the Dar es Salaam floods of December, the municipal Council of Kinondoni said had nowhere to host the floods victims. But the president said, they were to be taken to Mag-wepande and be given plots each. Therefore, this shows the congruency between the indigenous land administration under the king and modern African administration under the president. What is seen to be a problem from Eurocentric view is that Africa has continued with the established hybrid administrative system which does not foster their interests as per their wishes. However, through colonial establishment tricks such that of Karl Peters and chief Mangungo and the third and fourth phase government who have been giving land to foreign companies for individual transfers and not for the nations benefits. Hence, the congruency on administration of land ,makes me argue that, the administration of land in Africa today mostly reflect the indigenous systems and land conflicts are artificially created through the western land administration system of private property. The land belonged to the king and today belong to the president and all people in pre-colonial kingdom and todays modern administra*
tion people still regard the land to be for the king who is a president and its for everyone . Hence, the fights on land between pastoral societies and agricultural societies are due to conflicts from communal ownership to western individuality ownership. Hence, its argued that Africa has to ensure land administration efforts of nationalization which was to destruct the colonial hybrid land administration systems is negated and African land becomes open for African at home and those in Diaspora.
The other element to consider is recruitment of personnel in the civil service sector. During pre-colonial period, a chief of staff who was the kind appointed administrative staff basing on the history and affiliation of the appointee. The kind would decide when to award, demote .promote and his powers were numerous regarding the appointees. In Buganda kingdom for instance, a king appointed assistants for the servicing of the kingdom's administration matters. The greater accountability of local chiefs in traditionally centralized systems clearly emerges from many accounts on the Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro and other centralized Ugandan groups (Ap-ter 1961, Richards 1960, Burke 1964). For instance, in the Buganda kingdom the Kabaka (the
king) or other high-level traditional authorities abruptly dismissed local chiefs if their perform**
ance was poor (Low 1971) . In modern administration during colonialism, appointment was of no difference because those appointed to join public service were those sons of the chief or king. The hybrid-established system was congruent with the traditional personnel recruitment system. The post independence African administration found itself having the extension of the congru-ency between the indigenous and colonial administrative system. Recruitment in the public service was done under patronage and personalismo, which observed no principles of western modern bureaucracy of specialization and merit. The only merit was African and closeness to the employing authority. To reveal, this in Tanzania from 1977 after the party supremacy the powers the criteria to employment included one to be a party member. This implicitly makes this presentation to argue that because of the need to extend the powers of recruitment at liberty like in the
* Shivji, Issa (1997).
** Historians discuss an interesting mechanism that further improved the accountability of local chiefs in centralized groups. For example, in the kingdom of Buganda there were significant chances of promotion from office to office (Apter 1961, Low 1971). Crucially, the competition for higher office was won by local chiefs with larger local political support, as they could better influence the king's appointment process through bribes, protest or by satisfying the king's need for soldiers. Since the size of his constituency determined a chief's status and his chance of being promoted, competition for office ultimately behoved local chiefs to rule in the interest of their communities (Apter 1961).
traditional administration, the president who was the head of state, commander in chief and
chairperson of the only ruling political party decided to increase the scope of his control and in*
flunce on recruitment . The culture of administration favouritism is also congruent between the indigenous and modern administration. The spoil system was applied in Africa's public administration and this fitted the already indigenous administrative system. This also is observed post independence through what Mukandala (2000) calls personalismo or technical know who and not know what.
The quality of public bureaucracies in Uganda is substantially different from that of Mauritius and Botswana. While recruitment into the public service is done by the Uganda Public Service Commission, which is formerly a meritocratic institution, the practise is different. Meritorious recruitment has been overshadowed by the politics of who knows whom (Kiiza, 2000). Indeed, corruption is endemic. Right from Amin's dictatorship to the current regime, patrimonialism, rather than academic merit, has been the basis for public service recruitment and promotion (Kiiza, 2000).
The problem that Ekeh and other from a Eurocentric perspective present regarding those practice is that, the administrators' recruitment in Africa does not observe merit as Europe. Nevertheless, I think is a fallacy of comparison as each society should have its own way of reaching its service provision target. This African network establishment is easy and less costly than what the new Public Administration propagates on social capital development. The congruency in the two systems is realizable, but as far as it does not encroach in total the Western elements, Ekeh tends to think and analyse it as inefficient.
Post independence Africa and Administrative systems in Africa
The assessment of public administration in Africa reveals many particular predicaments and evokes various conceptual and practical challenges. Africa today is over 54 independent states. With few exceptions (Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa, and Liberia) most of these states achieved independence during the 1960s. African states vary in politics, culture, size, and economic resources. To lump these states together can be misleading because differences are often conspicuous, even remarkable. Still, 'at independence these new African states had several things in common', Tordoff, (2002: 1).
Emerging from the colonial relationships, the African countries shared other characteristics: (1) they were searching for new identities as nation-states. (2) The states were mostly poor, predominantly rural and over-dependent on the vagaries of the world market. (3) the newly independent states had unsettled cultures and inexperienced political and administrative leadership (Tordoff, 2002: 5).
Public administration in the African states, as in most countries, is a vital part of governance. African administrative practices have been particularly shaped during the colonial domination (Adu, 1965; Mamdani, 1996; Fonge, 1997; Agbese and Kieh, 2007). This reality complicates analysis of African public administration where the general tendency in the literature is to alternate between Eurocentric and Africanist perspectives (Adu, 1965; Mamdani, 1996). The Eurocentric administrative tradition has not always been congruent or compatible in practice.
An illustration is the merger of the Anglophone and Francophone distinct colonial administrative systems in Cameroon in 1960, where only fragile compromises could be reached for
* ECA (1989) African Alternative Framework to structural Adjustment programmes for Socio-Economic Recovery and Transformation. Addis Ababa. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
the experiment to work (Fonge, 1997: 11). Realizing the profound impact of colonialism on African governance, it is helpful to divide the issues of Administration into pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial periods (Tordoff, 2002).
Performance of the African leaders, at national and local levels, has been particularly crucial for the success of reform projects advocated with the inauguration of independence. Nation-building and promotion of development in the new states required political and administrative leaders who manifest critical attributes of competence, integrity, vision, and capacity for initiating public policies consistent with the needs and conditions of the emerging states. At the dawn of independence, such leaders were in short supply. Without competent and ethical leadership, and without public administration institutions with the capacity to implement public policy, Gould (1980: xiii) concludes, national socioeconomic development initiatives in Africa were doomed to failure. Independence for many states did not produce what was hoped for: prosperity and effective, stable, and constitutionally defined systems of governance.
Between the 1950s and the 1980s, the comparative administration literature reflected considerable levels of awareness and knowledge of the issues facing the African states (Morgan, 1974; Gould, 1980). Clearly, the comparative perspective emphasized administrative change and general contextual effects on developing institutions and structures to facilitate administrative functions (Riggs, 1964; Esman, 1974; Waldo, 1974). But, again, the CPA never had anything close to a road map to navigate the particular political, economic, and social terrain of the African states before or after independence. The public administration literature remained primarily Eurocentric or American-centric for some practical considerations such as availability of funding, knowledge of the continent, language, and cultural barriers. The African context was simply unfamiliar, novel, or of low priority to Western scholars.
The colonial administration constructed public services that serve imperial policies in Africa. The civil service in the early phase was mainly concerned with collection of revenue and maintaining law and order; it had no institutional structure or tradition of professional competence. Despite claims of benevolence, the applications of Eurocentric administrative notions to the African scene were grossly despotic, discriminatory, and exploitative (Adu, 1965; Mamdani, 1996; Fonge, 1997). Faced with the new responsibilities for national development, generally unprepared or under-qualified, the governing leaders of the African states were often abruptly propelled into a complex and tumultuous phase of the history of their countries.
Under colonialism, the African states were mainly governed through a dual or bifurcated system of administration that separated the rule of the urban areas, the centre, from that of the rural areas, the territories (Mamdani, 1996: 7).
What is undisputed is that the political leaders of Botswana have, over the years, convinced their multicultural society that they are all part of a unified political entity. This process of nation-building is closely associated with pre-colonial state formation. In the pre-colonial period, Bechuanaland developed centralized state structures controlled by a sovereign Chief, assisted by a hierarchy of lower chiefs. As chief executive and commander-in-chief, the sovereign Chief had immense power. He formulated cattle policy, resolved conflicts, and led the Tswana in their struggle against external forces (such as the expansionist Zulu, whom were repeatedly repulsed).
However, the Chief was regarded as an equal to his people. One institution crucial for holding the Chief to account was the Kgotla. According to the Newsweek (1990), "Botswana built a working democracy on an aboriginal tradition of local gatherings called kgotlas that resemble the New England town meeting" (p. 28; cited in Beaulier, forthcoming). A Kgotla gave all adult males the opportunity to discuss public politics, criticize the Chief, and tender advice to those in
government. Botswana, it would appear, did not have to wait for Huntington's "Third Wave of Democracy" to learn democracy. It had country-specific institutions for guaranteeing "Ubuntu" (fairness, inclusiveness, humanness). These were reinforced by the existence of centralised state structures and coordinated economic policies, all of which appear to be important explanations of Botswana's effectiveness in postcolonial economic governance.
Is it a problem of congruency of indigenous and modern administration or biased practice by colonial guards?
There is debate concerning whether Africa's current administrative malaise is a function of her pre-colonial legacy. On the one hand some scholars suggest that because Africans value kinships and tend to empathize with one another, Max Weber' principles of bureaucracy do not sit well with them. Therefore one hundred years of efforts to graft western derived public administration models on Africa has been a fruitless exercise. (Onyemelukwe 1975, Hyden 1983). On the other hand others dismiss such lines of argument by asserting that colonialism has dented and in some cases completely destroyed the underlying foundations of African value systems, especially in so far as they relate to systems of governance. Therefore, if the introduced Max Weber-based administrative systems are not working the explanation may lie elsewhere, including their having been introduced in a half-heartedly manner (Mutahaba; 1989).
Note that before colonialism, Africa had thriving governance systems that were very well developed, with many of them having Max Weber's attributes of a rational bureaucracy, (Henry Barlow 1984). Africa had empires and kingdoms like the Ghana Empire, the Songhai Empire, the powerful Fulani Emirates of Northern Nigeria, the strong kingdoms of Buganda, Bunyoro, Rwanda, and Bukoba; the democratically controlled Elders Councils in most of present day Tanzania and systems of administration based on Age sets.
The colonial scramble for Africa indiscriminately cut across all these varying systems of administration and proceeded to rule and administer Africa in ways that were not only different from indigenous systems, but were on the basis of whether the colonizing power was British, French, German of Portuguese. Some of the colonizing powers made some use of indigenous systems of administration, while others destroyed them or ignored them. For example the British colonial system of "indirect rule" was used by Lord Lugard in Northern Nigeria and Uganda in respect of the inter-lucustrine Kingdoms of Buganda, Bunyoro, Ankole and Toro. In Uganda, the Kiganda administrative system was imposed on the rest of Buganda and Baganda chiefs were used by the British colonial government to enforce the system. Where indirect rule was practiced, the ethnic groups on which it was applied had their native systems strengthened and entrenched giving rise to feelings of superiority and to demands for federal constitutions.
Irrespective of whether direct or indirect rule was used to administer the territories, colonialism, to a great extent, supplanted or suppressed the various traditional administrative organizations, and replaced them with administrative set-ups styled after the system in the mother country. Even then, invariably the emerging administrative infrastructure in most colonies was limited in scope, function and size, concerning itself mainly with pacifying the natives for purposes of facilitating exploitation of natural resources. Variations in terms of complexity of the administrative infrastructure in a given country depended on the requirements for pacifying the natives, on the one hand, and the structure and complexity of the economy and level of investment, on the other hand. The goals of the colonial system naturally dictated the governance arrangement that were put in place. Given that the goals
were to maintain "law and order" and collect taxes, the public administration system was highly legalistic emphasized processes, procedures and precedence. Rules and regulations were the main instruments for eliciting compliance and discipline. The organization was highly hierarchical, inhibiting lower level participation in decision making. It was also highly suppressive and did not respond to public demands. These attributes contributed immensely to the evolution of an administrative culture that was conservative, unresponsive and antidevelopment in orientation. However, in so far as the interests of the colonial state remained limited to the goals mentioned earlier, on the surface the administrative systems seemed to operate effectively.
The evolving public administration culture manifested itself more significantly in three important aspects: management styles, management of financial resources, and management of information. Personnel management systems were built on rigid rules with over revelation of personnel practices and policies; classification of personnel was usually in terms of duties rather than tasks, and people were paid for what they were rather than what they did. Furthermore, the systems were characterized by vague job descriptions, and performance appraisal systems that valued compliance more than productivity. The evolving financial practices were also deficient. Budgeting relied almost entirely on a line item approach, using the object of expenditure as the basis for resource allocation. With regard to professional competence, colonial policy deliberately excluded natives from being appointed to professional positions, these were reserved for colonial officers or like in the case of Kenya and Tanganyika, Asians could be appointed to junior level professional positions. For that reason little, if any, investment was put in tertiary education and training for the natives either in-country or by providing scholarships for training abroad.
Thus, at independence all African public services suffered from a paucity of indigenous public service, personnel, a lack of other administrative resources, weak administrative infrastructure, and potentially explosive relations between bureaucrats and politicians. (Mutahaba 1989) . The paucity of indigenous public service personnel is indicated by the following data. When Tanganyika became independent the country had a total of 68 nationals with University degrees, and it did not have a University. This was also the case in Zambia and Malawi. Similarly, education facilities at lower levels were equally under developed. Using Tanganyika again as an example, the country had only 10 secondary schools with a total student population numbering 2400 as it became independent. Thus, the pool of secondary school graduates from which to recruit even junior and middle public officers was very limited.
Therefore the capacity and capability of the public services in terms of size of the service in relation to tasks at hand; competence levels, and level of administrative penetration was very low. The low numbers of indigenous personnel occupying senior public service positions meant that senior levels of the public services were staffed by colonial/expatriate officers raising issues of whether the senior public service could be trusted. The enormity of this problem is indicated by the following data. In Nigeria, at independence in 1960, only 15 percent of established super scale posts were held by Nigerians, 0.7 per cent by other West Africans, and 83 per cent by Europeans.
Conclusions
Before Africa was colonised, the continent was characterized by a large degree of pluralism and flexibility. The continent consisted not of closed reproducing entities, equipped with unique unchanging cultures, but of more fluid units that would readily incorporate outsiders (even whites) into the community as long as they accepted its customs, and where
the sense of obligation and solidarity went beyond that of the nuclear family. An example of such inclusiveness were the Xhosa who limited Xhosadom not along ethnic or geographical lines but along political. All persons or groups who accepted the rule of the paramount chief became Xhosa.
Pre-colonial African societies were of a highly varied nature. They could be either stateless, state run or kingdoms, but most were founded on the principles of communalism in that they were self-governing, autonomous entities, and in that all members took part, directly or indirectly, in the daily running of the tribe. Land was held commonly and could not be bought or sold, although other things, such as cattle, were owned individually. In those societies that were not stateless, the chiefs ran the daily affairs of the tribe together with one or more councils. These councils simultaneously informed the chief, checked his powers and made policy by reaching unanimous decisions. If unanimity was not reached, a village assembly would be called to debate the issue and majority ruling would now apply. The chief would listen silently to all queries during such meetings and every male adult was free to criticize him. The role of the chief during such meetings was to sum up what had been said and attempt to form some consensus among the diverse opinions. Hence, the chief did not rule or dictate but led by consensus. Many tribes, especially those that were stateless, had no central authority and no class system, and many of those that did could depose a chief that was thought to have abused his power. An overarching feature of pre-colonial Africa was that its societies were not designed to be the all-powerful entities that they are today, hence the abundance of confederation-type societies. One reason for this was that the villages and tribes commonly owned the land, a fact that undermined the basis for a market economy and a landed aristocracy, another that there was an abundance of available land to which dissatisfied individuals or groups could move. The creation of a market economy in Southern Africa was further undermined by the area lacking the regular markets and trade fairs that flourished elsewhere in Africa, as well as in medieval Europe, and thus the potential for continuous economic development.
In many parts of Africa, especially in the British colonies where indirect rule was the norm, the indigenous system of government survived and was used by the colonial powers alongside the colonial system. This is one of the reasons why the structures of such political and administrative institutions still exist in Africa today, although mostly in a more fixed and static form, due to the colonial powers having rearranged the tribal landscape and employed chiefs as virtual colonial administrators that served as buffers between themselves and the masses. British indirect rule in countries such as South Africa thereby reduced chiefs to salaried officials, responsible to white magistrates, corrupted by the control of an unsympathetic white government. Where there were elements of participatory democracy and a lack of rigid ethnicity in pre-colonial Africa, these were less likely to be found in post-independence Africa where only Botswana built its society and government on indigenous
institutions, and where the rigidities of colonial "invented tradition" and centralised
*
government became dominant*.
While pre-colonial indigenous African systems had many appealing qualities, something that has been widely advocated, if not practiced, by many post-independence African leaders and Africanists generally, they have some obvious weaknesses when attempting to build a centralised state around them. The fact that chieftaincy is mostly based on kinship, for instance, is problematic because of the exclusive nature of leadership that this entails, which is especially problematic in countries with ethnic antagonisms. Secondly, some of the customs
* The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol. 3, no. 10, September 2010.
of indigenous African society might have been effective in relatively smaller-scale societies but are less likely to be so in the larger states of present day Africa. An example of this is that of consensus which in a large-scale modern African state would make the political process invariably slow, as well as prone to conformity and authoritarianism that could effectively silence dissent and result in uncontroversial and un-enlightened decisions. Ngugi wa Thiong'o, in claiming that Africa's pre-colonial peasant cultures had "oppressive reactionary tendencies" that were "only slightly less grave than the racist colonial culture" might be overstating the case, but he nevertheless strikes a chord.
It is therefore important to realize that the relevance and usefulness of traditional or pre-colonial African institutions and customs depend upon whether one views African culture, or any culture for that matter, as static, or whether African culture is deemed to have evolved and changed, to some extent because of outside influence and colonialism. Culture must be seen as dynamic, and pre-colonial African cultures seen to be historical manifestations that are relevant in their entirety only to that specific period of time. Otherwise, they are useless as sources of inspiration for contemporary societies. Therefore, any discussion of African public administration has at least some few courses from the indigenous administrative system today despite the challenges of colonialism. Chieftaincy have continued to exist and constitutionally guaranteed their position in some countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Lesotho, and Swaziland.
REFERENCES
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics (2004),ed. Hugh Treddenick, London: Penguin. The main source for Aristotle's ethics.
B.G. Peters (4th ed.) The Politics of Bureaucracy, Longman, 1995.
Bardhan, P. (2002). Decentralization of Governance and Development. Journal of Economic perspectives, Vol. 16 (4): 185-205.
Bond, G.C. (1976). The politics of Change in a Zambian Community. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Boone, Catherine, (2003). Political Topographies of the African State: Territorial Authority and Institutional Choice, Cambridge University Press.
Busia, K.A. (1951). The position of the chief in the modern political system of Ashanti. London: OUP.
Chazan, N., Mortimer, R., Ravenhill, J., Rothchild, D. (Eds.) (1992). Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa. 2nd ed., Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, p. 7.
Collins, R. (1985). Sociology of Marriage and the Family: Gender, Love and property. Chicago, Ill: Nelson-Hall, Inc.
Davidson, B. (1992). The Black Man's Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation-State. New York: Times Books.
Drah, F.K. (1979). The Brong political movement. In Arhin, K. (ed.). A Profile of Brong Akyempin. Accra:Afram Publishers.
Ekeh, Peter (1975) Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A Theoretical Statement, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Jan., 1975), pp. 91-112.
Englebert, P. (2000). Solving the Mystery of the Africa Dummy. World development, 28(10):1821-1835.
Esman MJ (1974) Administrative doctrine and developmental needs. In: Morgan EP (ed.).
Hyden, G and Michael B (Eds) (1992). Governance and Politics in Africa.Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder.
Keulder, C. 1998. Traditional Leaders and Local Government in Africa: Lessons for South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
Low, D.A., 1965, "Uganda: The Establishment of the Protectorate, 1894-1919", in Vincent Harlow and E.M. Chilver, History of East Africa, vol. II, Oxford University Press.
Mair, Lucy (1962), Primitive Government, Penguin Books, Baltimore, Maryland.
Mamdani, Mahmood, 1996, Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism, Nationalism, Princeton University Press.
Manor, J. (1995) 'Democratic Decentralization in Africa', IDS Bulletin Vol. 26 April.
Mkandawire, T. (1995), Beyond Crisis: 'Towards Democratic Developmental States in Africa'. Paper presented to the CODESRIA 8th General Assembly.
Mukandala, R. (2001) African Public Administration in Africa : A Reader African Association for Public Administration and Management, Harare.
Mutahaba, G (1986). Ecology and Public Administration in Africa: A review of their Relationships Since Independence." In African Association for Public Administration and Management, The Ecology of Public Administration and Management in Africa. New Dehli, Vikas Publishing Press.
Njoh, A.J. (2006) Tradition, culture and Development in Africa: Historical lessons for modern, Ashgate Publishing ltd.
Olowu,B (1999). "Redesigning African Civil Service Reforms," Journal of Modern African Studies 37(1).
Pratt, R.C., (1965), "Administration and Politics in Uganda, 1919-1945", in Vincent Harlow and E.M. Chilver, History of East Africa, vol. II, Oxford University Press. presented to the European Association of Development Policy Institute Congress, Amsterdam. Recovery and Development. West Hartford, Kumarian Press.
Richards, Audrey I. (ed.), 1960, East African Chiefs: A Study of Political Development in Some Uganda and Tanganyika Tribes, London.
Riggs FW (1964) Administration of Developing Countries. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Riggs FW (1991) Public administration: A comparative framework. Public Administration.
Schapera, Isaac, 1970, Tribal Innovators: Tswana Chiefs and Social Change, 1795-1940, London.The Administration of Change in Africa. New York: Dunellen, 3-26.
Д-р Джейсон Нкьябонаки (Танзания)
АДМИНИСТРАТИВНЫЕ СИСТЕМЫ КОРЕННЫХ НАРОДОВ И СОВРЕМЕННАЯ АФРИКАНСКАЯ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННАЯ АДМИНИСТРАЦИЯ: ЯВЛЯЮТСЯ ЛИ ОНИ КОНГРУЭНТНЫМИ?
© 2017 Джейсон Нкьябонаки
Аннотация: Обобщенный взгляд на разрушенные административные системы доколониальной Африки таков, что они в целом рассматриваются как системы, служившие общему благу общества. Это заставило некоторых ученых в последние годы задуматься и обратить мысли к местным административным системам. Общий посыл таков, что африканцы хорошо подготовили и организовали себя для самоуправления, как до колониализма, так и сейчас (Пратт, 1965). Однако европоцентричная наука пропагандирует модернизм как эликсир для развития Африки. Некоторые ученые, такие как ЕкеИ (1975), Riggs (1964), считают, что в эпоху независимости в Африке существуют двойственные политические системы, сочетающие доколониальные и европейские элементы. Они считают, что африканцы наивно романтизируют свои доколониальные системы, но что на деле от них надо полностью отказаться. Встает вопрос, почему же нельзя добиться оптимального и гармоничного соединения двух систем на благо африканских государств?
Ключевые слова: коренные народы, администрация, государственное управление, пост-независимость
