“Fragile” States and “Failed” States The Legacies of Colonialism

Authority, Decisions, and Power: Political Anthropology ANTH 2301 “Fragile” States and “Failed” States: The Legacies of Colonialism An outstanding illustration of how colonial history and local culture are combined to create modern postcolonial countries may be found in the study of African politics. Political scientists and journalists alike often bemoan the political instability of African governments and their vulnerability to coups, ethnic wars, public discontent, and corrupt leadership. nations in Africa are sometimes referred to as failing or weak nations. A government that is unable to effectively carry out the fundamental duties of a state, such as upholding law and order, constructing roads and bridges, ensuring access to basic utilities like clean water and electricity, and protecting its people from violence, is said to be in a fragile state. A state of this nature is brittle due to its vulnerability to foreign invasion, coups, civil conflict, and public uprisings. When a state is unable to carry out any state responsibilities at all, it is considered to have failed. This oversimplified and historical method of demonising nonWestern countries has drawn criticism from a large number of anthropologists. Anthropologists focus on historical processes of state-to-state interaction that have established global patterns of inequality, as opposed to seeing the globe as a collection of separate states existing in isolation. Anthropologists examine the concepts of state fragility and state failure critically, noting that although some governments have become more powerful, others have found it difficult to provide for the needs of their citizens. Many African republics, including Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, and Somalia, have been classified as weak or failed at different points throughout the last 30 years. All but two of the top 50 "most fragile" states in the 2020 index have undergone some kind of colonial rule, and 35 of the most fragile states are African nations. Since 2005, the Fragile States Index has ranked all states in the UN based on a set of important political, economic, and social indicators. Why do so many African nations have such ingrained issues? What role did colonialism have in the postcolonial states' present condition of fragility? Take Ghana, a postcolonial state in West Africa, as an example. What can we learn from Ghanaian politics now from an anthropological perspective? The majority of African nations gained their independence in the mid-1900s. Following their release from colonial authority, newly formed African political elite classes took control of the state's colonial machinery, which included bureaucratic power over African chiefdoms and acephalous societies as well as colonial institutions and borders. Put another way, the state's composition as it had been throughout colonisation largely stayed the same at independence. The nearly insurmountable task of politically and economically reorganising these African governments while preserving the unity of the disparate populations living inside colonial borders—groups who were regularly in conflict with one another—became apparent to the newly appointed leaders of these states. Limited and unreliable money added to the stress. Leaders like Ghana's first prime minister and president, Kwame Nkrumah, aimed to restructure the government to better represent the needs of the continent's citizens. In an attempt to do all a state ought to do to command the allegiance of its people, he established hospitals, schools, and roads as well as bridges and dams. Even though he was not a chief and was not even descended from royalty, he used chiefdom emblems to further his own political ambitions. In an attempt to strengthen the state's centralised authority, his government decreased the chiefs' local authority. Although Nkrumah had immense popularity initially, his power was eventually challenged by regional and economic concerns. Some cocoa growers believed they were being taken advantage of in order to finance extravagant initiatives that benefited metropolitan elites. Nkrumah grew more dictatorial in response to intense criticism, imprisoning political rivals. Nine years after Ghana declared its independence from the British, in 1966, a military coup deposed Kwame Nkrumah on charges of political persecution and corruption. Ghana had two (short-lived) elected administrations and four more military takeovers throughout the course of the following fifteen years, an extraordinarily lengthy period of political unrest. Every military takeover rationalised its establishment by asserting that the outgoing government was deeply corrupted; yet, these claims of corruption inevitably came back to haunt them. Many other African republics have seen political growth characterised by a similar story of political instability, popular discontent, military coups, and corruption. Many journalists and professionals in policy have questioned why African governments are experiencing political crises in common. What fundamental issue exists? According to postcolonial studies, understanding postcolonial cultures requires thinking both historically and culturally. Postcolonial nations are frequently unstable, not because of anything wrong with them, but mostly as a result of colonialism's legacy. Colonialism created an authoritarian, oppressive regime and ruined precolonial political structures in many African cultures. Remember how we talked about the Akan chieftaincy system's checks and balances earlier? Akan leaders had a duty to act in their people's best interests or suffer the repercussions. The asafo had the authority to remove the chief from office by force if the community grew dissatisfied with them. The word "asafo" literally means "war people," referring to their role in defence and overthrowing corrupt leaders, even though they performed numerous civic services. Akan rulers were forced into a paradoxical position by British colonial control. Chiefs were compelled to carry out the duties of colonial agents, including tax collection, providing teams of forced labour, and enforcing unpopular laws. Chiefs' dedication to the welfare of their own people was further weakened when they were offered additional economic options under the colonial system, such as selling off land and keeping the proceeds for themselves. Some leaders gave in to the pressures of extortion, authoritarianism, and embezzlement as their positions grew more and more tense. Numerous asafo organisations took action because they were tired of these dishonest leaders. A wave of asafo uprisings in the colony's southern region in the 1920s toppled unpopular leaders. British colonial authorities swiftly put an end to the asafo uprisings and banned the asafo from taking further action against their leaders out of fear for the ramifications of popular dissent in Africa. To be clear, African chieftaincy was corrupted by British colonialism, which also prohibited Africans from using their right to protest against this corruption. Let's fast-forward to Ghana's protracted era of political unrest in the second half of the 20th century. According to Ghanaian anthropologist Maxwell Owusu (1989), Ghana's postwar politics have been influenced by the country's colonial past of rebellion and corruption. The near-impossible goal of the postcolonial state damaged and tarnished the Ghanaian president, just as the forces of colonisation had done the same to the Akan chieftaincy. Similar to how accusations of corruption spurred asafo clans to take action and remove their chiefs, the Ghanaian military repeatedly arose to remove Ghanaian officials who were suspected of wrongdoing.