Читать книгу African Friends and Money Matters, Second Edition - David E. Maranz - Страница 6

2

Everyday Africa

Introduction

The best medicine for a person is another person.

Wolof proverb92

92 Shawyer 2009:78.

Africans are social. It would be hard to overemphasize this fact. They believe and practice interdependence, and strongly dislike acting independently. Interdependence means depending on others, being in relationship with wide webs of kinship and friendship. In many African languages there are proverbs which emphasize the importance—even the centrality to life—of relationships with fellow humans. In South Africa the Zulu say, Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu. This means that only through others can a person become complete. Humans cannot live fully except through interacting with their fellows.

At the other extreme of Africa, the Wolof of Senegal express the identical concept: Nit, nit-ay garabam, “Man has no other remedy but man.” Another Wolof proverb expresses a similar belief, Ku am nit ñi ñakkoo dara, “He who has friends lacks nothing.”93

93 Sylla 1978:107–108.

Theologian David Bosch comments on this philosophy of man as follows:

There is profound wisdom in [these] proverbs. By participating in the other man’s humanity we are both shaped and led to maturity. This is preeminently true of the black man in Africa. For example, I have often noticed that, after a [church] service, the black Christians do not at all appear eager to return to their homes. They linger awhile, almost as though they are unsatisfied, as though they are waiting for more or for something else. The religious service with its emphasis on preaching and one-way communication has not been enough. There still remains the desire to share, to experience fellowship, to reach out to one another.94

94 Bosch 2001:96.

The topics presented in this chapter at their core involve personal relationships. African everyday customs are centered on people. Western culture could be described as centered on things and technology much more than is the case in Africa. Even the new phenomenon of social media uses “things” as a means to interact with friends and business associates. Instead of direct human-to-human contact, technology acts as a buffer, minimizing the normal give-and-take of personal interaction. In contrast, African societies developed human relationships to an amazing complexity. Although this discussion will not elaborate on the topics, African societies were and are complex in countless ways: involving clans, polygyny, totems, taboos, relations with ancestors, gods and spirits, society in hierarchies, secret societies, and castes in many ethnic groups—the list could be expanded almost ad infinitum. Of course, modern Africans use and rely on technology and machines, for example, in transportation, and more recently in the wide use of cell phones. Still, a case can be made that “technology” has been less important in Africa than in the West, while people and their relationships have been, and still are, of utmost importance.

The Senegalese philosopher Assan Sylla describes the Wolof ethic of life as centered on well-being and living well (bien vivre), social peace, and a good religious conscience. It is founded on the dignity of humans, establishing institutions that “assure that its members are more and more interdependent (solidaire), horizontally with the living, and vertically with ancestors and descendants.” This ethic, and the values it encompasses, is certainly representative of societies across Africa.95

95 Sylla 1978:164.

Friendliness

There is no one-way friendship

Maasai proverb, Kenya96

96 Bryan 1999.

I have felt welcome wherever I have traveled in Africa. I do remember an exception or two, when I happened upon men illegally engaged in cutting down a forest or other nefarious behavior. After having lived and worked in countries where a North American was not always well received, for example, where people threw rocks at those they did not want to have around, or being stopped by very unpleasant and threatening police, it was most reassuring to feel almost universally welcome.

It is a common sight while driving along rural roads in Africa, to have adults and children wave while looking up from their endeavors, their gaze following your vehicle as it passes. I often wondered what was in their minds as they did this: Was it friendliness, or curiosity, or wonder at the spectacle, as common as it might be? I always attempted to wave back, but always felt a little hypocritical, knowing that nothing could come of this “friendship.”

Nigel Barley, in his perceptive personal chronicle as a foreigner in Africa, describes the reaction of countless visitors:

It came as a great surprise to me after the officials with whom I had to deal, how friendly and pleasant people were; I had by no means expected this. After the political resentments of West Indians and Indians I had known in England, it struck me as ridiculous that it should be in Africa that people of different races should be able to meet on easy, uncomplicated terms.…As an Englishman I was perhaps unreasonably impressed by the fact that complete strangers would greet me and smile at me in the street, apparently without ulterior motive.97

97 Barley 1984:21–22.

For unaccompanied women when out alone, whether in town or traveling, the “friendliness” of some men may be less than sincere. In such circumstances, they may find themselves subject to unwanted attention. Several steps can be taken to minimize the problem. Wearing a ring or wedding band can help. It can be an inexpensive one purchased for just such occasions. If a man asks a single woman about her husband, she can reply that he is traveling or make up an evasive reply, if she would be bothered by telling a fib. If asked if she has a boyfriend, a reply that she already has several husbands and could not deal with another, may well defuse the question with humor. If traveling alone, a woman can search out another woman to travel with or sit next to. She might offer to help look after the children or the baggage of a fellow woman traveler. This can give the appearance of being connected, and not alone. Seeking the advice of respected local women when facing any place, area, or person of doubt, is highly recommended.98

98 Haibucher 1999a.

Elite society

He who thinks he is leading and has no one following him is only taking a walk.

Malawian proverb99

99 www.afritorial.com.

One commonality found across Africa is the presence of elite society. This is constituted by individuals who have means (political and/or financial), position, and shared values, who are separated from the masses in significant ways. Together they exercise controlling power in their respective countries. Elites are people who have been successful, in whatever realm. Status symbols of the elite include pretentious houses and vehicles, jewelry, the type of cloth and the amount of embroidery on the clothing of both men and women. They often give the impression of pretentiousness. They comprise high society, often live ostentatiously, travel internationally, and congregate together in nightclubs and other venues that common folk cannot afford. Their power is often described as advancing personal interests rather than those that benefit national interests. They do have a positive influence in that elites from different ethnic groups socialize together, often marrying across linguistic and “tribal” boundaries. Yet in spite of their often-humble village origins, “many African elites in government and elsewhere continue to trivialize the indigenous cultures that gave them birth and consider them retrogressive and irrelevant in today’s world.”100

100 Maathai 2009:46.

Certainly elite society is, and historically has been, a common feature of cultures almost everywhere. Royalty was not limited to Europe: African kingdoms had their own elite families or clans. The super-rich, celebrities, and sports stars in Western societies are “elites,” with some of the same characteristics as elites in Africa but also with fundamental differences in their roles in society. The reason for focusing on them in the context of Africa is that they have preponderant influence and power in many countries. Their position in African society is more akin to that of royalty in pre-democratic times, whereas elites in the West exercise influence more indirectly. This is done through expressing opinions publicly, financing political action and lobbying, supporting particular candidates for office, and other such indirect activities. Western elites also tend to hold their positions relatively short-term. Politicians come and go, and even rise from “nowhere.” Titans of business disappear after retirement. Celebrities pass like comets. In contrast, African elites tend to remain in self-perpetuating power, passing their positions and power to their heirs or others of the same restricted class.

As “elites” are a universal phenomenon there has been much scholarly study of them worldwide, that has given rise to a very extensive literature. This stems from their important, even preponderant, role in how countries and the world are run. The influence of elites extends into politics, business, economic development (or non-development), from international relations down to local politics—in short, most areas of national and international affairs. Many events and policies across the continent and within individual countries cannot be adequately understood without giving due attention to the role of elites in society.

Overall, elites are blamed for many of the ills so prevalent across the continent. Many studies examine the historical roots of these ills, including the continuing negative heritage of colonialism, unjust international markets, and many other factors. These are not discussed here, as the purpose of this section is not historical analysis, but an overview of the current situation. Here is a sampling from the extensive literature regarding elites:

 “Viewed from a comparative perspective, the primary reason that African elites seek to control land is that they seek power, and in African customary land tenure systems, land is linked to power.”101101 Rose 2002:206.

 Elites are engaged in a “politics of the belly” (a much-used metaphor originating in French from Cameroon, borrowed originally by Jean-François Bayart). It refers to “a form of governance that arose across Africa…(It is) characterized by…the elite in control of the private and public spheres, actors on both sides us(ing) their status to strengthen their economic and political power.”102102 Wikipedia, “Politics of the Belly,” accessed Jan. 27, 2014.

 Although there has been a widespread move toward democracy across much of Africa in recent years, ruling elites maintain a “continued ability…to manipulate the democratization process for personal gain at the expense of the welfare of their respective political systems (through) a process whereby newly installed multiparty systems merely allow rotating and competing portions of ruling elites to exploit the vast majority of Africa’s largely rural populations.”103103 Schraeder 1994:70.

 One dimension of the struggle for power by the elites would be unexpected by most Westerners. Reviewing a book dealing with African elites, the knowledgeable Donal Cruise O’Brien writes that their “struggle crucially involves a quest for ‘mastery of the invisible,’ with sorcery seen by the political actors as indispensable to the conquest and use of power.”104104 Cruise O’Brien 1989:528–529.

The discussion above may seem largely to put elites in a negative light, with their quests for power and their greed seeming to be dominant characteristics. As will be seen in the following section, elites are under a lot of external pressure, which certainly allows for some sympathy and mitigates the negativity. Many governments and institutions are unstable, rendering life unpredictable. Rivalries between ethnic groups abound in many countries. Kin put extreme pressure on those with means or access to means. Even those in high positions can never meet all the expectations of those who depend on them in the spoils system that exists in many countries. These may be extenuating circumstances, but at the least, the behavior of elites is too often a betrayal of African ideals.

Peter Geschiere points out that traditionally, where society was organized into kingdoms, wealth was the exclusive prerogative of the nobility, or traditional elite, a system that assumed ritual control over wealth. However, the elite were held responsible to use their power, status, and wealth for the benefit of their subjects. If they did not, they would be held accountable by God, or the spiritual powers who enthroned them. Thus, as non-elite individuals gained access to wealth and power, the populace assumed that they had somehow manipulated the system for their own benefit, at the expense of others. To the extent that they indulged in conspicuous consumption, hoarding of resources, or investing their wealth outside the homeland, they were perceived to have immorally or deceitfully acquired wealth, and were mistrusted or even ostracized. In modern Africa, the new elite stand in contrast to traditional idioms of wealth, both in the way they use their wealth and the way they are assumed to have acquired it.105

105 Geschiere 1997.

Clientelism and dependency

The influential are those who get the most of what there is to get.106

106 Lasswell 1958:13.

Ugandan proverb107

107 www.allgreatquotes.com.

A type of interpersonal relationship exists in Africa that is different in practice from relationships in the West.108 Westerners traveling or working in Africa bump into it in many situations. Typically, they don’t understand what is going on and don’t know how to respond to it.

108 Although sociologists accept that “clientelism” exists in Western democracies, as in the relationship between voters and politicians, such clientelism operates very differently from that described here.

Upon arriving in Africa and trying to be friendly and make friends, sooner or later many of these new African “acquaintances” will try to fit Westerners into roles the Westerners don’t understand. (Note that the Africans being discussed here are not government officials or business contacts. What are being discussed are clerks, peddlers, neighbors, domestic workers, and others whom the expatriate encounters in day-to-day life.) These Africans are attempting to draw expats into their system of relating to people. Africans have no way to know that the Westerners don’t understand it. The Africans are on their home turf and don’t (and shouldn’t have to) understand that the foreigner has a very different way of relating to people. It is up to the Westerner to understand the system and how to relate to it.

The system in focus is known as clientelism.109 In various forms it is found in much of the world, but it has particular characteristics in Africa.110 It is “the ubiquitous presence at every level of African life of the exchange of gifts, favours and services, of patronage and courtier practices.”111 Basically it is a system where people with economic means enter into informal, long-term relationships with people who have less access to power, wealth, and influence. “Less access” is relative as there is a hierarchy of clients and patrons. The patron of one client will be the client of one above him, from lowest to highest members of society. Patrons and clients enter into a relationship for purposes that both see as beneficial. The type of relationship practiced in clientelism “is clearly the rule rather than the exception in most of Africa.”112 Some real-life examples will help explain the situations and relationships involved.

109 Other terms that basically refer to the same political-economic system are patron-client, prebendal, clientage, and patrimonial.

110 Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith 2004.

111 Walle 2003:311–312.

112 Lemarchand 1972:69.

A man I slightly knew started to pay me near-daily visits. I was new to the country and did not understand why he would do so. For me, he was wasting my time. Finally after maybe a couple of weeks, and to my increasing exasperation, he told me he wanted to be my client. I would be his patron and take charge of him. He thought he was honoring me but I was not looking for such honor.

Implicit in his “offer” was the understanding that if I accepted him as my client, I would take responsibility for him and his family, including financial support, assisting with the educational expenses of his children, finding employment, meeting health needs such as providing money for filling prescriptions, etc. There were also implicit responsibilities for him as client, as patron-client relationships are by definition two-way. Each party receives what it needs from the other. So my friend would frequently come to my house. He would also be “loyal” and vote for me if I ran for public office (if I were a national) or needed public or moral support. He would encourage his friends to do likewise.

I have been to the houses of “big men” who have wealth and influence. Their courtyards have many men sitting around, and coming and going. Some are just hanging out opportunistically; some are seeking an audience so that they can present their need of the moment. In societies where this pattern of behavior exists—and there are many in Africa—such attention by clients gives prestige to the big man, indicating his importance and following. Note that patrons do not normally visit clients, except for funerals and weddings. Visiting is one-way.

Naturally, for the Westerner there is no attraction to accepting an invitation to become part of this system. What a “client” could offer a Westerner is not what he values or wants. The “benefit” of having a constant flow of visitors and supplicants would be considered an unwelcome intrusion on one’s privacy and time. Becoming a “big man” in his home culture might be appealing, but it would have a totally different definition from that of an African clientelistic setting. So when Africans try to pull Westerners into their system there is a total misfit. Any benefits would be entirely one-way in the eyes of the Westerner: financial resources flowing from the Westerner to his client. Such a relationship would involve benevolence, not true clientelism.

A very different real-life example of the implications of clientelism was a high-level African who was named to the board of an international non-profit organization, an NGO with head offices in the USA. He served for a total of six years, attending semi-annual meetings. All board members served without remuneration, as required by law. Upon his retirement in his home country, he requested a pension from the NGO. When he was informed that his service did not warrant a pension, as was the case with all board members, he became very bitter and critical of this “unfair” organization. I believe that in his mind he had been a faithful client of the organization for several years, which therefore obligated it to take care of him long-term.

An employee in one African country suffered a brain tumor. His medical expenses were covered by health insurance for some time. The insurance finally ran out as he was hospitalized for a very long period. The organization continued to pay his medical bills and salary for many months beyond the legal requirements, but when he moved to his home village to be with his family, it stopped supporting him. He became very bitter that the payments stopped. He spread the word that the organization was unjust, unreliable, and uncaring, that it treated its employees very badly. This critical behavior was also typical of clientelism: loyalty to the patron continues only as long as the patron-client relationship remains intact.

An expat researcher in agriculture had a young man assigned to him as an intern by a government ministry. The intern was a vocational high school student already in his twenties. The researcher saw that he was honest and capable, and took him under his wing. The researcher understood the patron-client mindset that was part of the young man’s culture and tried to educate him to think and act independently. He taught him various agricultural methods: how to graft fruit trees, establish a tree nursery, etc. He pointed out business opportunities. He explained about entrepreneurship and taking initiative and that the system wasn’t going to help him so he needed to do what he could to get things going on his own. The intern often expressed his appreciation for the training but did not seem to absorb much of it even though the training continued many months.

Then one day after the researcher told the intern that he was going on home leave, the intern came into the lab beaming,

with his face shining like he had gotten a revelation. He said he now understood how it could work out in the future. So I said, “Good, how?” He said, “Vous pouvez me prendre en charge” (you can take me in your charge). He was in a country where life is very difficult and discouraging, where it takes bribes even to get beyond primary school, to pass exams, to receive a diploma that has been earned, to obtain a paying job….Consequently, he just could not think beyond being connected with someone, with having a sponsor (personal communication, 2008).

The significance to this discussion is that although this was an intelligent young man, in spite of the training in taking initiative that he had received and the opportunities that had been offered to him, in the end he could not think beyond a patron-client relationship. He did not believe he had the resources to take charge of his own life, so his only reliable course of action was to be dependent on a patron.

A different kind of encounter, that could be labeled opportunistic or attempted clientelism, is frequently experienced by foreigners in Africa. It is different from those described above in that the hopeful “client” is unknown to the foreigner. Typically, an African stops you on the street or rings the bell at your residence. This petitioner usually asks for money or sometimes for employment. He may have a prescription for medicine in his hand, or he may describe the plight of himself or his family, often in pathetic detail. The Westerner doesn’t know what to do. He doesn’t know if the need is genuine or not. In the end he may give the person some money, but is not content, not knowing whether he has really been helpful or has merely been duped. What puts this in the category of clientelism is that the petitioner will, if possible, seek a long-term relationship with you as his patron.

All the examples above give an idea of how clientelism affects foreigners in Africa. Africans view clientelism very differently. For Africans with limited means, who live in a society where opportunities are few, clientelism offers hope and the possibility of gaining access to resources beyond their reach. Even for Africans with some means, clientelism offers increased opportunities.

The hope of both patron and client is that the relationship will be enduring. But in practice, the loyalty of the client depends upon a continued flow of resources to him. With decreased benefits, the client will look for another patron. Hence, these relationships are often unstable. This has been the case in countless African countries where economic conditions have deteriorated, with the result that patrons have fewer resources to share with clients. In these situations, the clients look for other patrons who can supply them with goods and services that they lack. Note that the local terminology for clients and patrons can differ from place to place. The system may not be known at all by the terms used here, even if it is basically the same.

Two tables are presented below. The first contrasts the ways essential services are made available in Africa and in Western societies. The second table contrasts some of the differences between the organization of African clientelistic societies and Western societies.

Table 2.1 Service Providers in Africa and Western Societies

Service	Provider in Africa	Provider in Western Societies
Money or loans	Sponsor’s friends and family, through personal relationships*	Banks or other lending agencies
Credit	Sponsor, often as an “advance”	Credit cards, banks, loan agencies
Charity: gifts of goods and services	Sponsor, personally to his clients	Government, religious and charitable organizations, on impersonal basis
Employment	Sponsor employs kin or clients. The relationship of the employee is frequently more important than qualifications. Nepotism is the norm.	Education, experience, and proficiency provide the bases for employment, although contacts open doors.
Insurance	No legal contract. Sponsor, family, and friends are the only possible sources of help.	Is purchased formally through binding contracts.
Access of client to sponsor, or employee to employer	Sponsor has personal relationship, client calls on sponsor at his home.	An employee is expected to handle personal matters outside of the business environment.
Attendance at ceremonies, weddings, funerals, and special events	Sponsor, in personal relationship	Personal matters are not brought to the workplace, although an employer may take an employee to lunch on special occasions.
Vehicle use, transportation, shipping, moving house	Sponsor, in personal relationship	Employee’s own vehicle, car rental, or commercial movers; occasionally friends

*Although “patron” is the correct technical term, the word “sponsor” will be used here, as in modern English a patron usually refers to a wealthy supporter of the arts.

Table 2.2 Clientelistic and Western Societies Contrasted

Clientelistic Society in Africa	Western Society
Power
Power is derived from giving out resources (money, jobs, entrance to education, etc.).	Power is derived from the expressed will of a majority of the population; governing by consent.
Power is personalized through dominant persons.	Power is institutionalized, e.g., through political parties.
Power may be “legitimate” (because it is accepted by the people) but also illegal (often in spite of laws that are not enforced).	Power is legitimized through the rule of law.
Public resources
Office holders are expected to distribute to clients the public resources to which they have access.	Office holders, as temporary custodians, have no direct ownership of public resources.
Civil society
Society and political parties are organized vertically along ethnic, religious, or regional lines.	Society is basically organized horizontally without regard to ethnic, religious, or regional differences.
Civil society (organizations) is largely co-opted by ruling elites and becomes subservient to those ruling them.	Civil society, such as unions and trade associations, serves as an independent counter-force to the state.
Civil society is weak to negligible, allowing government to act with little restraint on those who control the levers of power.	Civil society is strong, serving as a counter-balance to government power, and is essential to the promotion of the common good/weal.
Politics
Politicians, bureaucrats, and military chiefs “serve” their clients (kin, communities, region, religion) but do not serve the state or population at large.	Politicians and public employees are “public servants” of the state and the population at large.
Politics is informal, based on vertically organized individual networks, and men of power who cling to office.	Politics is institutionalized, based on interests, ideology, and regional interests, with individual leaders temporarily holding office.
The higher the office as “Big Men,” the greater the demand that they distribute resources directly.	Politicians serve their constituencies, but through legal mechanisms negotiated with other politicians.
Government
Weak government institutions allow favoritism.	The state is at least theoretically neutral in regard to those who are eligible for resources.
Bureaucracy is arbitrary and personalized.	Bureaucracy serves those who meet legal criteria.
Government has few resources to distribute and therefore restricts distribution to those most loyal.	Government has relatively ample resources so that they can be widely disbursed.
Government is personalized, prone to favoritism, ineffectual, so is largely an “empty shell”	Government is institutionalized, professionally competent, legitimized by nation-wide vote.
Economic development
Weak government favors political elites who control and distribute resources to clients; others are left out.	Strong government allows resources to be allocated for the common good, benefiting all.
Clients demand immediate returns, which preclude long-term investments for the good of all.	Development requires long-term investment with delayed but increased returns.

*Chabal and Daloz 1999:14.

Note that some of the behaviors of Western society in real life are often carried out in ways that fall far short of the ideals of democratic practice.

Some of the common effects on society that clientelism engenders are the following: