What is ethnicity?

Central to debates concerning neopatrimonialism is the concept of ethnicity, a key determinant of one’s identity. On reflection, I would say the ‘constructivist’ model best represents the contemporary reality of ethnicity, a socio-political construct with nonetheless powerful meanings to many. Such meanings, often entrenched by colonial powers like the caste system under the British Raj in India, have perpetuated a fixed ‘primordial’ interpretation, which has informed much of post-colonial development politics to this day.

Neopatrimonialism’s role in India?

Ethnic identity in many parts of the Global South has become a central factor in determining votes, a practice operationalised by the patron-client based system of neopatrimonialism. In this way, ethnicity has become highly politicised, as in India, reducing elections to mere “auctions” (Chandra, 2004), in which government services are offered to voters along lines of caste and religion. It will be interesting to see whether this remains an issue in the upcoming election, though there is evidence to suggest such competition among patrons may actually improve service delivery and thereby generate development in India’s slums (Auerbach, 2016).

Is ‘neopatrimonialism’ a useful term?

This example is one of many that problematise normative conceptions of neopatrimonialism, namely that it is the corrupt reserve of African states (Chabal and Daloz, 1999) and that it can ultimately lead to economic stagnation (Sandbrook, 1986), both of which have been solidly refuted by Mkandawire (2015). Such characteristics have been used to categorise politics in the Global South as fundamentally different to that in the North. However, if we apply this framework to the US, not only is President Trump demonstrating ‘Big Man’ characteristics by appointing family members to advisory roles, but ethnicity is becoming an increasingly contentious factor in swaying votes.

What is the relationship between ethnicity and politics?

If we take ethnicity as a form of identity, such politics could equally be applied to the UK’s Brexit referendum, with both sides mobilising votes along lines of ‘young/old’, ‘metropolitan/rural’, or ‘upper/lower class’. All constitute aspects of our identity, which shape our political views in ever increasing ways (Fukuyama, 2018).

So not only is neopatrimonialism an ambiguous concept, but ethnicity itself should not define development politics. Though powerful, it is ultimately just one of many socially-constructed aspects of identity. Perhaps the question regarding neopatrimonialism, is whether its relevance is determined by which lense you view ethnicity through?

References

Auerbach, A. (2016). Clients and Communities: The Political Economy of Party Network Organization and Development in India’s Urban Slums, World Politics, 68 (1): 111-148.

Chabal, P.  and Daloz, J. P. (1999) Africa works: disorder as political instrument. Oxford: Oxford International African Institute in association with James Currey.

Chandra, K. (2004). Elections as Auctions [online]. Seminar, 539. Available at: https://www.india-seminar.com/2004/539/539%20kanchan%20chandra.htm [Accessed: 7th January 2019]

Fukuyama, F. (2018) Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Mkandawire, T. (2015). Neopatrimonialism and the Political Economy of Economic Performance in Africa: Critical Reflections, World Politics, 67(3): 563-612.

Sandbrook, R. (1986). The state and economic stagnation in-tropical Africa. World Development, 14(3): 319–32.