What do you think?
Rate this book
Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism
In analyzing the obstacles to democratization in post- independence Africa, Mahmood Mamdani offers a bold, insightful account of colonialism's legacy--a bifurcated power that mediated racial domination through tribally organized local authorities, reproducing racial identity in citizens and ethnic identity in subjects. Many writers have understood colonial rule as either direct (French) or indirect (British), with a third variant--apartheid--as exceptional. This benign terminology, Mamdani shows, masks the fact that these were actually variants of a despotism. While direct rule denied rights to subjects on racial grounds, indirect rule incorporated them into a customary mode of rule, with state-appointed Native Authorities defining custom. By tapping authoritarian possibilities in culture, and by giving culture an authoritarian bent, indirect rule (decentralized despotism) set the pace for Africa; the French followed suit by changing from direct to indirect administration, while apartheid emerged relatively later. Apartheid, Mamdani shows, was actually the generic form of the colonial state in Africa.
Through case studies of rural (Uganda) and urban (South Africa) resistance movements, we learn how these institutional features fragment resistance and how states tend to play off reform in one sector against repression in the other. Reforming a power that institutionally enforces tension between town and country, and between ethnicities, is the key challenge for anyone interested in democratic reform in Africa.
Through case studies of rural (Uganda) and urban (South Africa) resistance movements, we learn how these institutional features fragment resistance and how states tend to play off reform in one sector against repression in the other. Reforming a power that institutionally enforces tension between town and country, and between ethnicities, is the key challenge for anyone interested in democratic reform in Africa.
344 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
25 people are currently reading
1512 people want to read
About the author
Mahmood Mamdani
38 books185 followersMahmood Mamdani is Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and Professor of Anthropology and of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) at Columbia University and Director of the Makerere Institute of Social Research in Kampala. He is the author of Citizen and Subject, When Victims Become Killers, and Good Muslim, Bad Muslim.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
September 3, 2022
Mahmood Mamdani, professor at Princeton University, specialist of African issues, considered by 'Foreign Policy' and 'Prospect' as being one the 100 most important contemporary intellectuals, attempts here to explain why the process of democratisation failed in most African countries, following their independence.
His thesis? Colonialism wasn't only a racial system whereas Blacks were oppressed by Whites. It was, also, and above all, made possible by very peculiar politics, that led both to ethnic divisions (with tragical consequences at times) and strong a divide between the rural world and the urban one. This last division, to him, is in fact the main cause of the failures. How so?
The African scramble had made necessary the implementation of new colonial rules. If the abolition of slavery had transformed the colonies, the limited ruling personnel, compounded by how problematic were communication networks across such vast territories, had made it impossible to rely solely on a White cast to control it all. Decentralisation, then, came as a solution.
Indeed, in those parts where White people had no access or weren't present, they would rely on tribal and local chiefs, created by their own hands (who had nothing traditional about them, then) and who were given considerable powers in order to apply their colonial directives. It was a practical yet deeply cynical approach: corrupting to better conciliate; a dichotomy whereas the State, a mad Janus, took two faces, each defined by the racial identity of who composed it. On the one hand, new customs, completely fabricated by the new chiefs and their White puppeteers, controlling 'subjects' living in rural environments; on the other, in urban areas, the laws of the colonial States being applied only to those who were 'citizens'. And, it's in this institutional evolution that Mahmood Mamdani sees the causes of post-colonial failures when it came to become democratic.
Showing that these divisions (citizens/ subjects, rural world/ urban world) will echo themselves even within nationalist and independentist movements (he delves especially upon the cases of Uganda and South Africa; the first because such movements originated in rural areas, the other because they originated in urban ones) he demonstrates how such movements could only fail managing the disastrous institutional legacy left by colonialism.
The thing was, going from one extreme to the other, democratisation could only be possible through, either a 'detribalisation', involving the replacing of local chiefs (tribal authority) by bureaucrats working solely for the Sate (central authority) and not for their tribes or clans ( something that many refused to do as it would have threaten their own privileges); or, by carrying on with decentralisation as left by previous rulers that is, a maintaining of tribalism and clientelism (and we now know where such tribalism and clientelism have led!).
It's a challenging read, yet that leaves with a new perspective, seductive, that will strike anyone baffled by how deeply the legacy of colonialism had affected Africa, decades after colonialism itself had collapsed. A must-read for anyone interested in African issues.
His thesis? Colonialism wasn't only a racial system whereas Blacks were oppressed by Whites. It was, also, and above all, made possible by very peculiar politics, that led both to ethnic divisions (with tragical consequences at times) and strong a divide between the rural world and the urban one. This last division, to him, is in fact the main cause of the failures. How so?
The African scramble had made necessary the implementation of new colonial rules. If the abolition of slavery had transformed the colonies, the limited ruling personnel, compounded by how problematic were communication networks across such vast territories, had made it impossible to rely solely on a White cast to control it all. Decentralisation, then, came as a solution.
Indeed, in those parts where White people had no access or weren't present, they would rely on tribal and local chiefs, created by their own hands (who had nothing traditional about them, then) and who were given considerable powers in order to apply their colonial directives. It was a practical yet deeply cynical approach: corrupting to better conciliate; a dichotomy whereas the State, a mad Janus, took two faces, each defined by the racial identity of who composed it. On the one hand, new customs, completely fabricated by the new chiefs and their White puppeteers, controlling 'subjects' living in rural environments; on the other, in urban areas, the laws of the colonial States being applied only to those who were 'citizens'. And, it's in this institutional evolution that Mahmood Mamdani sees the causes of post-colonial failures when it came to become democratic.
Showing that these divisions (citizens/ subjects, rural world/ urban world) will echo themselves even within nationalist and independentist movements (he delves especially upon the cases of Uganda and South Africa; the first because such movements originated in rural areas, the other because they originated in urban ones) he demonstrates how such movements could only fail managing the disastrous institutional legacy left by colonialism.
The thing was, going from one extreme to the other, democratisation could only be possible through, either a 'detribalisation', involving the replacing of local chiefs (tribal authority) by bureaucrats working solely for the Sate (central authority) and not for their tribes or clans ( something that many refused to do as it would have threaten their own privileges); or, by carrying on with decentralisation as left by previous rulers that is, a maintaining of tribalism and clientelism (and we now know where such tribalism and clientelism have led!).
It's a challenging read, yet that leaves with a new perspective, seductive, that will strike anyone baffled by how deeply the legacy of colonialism had affected Africa, decades after colonialism itself had collapsed. A must-read for anyone interested in African issues.
February 24, 2021
This is an excellent book, and it's clear why it has become one of the seminal works in postcolonialism. It's pretty empirical for my tastes, but paired with my own tendency towards the qualitative, that turned out alright. I'm sure I'll reread parts of this at some point in college/grad school, which will be nice. The way this challenges the postcolonial canon is both noble and thorough. This is also deeply infuriating.
March 30, 2021
This was a difficult but very important read. Mamdani takes an incisively unique approach to analyze the history of colonialism, which by implication, explains why African states remain the way they are today.
Mamdani observes that colonialism, especially British colonialism, conscious of lessons from conquest through other parts of the world and careful not to repeat earlier mistakes, was careful to conserve native people's culture - what they referred to as the "customary". Therefore, when they landed in Africa, their last colonial possession, the British preferred to rule indirectly through chiefs. What indirect rule entailed was that, at a national or civic level, the British governed through laws made in parliament in London or local legislatures that were predominantly white.
Africans were not allowed any representation and laws made concerned the lives of white settlers, traders, etc. - what they considered the law of the land. Africans, on the other hand, were ruled through "customary law" which was administered by a tribal chief. Mamdani notes that whatever it is that the British defined as customary wasn't clear to anyone, not even the "elders" in a given community. African cultures were fluid and dynamic. It was difficult to point out a tribe with any precision since African societies intermarried and welcomed refugees fleeing from war, famine, and drought. Given this ambiguity, British administrators were obsessed with inventing tribes and arbitrarily appointing chiefs to rule tribal nations. These chiefs were backed by the violence and coercion of colonial administration. Given that the law wasn't clear to anyone, the chief became the law. Chiefs became very powerful, which is obvious given that they were the police, the judges, and the executive. Essentially they evolved into despots, backed by the colonial government. This is what Mamdani calls "decentralized despotism" - a rule that was practiced openly in Apartheid South Africa but was a common form of rule for most British and French colonies.
Mamdani spends the rest of the book discussing how this state of affairs evolved after independence. He also gives examples of attempts to reform this state - using extreme cases of South Africa in the 80s (where though the home of the strongest and the most imaginative civil society-based resistance on the continent, reform has floundered on the walls of customary power) and in Uganda with the rise of NRM (where though the home of the most serious attempt yet to democratize Native Authority, has been unable to address the democratic demands of civil society movements.)
He concludes that any reform of the state cannot only happen in the civil (urban) space but also within the native authority. Any reform of only one part will invite revolt from the other reversing all gains made and restoring the state back to its default state: as a centralized despotic state.
Mamdani observes that colonialism, especially British colonialism, conscious of lessons from conquest through other parts of the world and careful not to repeat earlier mistakes, was careful to conserve native people's culture - what they referred to as the "customary". Therefore, when they landed in Africa, their last colonial possession, the British preferred to rule indirectly through chiefs. What indirect rule entailed was that, at a national or civic level, the British governed through laws made in parliament in London or local legislatures that were predominantly white.
Africans were not allowed any representation and laws made concerned the lives of white settlers, traders, etc. - what they considered the law of the land. Africans, on the other hand, were ruled through "customary law" which was administered by a tribal chief. Mamdani notes that whatever it is that the British defined as customary wasn't clear to anyone, not even the "elders" in a given community. African cultures were fluid and dynamic. It was difficult to point out a tribe with any precision since African societies intermarried and welcomed refugees fleeing from war, famine, and drought. Given this ambiguity, British administrators were obsessed with inventing tribes and arbitrarily appointing chiefs to rule tribal nations. These chiefs were backed by the violence and coercion of colonial administration. Given that the law wasn't clear to anyone, the chief became the law. Chiefs became very powerful, which is obvious given that they were the police, the judges, and the executive. Essentially they evolved into despots, backed by the colonial government. This is what Mamdani calls "decentralized despotism" - a rule that was practiced openly in Apartheid South Africa but was a common form of rule for most British and French colonies.
Mamdani spends the rest of the book discussing how this state of affairs evolved after independence. He also gives examples of attempts to reform this state - using extreme cases of South Africa in the 80s (where though the home of the strongest and the most imaginative civil society-based resistance on the continent, reform has floundered on the walls of customary power) and in Uganda with the rise of NRM (where though the home of the most serious attempt yet to democratize Native Authority, has been unable to address the democratic demands of civil society movements.)
He concludes that any reform of the state cannot only happen in the civil (urban) space but also within the native authority. Any reform of only one part will invite revolt from the other reversing all gains made and restoring the state back to its default state: as a centralized despotic state.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 7, 2024
Read again
Read
November 10, 2024the blueprint
January 4, 2012
An excellent study of colonial and post colonial legacy in Africa.It is about how Europeans ruled Africa and how Africans responded to it.
The main approach is to focus on two elements in the colonial and post colonial power game in Africa: the civil (modernist) and the customary (traditionalist). As Mamdani states, his approach is analytical rather than programmatic. The book problematizes all sides and concepts and provides insightful discussions of the dilemma of starting civil societies in Africa,indirect rule, and what Mamdani terms decentralized despotism in which the agency of customary rule is foregrounded by the colonial claims of modernization and civic rule.
This book is relevant now in the light of the dramatic changes in The Middle East and the confusing would-be marriage between Islamist movements (customary) and dreamers of true democracy (civic). It provides an opportunity to go far beyond the superficial slogans of the media. Strongly recommended for the ones interested in such issues.
The main approach is to focus on two elements in the colonial and post colonial power game in Africa: the civil (modernist) and the customary (traditionalist). As Mamdani states, his approach is analytical rather than programmatic. The book problematizes all sides and concepts and provides insightful discussions of the dilemma of starting civil societies in Africa,indirect rule, and what Mamdani terms decentralized despotism in which the agency of customary rule is foregrounded by the colonial claims of modernization and civic rule.
This book is relevant now in the light of the dramatic changes in The Middle East and the confusing would-be marriage between Islamist movements (customary) and dreamers of true democracy (civic). It provides an opportunity to go far beyond the superficial slogans of the media. Strongly recommended for the ones interested in such issues.
March 20, 2011
Very readable and organized study of indirect rule in South Africa and Uganda, arguing that apartheid was not a singular system but rather an extended version of indirect rule as deployed elsewhere on the African continent.
Want to read
May 28, 2011recommended by Mark Lowell
Read
April 8, 2016320.9609 M263 1996
September 5, 2007
ugandan professor at columbia wrote this one, and many more ...
April 6, 2017
Absolutely essential reading. Although, even in Africa we can take the rupture even further .... consumer, citizen, and subject ...
May 1, 2017
Mamdani is attempting to refocus discussion of contemporary Africa away from analogies to the progress of European societies and define both state and society within the context of the colonial legacies that created them. Mamdani argues that both direct and indirect rule created a “bifurcated” state that divided African societies into “citizens” and “subjects” usually along an urban-rural divide, respectively. Africans in urban centers were ruled directly by the colonial governments, while Africans in rural areas were ruled indirectly by traditional authority that was now answerable to the colonial state. The result in contemporary Africa, according to Mamdani, is a system which has been deracialized and decolonized, but has merely had modern single-party states and administrators grafted onto it.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews