General Features Of Neopatrimonialism

Neopatrimonial practices are widespread throughout African governments. This results in slowed development and a system in which those in power must continue to maintain corrupt practices in order to continue to provide for themselves and their families. In this paper I will introduce the concept of neopatrimonialism and the various academic discourses that subscribe to its presence or lack there of. I will then examine the role it plays in health indicators and policies in Kenya and Zambia, which serve to support that neopatrimonialism leads to a lower quality of care than in countries without a neopatrimonial practice. A brief synopsis of the history of Guinea Bissau will follow, focusing on the period leading up to independence and onwards.
General features of neopatrimonialism include: little separation of the public and private spheres, personal rule, reciprocity of power for support, the presence of rational-legal rule, and arbitrariness (Englebert & Dunn, 2013; O'Neil, 2007). Essentially the central figure in government wields influence over those below him (or occasionally her) and determines their position in society to a certain extent. Scholars such as Clapham have suggested that the length of colonization should corelate with the post-colonial success of a state, if this was indeed true then Guinea Bissau should be one of the most successful states on the continent (2003, p.9). Wai critically cites this as an example of the ‘dominant Africanist discourse’ (2012, p.29). Any incidences of violence are seen as indicators of state failure according to this dominant discourse. This is problematic because Western, developed states all went through periods of violence during the course of their lifespans, yet when African states are in that same stage it is seen as a result of political failure rather than part of the natural process of development. My above statement is something else that Wai is critical of: The assumption that the history of the West is the only way in which states can and should develop
Okuro examines Daniel arap Moi’s response to the crisis in Kenya (2009). As President from 1983-2002, Moi was known for his controlling behaviour; he centralized and personalized power so that he was involved in all sectors of government (Adar & Munyae, 2001). In the context of the AIDS crisis Moi was torn between keeping church officials happy, whom he received significant support from, and pleasing the international community, from whom he needed financial assistance. Initially he rejected the seriousness of AIDS, concerned that it would affect Kenya’s tourism industry, which at one point was the main source of income for the country (Valle & Yobesia, 2009). In 1986, the International Herald Tribune’s issue on AIDS in Kenya was banned by the government, claiming an international smear campaign was the cause of the article (Okuro, 2009, p. 279). This is a typical neopatrimonial action according to Cammack (2007, p. 602). Through state-owned radio it was preached that AIDS was a disease of sex workers and homosexuals; the church taught that it was a result of personal sin. After austerity measures were imposed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) he revised his opinion on the crisis and his government imported 300 million condoms as a preventative measure much to the displeasure of the church (Blomfield, 2001;