The Westphalian Model in Africa

The Westphalian Model In Africa

Introduction

The Westphalian model of statehood the world currently subscribes to has affected representations of Africa and Africa’s place in the International Relations field. This essay will explore the extent to which Africa has been affected by the Westphalian model. It will do this by first looking at sovereign statehood which comes along with the Westphalian model and theories that describes this. It will then look at Africa’s place in the international sphere historically and what models of statehood Africa had before colonisation as well as how Sovereign statehood was imposed on Africa as a result of colonisation. Lastly it will look at Africa’s status in the international sphere currently and how Africa is represented in the world today.

Sovereign statehood.

“The Westphalian state was the product of centuries of development and change,

it was a social construct, not an historic God-given instrument of social, economic and political organisation and it was the product of a specific era and context. As such then, one should be alerted to the possibility of change and difference - time passes and institutions and meanings attached to institutions change.” (Schoeman, 1997, 3) Schoeman suggests in the above that the state is socially constructed and thus its definition is subject to change, indeed a state by modern definition may differ from pervious definition of the state. The modern definition of a state is a specific territory with a defined population with legitimate source of violence invested in the government. Space is divided politically. (Schoeman 1997, 3)

Realists argue that a state is a community in an anarchic international system and this community must be able to defend itself from enemies and the non-self. (Warner 2001, 66) For realists a state is defined by its ability to maintain itself in the international community. Some realist theorists argue that a state is based primarily on the legitimate or organised violence of the government. Thus the state must define itself above other institutions as the primary source of legitimate violence which allows the state to control the population in the territory. (Warner 2001, 67) From this one can deduct that from a realist perspective territory is an important part of statehood; whether it is the ability to defend the territory or the ability to control its population.

On the other side of the scale there are Constructivists. Constructivists argue that there are many states who do not meet the requirements to be a state but yet are still considered states as a result of the state claiming that they are in fact a state on behalf of the people in that state. (Warner 2001, 68) Weber argues that a state comes about when “the action of various individuals is oriented to the belief that it exists or should exist” (Weber 1995, 78) This shows that from the constructivist school states do not necessarily have to meet the definition of a state but rather have to socially construct themselves as a state to become a state. In the African context constructivist would suggest that “the development of the state system in Africa has been dependent on actors defining, while using the terms and concepts of sovereign statehood, who they are and what they want.” (Warner, 2001, 69)

Institutionalists are of the view that state come into being partly as a result of being recognised by states that are “like them”. (Warner, 2001, 69) Warner states that Institutionalists and Constructivists both take from each other view and have some similarities in their outlook on statehood but adds that these views are also part of mainstream IR and thus have looked at Africa and tried to mould it into the Westphalian state system even though there were other political state systems in place simultaneously. (2001, 69)

Pre-colonial Africa.

Pre-colonial Africa had many different forms of political communities but it is unclear if any of these would be considered a state within the definitions mentioned above. To look at these political communities and try to determine if they are a ‘state’ clearly has a western bias attached to it, one is trying to make African political communities fit the mould of the Westphalian state model. (Warner, 2001, 69) Indeed, the terms given to these political communities are western and thus make it difficult to determine what type community was really in place.

Islamic political communities are one example of the various types political communities in Africa. For Islamic political communities territory was not the main priority rather it was a secondary concern. Warner discusses these polities in some detail and she