My advisor really likes his book because in the Posner was his advisor and since in the academic world this makes him my grandfather I too like it but that does not mean that i hold some of my criticism for the book. Anyway let me start with what I like about the book and I will try my best to analyze this book in the manner of graduate students. A big pro- is that this is a very well written book-compare this to another great work that is very badly written Elizabeth Wood's book on insurgencies. The review is yet to come.
This book is about something that many of us who grew up in Africa have been saying for a long time and he engages the debate between the constructivist and primordial approach to ethnic identity- African ethnic identities are not static -they are not set and stone have their backing in history. Ethnicity is multidimensional- this book is very much constructivist in nature. In this path breaking book Posner accounts for when some ethnic identities become salient and important politically and when they are not.
RQ: When does politics revolve around one identity (ethnic or otherwise) vs. another. In his case study when does being Nyanja become a major political factor or another identity religious, regional, ivy league educated, liberal etc.
His goal is to improve our understanding on why some cleavages are more politically salient and others not so much. In an earlier work he discusses the impact of being chewa/Tumbuka in Zambia(minimal) and Malawi (high). He finds that in Zambia these groups work together politically for mutually beneficial policies because neither group is individually strong and yet across the boarder (literally) they fight like crazy and don't get along- he concludes here that this has to do with the fact that in Malawi the Chewa's and Tumbukas are the largest ethnic groups and therefore very important politically and each group can mobilize its people politically independent of the other. In short there is a lot at stake for these groups across the boarder.
The idea that some identities are important at some political periods is not unique to Africa...think back to 2008 when the goal of republicans was to label Obama as unAmerican--if he is not for us then he is against us is the idea.
Central argument: This is a very structural-institutional centered argument.
His argument is that institutions determine what identities become important during a given election. He has some agent roots - politicians will also shape what identities become important. This has been found to be especially true in Kenya after the 1991 elections. Politicians in Kenya found it beneficial to mobilize voters around ethnic identity issues (Barkan 1993)
Understanding the book chapter by chapter (Did I say just how well organized this book is..again read Woods and you will appreciate my enthusiasm)
Chapter two-provides the political history of Zambia formally Nothern Rhodesia-Posner traces how the important ethnic groups evolved under British rule whom he says used chiefs to reemphasize groups that would become important politically. This observation is similar the one made by Rene Lemarchard on Rwanda and Burundi. Larmarchrd argues that the Belgian officials played into local myths about Tusti’s being wiser etc and used that to provoke political tension between the groups. Posner finds that identity politics is not really about the depth of the association but instead the incentives that voters are given to use that identity at a given point. The relative size of groups also matters –there are more advantages to being Bemba than to being Chewa in the Zambian political system.
In chapter 7 we get a neat example of how politicians politicize ethnic identities. Kasanda was accused of selling out his ethnic tribe the Bemba. On paper Kasanda was your ideal Bemba candidate related to some high profile Bemba politicians but his opponents accused him of wanting to give away their land to another tribe and he lost the election. Thus politicians are always thinking of what is the winning strategy- McCain never publicly his party members who said Obama was an Iraqi Muslim or implied that he was a terrorist because that was a winning strategy with his based.
Criticism
1. Ecological fallacy- most of the study is based on rural findings and yet he generalizes the findings to the whole country and even continent. In urban areas I think identity does not matter as much. Politics is generally more competitive and promises of patronage are not going to cut it. Scheiner () found that in Japan the LDP can only legitimately use clientelistic means to secure the rural vote but not the urban vote.
2. What happens when there are multiple candidates with the same identity? The inherent assumption in Posner’s book is that voters are always faced with a choice between candidates of their own identity group and those who are not. This might be the case for national elections but we don’t know how voters are making this choice at the local level in their own neighborhoods.
Lessons about fieldwork
1. He had access to lots of data- it is part luck, part being charming and having money.
No comments:
Post a Comment