Political power & social class in the neo‐colonial African state

Abstract

Using Poulantzas' mode of analysis Charney provides a framework for understanding and periodising the state, and the phenomenon of ‘neocolonialism’ — often referred to, seldom defined. It shows that the neo‐colonial state has a different basis for ‘hegemony‘—clientelism—than in the centre states, and that it is particularist not ‘national’. It also explores the circumstances under which there could be a break up of the dominant class basis of and of factional popular support for the neo‐colonial state.

The World Bank, Governance and Theories of Political Action in Africa

“…In the first place, they are a product of external intervention. From their origins through the post-colonial period, external intervention has been determinate in shaping the way African states functioned (Rodney 1972; Charney 1987; Davidson 1992). Western states strongly shape African states’ trade relations, support certain regimes that align themselves with the west and disburse aid in ways that promote western agendas (for example, in Uganda (Mamdani 1983)).…”

Islamic attitudes and the support for Gender Equality and Democracy in Seven Arab Countries, and the role of anti-­â€Western feelings

“…Neo-colonialism is often defined as the indirect rule of a country through (the threat of) military intervention and (international) economic policies by previous (Western) colonial powers (e.g. Charney, 1987;Watts, 2009: 360;Welch, 2008: 258). These direct military interventions are generally not presented as being 'neo-colonial', but as bringing freedom and prosperityillustrated by 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' starting March 20th, 2003 -or as fighting Islamic fundamentalism -the 'War on Terrorism'.…”