I have often been disappointed by how Political Science professors and seemingly intelligent people answer this question.
Political scientists seem to ignore the appeal of other systems:
Societies organized around age sets were often content without centralized, oppressive states due to shared responsibilities and mutual support within their communities. Age sets—groups of individuals initiated at the same time—promoted cooperation, reinforced social bonds, and balanced power. Such systems encouraged decentralized governance, where decisions were made collectively, often by elders who held respect rather than coercive power. With conflict minimized through social norms and the stability of age-based roles, there was little incentive to shift toward a centralized, hierarchical state structure, as communal well-being and harmony were prioritized over authoritarian rule.
In the Pacific network of small islands, kinship systems persisted for millennia due to their adaptability and community focus. Small, close-knit populations relied on kinship ties to allocate resources, mediate conflicts, and maintain social stability without the need for coercive authority. Leaders were elected based on competence and trust. Leaders could be replaced with better new leaders. Leadership was neither for life or hereditary. Kin-based systems fostered trust and reciprocal relationships that suited island life, where resources were limited and cooperation was essential. With kinship defining roles and responsibilities, there was less need for rigid hierarchies. The communal nature of island life, where individuals were interdependent, made the appeal of coercive states less attractive, as collective well-being naturally ensured survival and harmony.
The appeal of egalitarianism is another factor. Egalitarianism is a philosophy or social principle that emphasizes equality among all people, advocating for equal rights, opportunities, and treatment regardless of status, wealth, or other social distinctions. In egalitarian societies, resources, decision-making power, and responsibilities are often shared collectively or fairly distributed, minimizing hierarchies and reducing disparities. The goal is to create a balanced and just society where individuals have an equal standing, which contrasts with systems where power and resources are concentrated in the hands of a few.
The Maasai maintained a decentralized, clan-based society despite proximity to centralized states due to their pastoralist lifestyle and cultural emphasis on egalitarianism and autonomy. Their reliance on cattle herding, which required mobility and access to extensive grazing lands, discouraged the fixed borders and hierarchical control typical of centralized states. Power was shared among age sets and councils of elders, who mediated disputes and guided communal decisions without enforcing a strict authority. The Maasai’s values of independence, strong kinship ties, and warrior traditions fostered resilience and unity without a need for centralization, as cooperation within clans was prioritized over competitive state-building.
The Ignorance of Political Science About History:
Political scientists often neglect to study history in depth. They tend to, without conducting substantial research, express opinions on Africa’s historical conditions. Common assertions include the notion that there was no agriculture in Africa, despite evidence of around 2,000 domesticated crops. Africans were highly inventive, with vast evidence supporting this. Another frequent claim is that there were no states in Africa, yet more than 1000 states existed across the continent during the last 5000 years.
However, the factors that lead to state formation in some contexts do not always result in states in others. For instance, Africa’s history spans millennia, and many societies maintained ethical systems and accountability concerning land and communal behavior. In some areas, this has made it challenging for autocrats and tyrants to gain power. In some societies, with children educated in their cultural history and instilled with expected moral principles, many did not engage in behaviors like systematic theft and mental excuses for plunder in the way practiced by the Vikings, Romans or Arabs, which is strongly frowned upon in various African societies. Consequently, while empires emerged in some regions, such as the West African savannah regions, in others, like in parts of East Africa, stable age-set systems and kinship systems have persisted over time.
Simplifications Abound:
Oversimplifications often dominate explanations, with too much emphasis on geographic factors or too little emphasis on the varied forms of resistance by local populations. A tendency exists to assume uniform reactions—such as fleeing or yielding—without recognizing the complexity and multiplicity of factors. In Northern Nigeria, for instance, some regions were eventually consolidated into larger states, but for much of its history, Northern Nigeria was fragmented, comprising about 90 societies, some of which were kingdoms, federations, commonwealths, or city-states.
In discussions about pre-colonial Australia, political scientists often overlook the massacres that claimed about 600,000 Indigenous lives, instead assuming that Australia has always been sparsely populated. This misconception stems from poorly researched data and could easily be corrected by a basic examination of Aboriginal history. Such oversight leads to evaluations of Australia based on erroneous historical perceptions.
Regions that are geographically non-contiguous, like islands, pose challenges to centralized state formation due to the natural advantages they afford to indigenous populations. The Pacific Islands and the Greek islands, for example, resisted state consolidation for extended periods. Greece alone has 6,000 islands, though only 227 are inhabited, and piracy was historically common. It’s worth noting that piracy and robbery are not universal; regions with strong religious institutions, ethical systems, or kinship networks sometimes exhibit low crime rates. In such isolated areas, mountain terrain and other factors sometimes foster decentralized republics or commonwealths. This arrangement allows people to retain their language and culture and engage in trade without the imposition of a central state. By contrast, in China, constant warfare and geographical factors facilitated state formation, as thousands of kingdoms and states (about 10,000) united over a period of 1,800 years.
Another key point is that mountainous regions and persistent violence often prevent the formation of states. Too many intersecting factors affect state formation for there to be a single, predictive model.
Endowment Bias in Political Science:
Another issue with political scientists is a cognitive bias known as endowment bias. This bias leads people to value familiar cultures or systems more highly than unfamiliar ones. It is not unique to any one region; Chinese, Japanese, American, British, and French scholars often display this tendency. Many countries and continents have developed unique and innovative governance structures, each with its strengths and weaknesses. However, the idea that one must insult or denigrate other regions to assess the pros and cons of political systems is short-sighted, polarizing, and naive. Such analyses become easy to debunk and criticize because they lack objectivity and fail to appreciate the diversity of human governance.
Understanding the diversity of governance systems requires moving beyond simplistic, one-size-fits-all models. Societies worldwide adapted their structures based on unique historical, environmental, and cultural contexts. Yet, the tendency in Political Science to categorize societies as “advanced” or “primitive” often overlooks these nuanced dynamics. Systems based on age sets, kinship, or clan networks were neither failures nor stages waiting for “modern” statehood; rather, they were intentional adaptations that fostered resilience, social harmony, and mutual accountability. Ignoring these variations in favor of a narrow-minded model of state formation oversimplifies the embarrassing riches of ideas societies around the globe produced in respect of human organization.
In conclusion, the study of political systems should embrace diversity, not homogenize it. By acknowledging alternative governance forms like kinship networks, age sets, and clan-based societies, Political Science can gain a fuller understanding of the many ways humans have organized themselves. Not every society needed centralized power to flourish, and not every culture aspired to statehood. Rather than seeing non-centralized societies as “lacking,” perhaps it’s time to appreciate them as sophisticated responses to their environments and values. Diversity in political organization is a testament to human ingenuity, offering valuable insights for modern governance and challenging our assumptions about progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment