Document Library

Key Text Ambiguous Political Space: Chiefs, Land and the Poor in Rural Mozambique

Author: A Blom
Date: 2002
Size: 20 pages

Access full text: via document delivery

Summary

Institutional channels through which poor people can influence policies and decision-making are often limited or absent in Africa. To what extent are chiefs being used to access political space for the interests of poor people? This book chapter examines this question in relation to Angonia, in rural Mozambique. It argues it is necessary to look beyond formal institutions to determine access to decision-making for and by the poor. Chiefs can protect the interests of the poor, but remain a weak channel for influencing political decisions at the national level.

Chiefs are the embodiment of local, customary decision-making institutions. It is not useful to view them as pre-colonial leaders distinct from modern leadership. Rather, their constituency, priviledges and obligations are constantly being redefined and their position, role and rules of engagement continually contested.

Interaction between the formal political authorities and the people in Angonia is almost absent, and there is little faith in the state. The chiefly institution constitutes a channel for local conflict settlement (over land, for example), providing the poor with a chance to influence decisions. While chiefs are appointed on the basis of hereditary rights, succession is not automatic and legitimate power is contingent on personal achievement. Chiefs can in principle be dismissed, or subjects can move; which is a form of accountability.

Reciprocity underpins relationships between the villagers and their chief. Chiefs hold a powerful, highly politicised position, but are expected to earn it by protecting their people and serving their interest.
Chiefs are not seen as responsible for alleviating poverty and it is not clear whether chiefs are pro-poor or not. The poor can use chiefs to try to have their interests served, for example through chiefly courts, but chiefs are themselves reliant on alliances and the support of powerful groups.
The linkage between the state and the population is through the chiefs rather than political parties. On one hand, the state uses the chiefs whenever it is considered necessary or convenient. Other parts of the the public administration have little respect for the authority of chiefs.

While chiefs do not constitute a formal institutional channel, they are presently the primary channel through which the poor can try to protect their interests. This has implications for policymaking:

Chiefs should be understood as representing contemporary and highly dynamic political institutions.
A rigid separation between state and civil society is not plausible: chiefs move in and out of the state sphere over time.
The notion of the distant state is questionable. Although the central state is formally weak and absent in terms of village-level administration, chiefs do act as representatives of the state.
Policymaking should take both a short and long term perspective in relation to chiefs. While chiefs currently constitute an important part of local public administration, they might also embody some 'pro-poor' elements which might be explicitly used in future policies.
Rather than establishing new organisations at village level, existing ones should be built on. Chiefs could be used in a transitional phase towards decentralisation and democracy.

Access full text: via document delivery

Source: Blom, A., 2002, ‘Ambiguous Political Space: Chiefs, Land and the Poor in Rural Mozambique’, chapter 5 in Webster, N. and Engberg-Pedersen, L. (eds.) ‘In the Name of the Poor: Contesting Political Space for Poverty Reduction’, Zed Books, New York