The Rise and Decline of the Zairian State

6. The Patrimonial State and Personal Rule

6 The Patrimonial State and Personal Rule Only one man, previously notedfor his outstanding s&rPices to his country , can assure the well-being ofeach one ofus and create the conditions propitious ofthe people's moral and spiritualgrowth, and offer them a common ideal, the feelings ofa joint destiny and the knowledge ofbelonging to one country. 1970 MPR Congress1 In our initial chapter we suggested that patrimonial patterns of rule have characterized many post-colonial Mrican states. Since the days ofLeopold, Zaire has regularly illustrated these general patterns in exaggerated, even caricatural form; they have found new confirmation in the exceptional patrimonialization and personalization ofthe state in the Second Republic years. We begin our consideration ofinstitutional and ideological dimensions ofthe state by examining its patrimonial nature and the background ofits ruler. Even though the colonial state, in its origins, was a personal fiefdom, over the years its rule became increasingly bureaucratized. The hegemony ofthe state was upheld by a socially distant European bureaucracy, paternalistic yet impersonal. Belgian doctrine, which shaped the internal functioning ofthe colonial state apparatus, reflected the legalistic orientations characteristic ofthe continental state. Administrative agents were equipped with ample discretionary authority for the enforcement of state edicts directed at the subject populace. But colonial rule was highly institutionalized , operating through a dense matrix oflaws and regulations. The structural model of the colonial state was important to the New Regime's initial designs for restoring the full hegemony of the state over civil society. The pagaille years, many believed, had demonstrated the validity of one of the premises of colonial state ideology: civil society, whose cleavages were inevitably productive of endemic disorder, was inherently unruly unless controlled by a comprehensive state hegemony. The initial state resurrection measures ofthe New Regime-centralization, hierarchy, unity of command-seemed to reflect a restoration of the colonial ide164 The Patrimonial State and Personal Rule 165 ology. "Politics," productive offaction and fratricide, was to be eliminated through dissolution ofthe political parties. But a new vocabulary ofmonistic state structure which had no colonial antecedent soon began to appear. The unity ofthe state was to be embodied in its leader. "A village has only one chief," "our ancestors were ruled by an unchallenged and unchallengeable chief'; "an organism with two heads is a monster': such slogans were emblematic of the gradual patrimonialization ofpower.2 Patrimonialism Patrimonialism, advanced as a regime type by Max Weber, describes a system in which high office is bestowed in return for personal service to the ruler.3 The political elite are tied to the ruler by links of individual clientage . The reservoir ofstate offices forms a pool ofprebends, whose attractiveness is a potent incentive to personal loyalty and service. In return, the client has the right not only to hold the office, but to exploit it for his own benefit. All significant posts are held at the pleasure ofthe ruler; above all, constandy reaffirmed personal fidelity and services are indispensable. Any suspicion of a slackening ofloyalty is grounds for instant removal. Faithful service alone is not enough; the client must demonstrate his utility through effective service. The ruler depends upon the office-holder to demonstrate an ability to secure compliance with presidential orders, and to cope with the management ofhis particular sphere of authoritywith the first priority being the maintenance of political control. The patrimonial fief-holder must not only exercise control over his (or occasionally her) domain, but remain dependent. In analyzing Zaire's ascendancy phase we have described the progressive elimination ofthe baronial figures of the First Republic, who retained significant political resources of their own. Politicos ofthe old Binza group were a danger; they brought to the political arena their own clienteles, and-worse yet-had independent access to external forces, and particularly to Belgian or American influence. By the time patrimonial ascendancy has been established in 1970, there was literally no one in the state domain who held a position other than through presidential grace. Client office-holders have been constandy reminded ofthe precariousness of tenure by the frequent of office rotation, which simultaneously fuels the hopes ofthose Zairians anxiously awaiting just outside the portals of power. The MPR Political Bureau, for example, was revamped a dozen 166 The Patrimonial State and PersonalRule times in the first decade of party life. No one (except, ofcourse, Mobutu) has been continuously a member, and only six persons have figured on as many as halfofthe membership lists. Only 41...