Content area
Full Text
Abstract: This article first introduces the recent theoretical advances achieved through the concept of neopatrimonalism. Next, it links neopatrimonialism to the concept of patronal presidentialism, which has been used in the Eurasian space. It then analyzes the societal and economic mechanisms of these patronal regimes, deconstructs the links between patronage and "clan politics," and insists on the hybrid character of the norms and legitimacies of these regimes, thereby asserting that there is room for change and innovation. It concludes by discussing the cumulative knowledge offered by this special issue examining Central Asia.
The concept of patrimonialism is both multidimensional and multidisciplinary. Its origins lie in Max Weber's sociology of domination and legitimacy, which defines three types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational bureaucratic. According to Weber, institutions are the impersonal source of individual bonds in Western democracies, while the separation of public and private does not exist in ancient or medieval patrimonial societies.1 In the 1960s, African independence revived debates on "modern patrimonialism" and the personal rule that seemed to define many sub-Saharan African regimes.2 In 1973, following the work of Guenther Roth on "modern patrimonialism," Shmuel Eisenstadt proposed to employ the prefix neo- in order to dissociate a patrimonialism based on the traditional legitimacies from contemporary regimes that rely on more diverse mechanisms of legitimation, for example, taking into account the influence of external actors and a more binding international legal system.3 Although this addition makes sense at the empirical level, it has remained controversial because the border between "traditional" and "modern" is slippery.
By the 1970s, the concept of neopatrimonialism quickly gained quasi-hegemonic status in the study of sub-Saharan Africa, largely through the work of Jean-Francois Médard. However, the term became a kind of catch-all concept, "in danger of losing its analytical utility"4 and encompassing very diverse and sometimes poorly defined phenomena. In their seminal work Democratic Experiments in Africa, Bratton and van de Walle have advanced the discussion by stating that neopatrimonialism, unlike patrimonialism, co-exists with rational-legal legitimacy. The success or failure of transitions in sub-Saharan Africa must therefore take into account contingent factors like military interventions, political protests, and pro-democratic opposition, as well as international dependence.5 More recently, the reflections of Erdmann and Engel have demonstrated that neopatrimonialism can be...