Politics of Post Colonial Africa – Flashcards

-No unified front - hugely divided, tribal -Post slave trade - lost entire workforce -Inferiority complex - view of white people as culturally superior -Strength of European resources, industrial rev. Africa was the last continent to be colonized and the quickest colonial project (took only three decades)

end of 19th century until the 1960s (80 years)

300 years of the transatlantic slave trade, which exported more than 12 million Africans from Africa to the Americas.

-new markets -raw materials -workers -political power

-as a great favor to Africa -a civilizing mission the assumption: if Africans would buy into this belief, then they would not resist

beginning of the 19th century, Europeans outlawed the slave trade, and then slavery itself selling of humans became illegitimate commerce; selling of raw materials, such as palm oil, is legitimate.

end of 19th century, Europeans no longer satisfied with their influence in Africa. Africans had an advantage over them on African soil, even during the slave trade.

1880s-1900s: European powers attack each other on African soil in order to conquer territories. After 3 decades, all of Africa had been conquered, occupied, and divided

the institutionalized relations of inequality and dependence between an external minority and a local majority inferiority in terms of: politically, economically, socially, culturally

-Europeans were stronger economically (industrial revolution), technologically (ships), and militarily (advanced weapons). -Europeans = huge organizational advantage over the Africans; Africans = politically fragmented and lacked capacity and mobilization of large nation-states that Europe had -European trade was already successful with Africa - but they decided to cut out the middle man and control the resources for themselves -African laborers were enslaved by the West (African laborers were building western countries instead of their own - which only weakened Africa more).

-Europe would have to invest, build infrastructure, establish bureaucracy, tax system in order to benefit from colonialization in Africa. Africans had to foot the bill, not Europeans. -Exploitation of resources: discover what natural resources they needed, how to get them, how to utilize conditions for new crops (i.e., cocoa imported from Americas) -To make exploitation efficient, must invest heavily in: infrastructure (railways/roads), education/recruitment (of locals) ← cheaper way to employ

-political prestige and power -economic exploitation -mission civilization (although it was a justification for their own interests)

political impact: -Europeans very proud to have brought institutions to Africa (parliaments, political parties, military, etc) -they brought Africa into the 20th century in terms of 'how to run a state' - democracy, etc. -since colonialism only benefits the colonial powers, they must do it efficiently/cheaply: train and educate the locals to help them 'rule themselves' and save financially on manpower -Africans did not see these institutions as theirs, so there was no consent/cooperation -these institutions also require social, economic, and technical conditions in order to function, which were clearly lacking, thus the institutions lacked legitimacy -decolonization- the idea of 'rulers and the ruled' was passed on to the governing African states but between African rulers/African people economic legacy: -Europeans had 'introduced a modern monetary commercial economy, integrated Africa into global economy, and invested in modern infrastructures (roads, railways, ports, etc.)' -dependency- African economies were integrated into the world economy, inferiorly. They are a supplier of raw materials to the colonial rulers, and are left out from technological, capital, or service goods. -monoculture- focusing an economy on a singular product, or maybe a very limited range of things. if they run out of their only main resource, they are doomed for failure -neocolonialism: the Europeans realized that it was cheaper to exploit those African countries economically without ruling them politically. They could dominate these countries economically and culturally without having the expense of political rule. modern (artificial) borders: -not only the dividing of the tribes, but also forcing the same political structure on many people who don't know each other, come from very different cultures, and are forced to live together -artificially drawn states are unstable because people do not feel part of the state, and therefore there is no legitimacy of the state -after decolonization- the borders/states they drew and the institutions they installed formed the basis for today's African states social/cultural impact: -cultural colonialism: Africans became convinced that because Europeans are so developed and modern, Africans should adopt European form: dress, music, ideas, national symbols, anthems, etc. and music and ideas. -many things in modern Africa are appreciated not internally, but as what is thought to be 'civilized' according to European eyes.

though African states want to Africanize and nationalize, they still face challenges: -How do you run a country? -What language do you choose for state functions if a country has 80 different languages being spoken? -The answer to this is the colonial language. Because it is neutral, compared to picking just one of the African languages spoken. This is why Ghana is, still today, run in English and its education system is in English.

1. those who believe that neocolonialism is a continuation of that 'brief chapter' of colonialism, which continues today. 2. those who think that colonialism was an important stage of history, but not a turning point. -for example: West Africa was not economically backward at the end of the 19th century when it was colonized, and it did not become economically modern after colonialism. So there was no revolutionary change. Instead, it only had only accelerated developments which were occurring before colonization

- successfully resisted colonial conquest (twice) by the end of the 19th century -eventually, it fell into the hands of Europeans in the 1930s: Mussolini's Italy (only lasted 5-6 years) -too short time to institutionalize anything/cause vast damage -a unique, self-made state with its own culture and non-imposed Christianity -however, Ethiopia did fall victim to neocolonialism -economically, it is one of the poorest countries in Africa and has the same dependency problem as many others -1970s: due to major drought and destroyed agriculture, the emperor decided modernization would fix the problem. this only deepened the economic crises and created a famine.

-spillover from neighboring states, particularly Eritrea and the British east African colonies. -this was how the international economy worked. Any one state, no matter how powerful, could not change the rules of the game—those rules were institutionalized.

-settler colonialism: tends to begin earlier and last much longer. -the length of colonialism matters because it means that it takes deeper roots and affects more people in more ways. -rarely in Africa do Europeans settle to build new lives in the colonies -17th century: some Europeans fled racial and religious discrimination (Huguenots in France and Protestants in the Netherlands) to South Africa - 5 million settlers. -layers of colonialism: formal level = British. local level = Dutch and Huguenots which became "Afrikaners) -Afrikaners caused the colonial situation to become much harsher for the colonized (setting deep roots and developing an institutionalized dynamic which excludes the native Africans and even oppresses them) -Began with widespread confiscation of land, and restriction of movement of native South Africans -Racism heightened until it was formally institutionalized - Apartheid (1948). this was segregation in all spheres of life: work, transportation, education, bathrooms, beaches, even sex and personal relationships. -still, violence in S. Africa (even when attempting to liberate the blacks) was mild compared to other African states. -1991 - they achieved independence -They were liberated formally & politically and integrated into the world system, but in an inferior and marginal way (victims of neocolonialism)

assumption: African states fit the universal model and have all of the traditional characteristics of a state (including institutions, a capital city, political leaders that rule the government, etc) -a "state" in Africa was not a European innovation, as African states existed for hundreds of years, but the current political map of Africa was a colonial invention of the 19th century that crystallized with independence in the 1960s. -states were used as tools of exploitation and domination -disparate tribes, ethnicities, religions, etc, are forced together into a singular state, though they may have different ideas about political rule/structure of the country -people who don't identify with the state = lack of legitimacy of the state; leads to chronic instability

Markovitz (1970s): ordinary state -they fit well with the model of European states; only difference is African states are still young -since European states took hundreds of years to develop, they too were once unstable with political violence, etc. -like humans, states have a sort of childhood disease that they overcome as they age -what we see in Africa is not unique/not deviation - because you cant compare baby states with older states; its a normal process criticism: circumstances are different in each country's development (culture, era, interpretations of authority, etc). modernization does not always lead to the same ends. Forrest (1980s): soft state -there are 4 parameters that determine whether a state is hard or soft - autonomy, political penetration, tax/resource collection, legitimacy -a hard state succeeds in dominating the society, not being dominated by it. it becomes the most central institution throughout all areas and people. It is able to effectively collect the necessary resources to keep the state operating and ruling. And it can achieve legitimacy. -African states fail to do so. This leads to situations where they are often dominated by a small group, whether it be an ethnic group, set of elites, or a dictator. Diamond (1980s): swollen state -the state has been taken over by a small, self-serving elite that treats the state as a resource for themselves. The notion that states belong to all citizens and represents everyone does not apply here. Rather, the state is a resource to be exploited by a privileged few -the swollen state is highly inefficient, corrupt, and extremely violent -first political power is achieved, and then he wealth and status follows as a consequence. This cannot be the basis of a strong economy or democratic regime. Young (1980s): colonial state -it was colonial in its creation and colonial it remains, even until this very day (even after decolonization/liberation) -the only thing that changed was the skin color of the ruler. -colonial regimes were not based on consent and instead ruled by brute force, which is a pattern that repeated with many African rulers. -Africans inherited the state, the institutions, the political relationships -even among the colonial states of the world, Africa represents the most extreme of cases. They lack internal security, external security, hegemony, autonomy. Jackson (1993): quasi state -not a real state -applies to all third world states (specifically in Africa) -states in name only - lack social basis -intentionally created and designed to be handicapped Englebert (1997): neither African nor a state -designed/imposed by Europeans -nothing inherently African about the states -they do not fulfill the qualities of a state in practice -scholars: what is keeping African states alive? the key is in the hands of external actors and their interests -many African states have been on the verge of collapse but have not (except Somalia) because the collapse would be against the interests of external actors -Englebert: what is keeping African states alive? the answer is not outside of Africa, but within it. -internal actors with interests of keeping the states alive: -elites - use the state as a tool in order to control resources -regular people/civil servants-use their jobs to benefit from the state and extract resources from the state -rebels - try to get access to legal authority (rather than undermine it) -in other words, state sovereignty= power resource, manipulated by internal actors in Africa

-African states were faced with the challenge of nation-building in their artificially constructed states; needed to create a common denominator which, often times, did not exist -Ethnicity vs. nationality - what helps us distinguish between them is the political aspect -Africa is associated with ethnic groups whereas the west is associated with nations. -Ethnicity = Belonging to a group that shares the same beliefs, ancestry, territory, history, language, culture, etc. -Ethnicity is one of the main sources of conflict in African states -Rwanda: Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups turned against each other during colonialism's divide and rule. European powers made the Tutsis superior to the Hutus (cheap domination in order to extract resources). They emphasized the ethnic differences and purposely instigated conflict. -If you look at the last hundred years, there have been rapid changes to Africa's ethnic map. New ethnicities have been born, existing ethnicities have slipped or changed their cultural characteristics, etc. The African map is diverse and dynamic. -Modernization theory (1970s): wide belief that ethnicity is an ancient phenomenon that modernization would ultimately solve. This theory attracted a lot of criticism, and ironically the opposite was true. -ethnicity grew stronger during the colonial era and became politicized (example, the Yoruba people in West Africa)

1. Separatism - The ethnic group seceding to form a new state. For example, the Igbos in southeastern Nigeria attempt (1966-1969). In southeastern Congo, Katanga also attempted to split away (1960s). Both efforts failed with high human costs. This concept is not very common anymore. 2. Irredenta - separation, but not for the purpose of forming a new state; instead, to join a neighboring state. For example, the Ogaden region of Ethiopia is mostly inhabited by ethnic Somalis, so Somali-Ethiopians wanted to take their land and join Somalia. Both separatism and irredenta try to change existing borders. The third kind is the opposite. 3. Taking over the state - Accepts the borders as they are, but is an attempt to take over the state. Many examples: Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ethiopia, and other attempts that did not always succeed. The first three involve a political change, demanding a strong ethnic group. It enhances a chance of external involvement. 4. Disengagement from the state - Rather than trying to change the regime or its borders, they withdraw from the state. By turning their backs on the state, they make the state irrelevant to their lives. This is easy because African states are not strong. This usually happens in the peripheries of the state. 5. From authoritarian to democratic regimes - In the first decade after independence, it was evident that ethnicity can threaten the very existence of African states. This was one of the main reasons for outlawing political parties, because parties became a primary avenue for ethnic organization and efforts. They banned political parties and instituted authoritarian regimes, which were perceived as more efficient at tamping down ethnic problems. This did not work, as ethnicity did not disappear. Instead of fighting, they decided to acknowledge the existence of different ethnicities and establish more democratic structures based on ethnic groups. This transformed ethnicity from the enemy to the base of a democratic regime.

Most African states are multi-ethnic, so it's logical to expect many ethnic conflicts. Nigeria, for example, has 250 ethnicities. Countries like Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire have 70-80. DR Congo has 300. etc. Yet it's actually pretty rare for conflict to erupt.. One way to look at ethnic conflict is to see how many ethnic groups there are in any given state, their relative size, and their relative strength. Three models: A. A state with many many ethnic groups (e.g., Ghana, Tanzania) B. One big ethnic group and many little ones (e.g., Botswana, Namibia) C. Two or three big ethnic groups and many little ones (e.g., Rwanda, South Africa) **this model is most vulnerable to ethnic conflict another way to look at ethnic conflict is to see the state policy. how do they address the conflict? Three main means: 1. Structural attempts to prevent ethnic conflict. These are bureaucratic means such as inner divisions within the state. Minorities gain from this type of move, while the biggest groups are somewhat marginalized. 2. An ideological solution that ends at nation-building. The Europeans left them with a belief that as long as they were not a nation-state, they would be in danger. The question is how to cultivate a sense of nationalism, to invent a shared identity with shared values, ceremonies, and symbols. 3. Through political means. This ranges from anti-democratic regimes that try to suppress ethnicity in various ways, to the opposite—using democracy to legitimize ethnic differences, to demonstrate that despite differences there can be shared goals and cooperation is possible. Negotiating ethnic differences and operating politically within one state.

-An ongoing conflict since 2003, with at least 500,000 dead. It led to war crimes charges against Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir at the ICC. But the atrocities continue. -Darfur region of Sudan is multi-ethnic -Conflict erupted for several reasons: shrinking resources + demographic growth. The sudanese government turned a blind eye to the agricultural problems due to the drought. This began an African/Arab conflict. -Moreover, the civil war (between N. and S. Sudan over equal representation in the government) caused Darfur to seek equal representation as well, esp. since they were Muslim. They armed local militias and began their "struggle" - burning villages, terrorizing civilians, rape, etc.

1.Suffer-manage - find creative ways to survive economically (whether through loud complaints against the state/ruling elite, or through severe silence). This is an urban movement which trended in the 60s-80s. 2. Escape-emigrate- to develop a community outside of the state, typically across a border in a neighboring country where the situation isn't as bad. This is both an urban and agrarian phenomenon. 3. Parallel systems- the informal sector (opposition to the formal state systems). People remain within the country but distance themselves in other ways. This is a way of reorganizing life and forming parallel systems in order to avoid contact with the state. 4. Self-enclosure - forming parallel systems, without undermining state regulations (respect towards the state). although this is often seen as delegitimizing the state, states do offer support for disengagement in many cases. Why? -It relieves pressure from the state, if societies can create their own infrastructure, etc. -Corruption/personal gain for the ruling elite - by turning a blind eye to parallel systems, they can extort benefits from the black market

-the first decade after independence, states seemed democratic; but those regimes collapsed and were replaced by authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, etc. -most states have experienced a coup d'état (military overthrow/control the state) in the domino effect of the 60s and 70s. it was beneficial and easy (first take over the president's seat, then the media) -instead of protecting the country from external threats, militaries in Africa were designed during colonialism to keep internal order (collect taxes, protect colonial law, etc.) -civilian state acknowledges its weakness/dependence on the military (due to its little legitimacy) -although, the state does try to balance the power of the military by arming the police and creating a personal army for the ruler, for example. -eventually, it became harder to the coups to take control. the capitals and media stations were more secured. this led to a new phenomenon of civil wars (usually began in the peripheries, gathering local support through consent and terror) -this happened in Sierra Leone, Uganda, Liberia, etc. -this also brought Africa's child soldier phenomenon

-Idi Amin of Uganda -personal rule: an elitist, monopolist system, which lacks institutions (does not want the institutionalization of power). There are no political institutions, no parliaments, no constitutions, no separation of power. -no restriction or limitations of the rule; everything is concentrated in the hands of the ruler (the big man is the source of authority and decision-making) -he enjoys all the resources of the state and can allocate or distributed them as he pleases -people subjected to his personal rule are not citizens, but residents or clients -there is no distinction between the person and the state; the ruler uses this as a resource, both to terrorize others into not challenging his rule as well as to buy support by rewarding followers with land, with jobs. -personal rulers are mostly very charismatic. they must have some kind of social base of support to start their climb, often regional or ethnic, sometimes military. -eventually they require the support of a strong military in order to secure their rule. what keeps personal rule in power?: fear, manipulation, patronage, corruption, cutting deals what circumstances bring personal rule?: a colonial history (no previously accepted political structures), external support (from neighboring states and abroad) what are consequences of personal rule?: -once the personal ruler is out of power, there is no continuity -corruption is widespread and legitimized -decision-making is done in a ridiculous way -any problems within the state that were present before the personal rule will only be exacerbated. -disruption remains in all aspects: political, economic, and social.

1. 1960s- Decolonization and post-independence: -Democracy was highly important to Africans in that era as a powerful critique of colonialism; in that sense, democracy was an anti-colonial ideology. -By demanding democracy, Africans were humanizing themselves. -By rejecting the colonial attitudes, they were making themselves equal. They wanted all things that could not coexist with colonialism: Liberty, freedom, the right to choose their leaders—to elect and be elected, to change the ruler every few years, the separation of powers and supervision of power. This did not last long. By the mid-1960s these paper democracies were already being replaced by personal and military rule. 2. 1970s- Short phase returning to democratic regimes -This happened in places like Senegal and The Gambia, but it was short-lived, insignificant, and ultimately nothing stuck until the 1990s. 3.1990s- Democratic renaissance -In the 1990s more than 40 countries held multi-party elections. WHY? the fall of the Berlin wall was an inspiration..

Lipshitz theory: Democracy is highly associated with economic wealth, education, a certain type of social structure (diamond shaped) with a large middle class, and high state legitimacy & efficiency. Many African states lack these elements. -state efficiency- people develop trust in the system that serves them which creates legitimacy -economic wealth- when a state provides welfare services to people, it convinces those people to cooperate with the state because it works for them; legitimacy. -middle class- the working class does not have the time to participate and the elite doesn't care; middle class wants the system to work -literacy- more educated people are more aware of the choices presented by a democratic system and more able to make an informed choice criticism to this theory: this is a euro-centric approach (not necessarily valid for other places), it doesn't explain democracies such as Singapore and India with different class structures, it assumes that African societies lack democratic values such as participation and accountability, etc.

during the struggle for independence, African leaders sought popular support by making promises about the quality of life after independence. The reality of the early dependency years, the heavy economic dependency, corruption and other ills of the African state meant they quickly shattered the hopes of many African people. Many Africans were disappointed by the state and the ruling elite, which promised them many things. And the outcome of this is that, at best, most people are indifferent/apathetic to what is supposed to be 'their' state or, at worst, completely hostile to the state. Can you have a democracy in such conditions? - NO

The explanation is multi-causal: historical, economical, political, social, cultural factors. historical: democracy was very powerful as an anti-colonial ideology, as colonial tradition institutionalized inequality. so, once they achieved independence, democracy collapsed. moreover, states struggle for their own survival; democracy isn't a priority when you're fighting for survival. social: an active middle class is crucial in the construction of democratic rule, but African societies were 'pyramid' rather than 'diamond' shaped—the middle class was not that large. Leads to zero sum game - bitter (and violent) competition - no place for compromise or cooperation. economic: African states are economically dependent on external, Western powers. economical weakness weakens influence over internal policies. moreover, poor states cannot offer much to their citizens (education, healthcare, etc) political: extremely weak states, which lack resources and legitimacy. also there is inexperience in leadership, followed by corruption

Successes: Benin. Ghana. Nigeria. But even in those countries, political liberalization fell short of full democratization. It has led to less oppressive regimes, though democratization did not completely uproot the embedded authoritarianism in societies as seen in military and personal rule. But it's been a dramatic improvement, and 'democratization' means building democratic institutions, separation of powers, etc, which is something that takes time. Failures: Some states that did not have democratization at all, or some where it collapsed. We see a continuation of military rule and dictatorships of all kinds (e.g., Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Bashir in Sudan). Democracy also has a dark side: democratization can be an unstable and violent time. During the 1990s, there were protests and a wave of very cruel, widespread civil wars. Algeria, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo, and a genocide in Rwanda. What's the connection between democratization and political/social conflict?

Why are African states in danger of collapse?: -African states are soft, swollen, artificial. They have difficulty providing services to their citizens, and lack in legitimacy. However, despite all of the factors that contribute to the illegitimacy and inefficiency of the African state and all of the conditions that favor collapse, it doesn't happen often. Collapse remains an extreme phenomenon. What is state collapse?: -A collapse of the structure of authority, of law, of the whole social and political order. There are no decision-makers, no one creating laws and regulations. Public order is not kept. The state does not provide security or welfare. Its people do not regard itself as subjects, and do not demand anything from the state. The state does not promote a social or economic system. It ceases to be the source of identity or meaning for the people who live within it. What exactly collapses?: -It is not only the state as a political authority that collapses, or state institutions. Zartman says that state collapse is the collapse of society, which therefore cannot support the state, fix it, or replace state institutions. -There is a complementary relationship between the state and the society. Disintegration of one affects the other. Collapse destroys the social structure and its mechanisms for coping, thus when state institutions begin to disintegrate, the society cannot replace it and a political vacuum is created. There lacks even a minimum social solidarity if the society cannot view itself as distinct from the state and cannot offer suggestions or alternatives when the state collapses. How do states collapse?: -There is not one uniform process of collapse, and it is related to several components -Political: state loses all control -Social: civil society cannot respond to the situation -Economic: an extreme form of disengagement from the state; parallel systems have become so developed that most economic activity is disconnected from the state Warning signs of state collapse?: 1. The political center is itself internally torn and struggles for its survival 2. When the center loses control over state agents themselves, who start operating on their own behalf (soldiers, police, teachers, etc.) Zartman points to disengagement from the state as the main cause of collapse for most of the previously functioning states in Africa. Although many scholars disagree with him, many do still regard disengagement as a warning sign. Tripp built her argument on the case of Tanzania

German colony→ British after WWII→ independence in 1960s. -Began as a unique form of African socialism with partial success (educated and healthcare). -1970s-80s: sank into economic depression -IMF & world bank gave aid conditioned on political/economic reforms -beforehand, the capital city was running as a parallel system within this functioning state (which was working out fine for everyone) -the government was then forced to change its policies (economic liberalization, multi-party system, etc) -Tripp claims the informal economy contributed considerably to the process of democratization and ultimately to the paradox of state and society becoming closer together, and perhaps in the long run strengthening the state. -the state: gains from increasing the informal sector by decreasing burdens and pressures from itself -society: gains from the informal sector because they get to create and distribute the things they need -the economy: informal economy does not destroy the formal economy, but actually improves it because it provides competition. It also creates new resources, more suitable to local needs and preferences compared to what the state could provide. The informal economy is much more moral—it's fair, and the drive for maximum personal gain is countered by the norms of cooperation, social justice, social responsibility.

As with collapse, reconstruction can take different forms, paces, and mechanisms, with different external and internal agents as well as leading to different outcomes. eg. Liberia and Sierra Leone - examples of post civil war reconstruction. Too early to assess their success, but there are certainly positive signs.

-A unique case because what collapsed was not the state but, society. -The state was relatively strong, which explained why the genocide was so efficient: they used the relatively strong state institutions to enable an efficient destruction of Tutsis -After the genocide, the new Tutsi government stepped in and filled the places of the political institutions of the Hutus. -They have ruled Rwanda since 1994 and implemented policies like abolishing ethnic origins and outlawing the use of the words 'Tutsi' and 'Hutu' in order to emphasize national character. -Abolishing ethnicity was one attempt at reconciliation. -Another was gachacha courts, a sort of civil popular court which aimed at not only punishing those involved in the genocide but reintegrating the perpetrators into society and communities. -Those responsible must take on the burden of reconstruction. Hutus are such a large majority, and it was unrealistic to imprison everyone, so they had to come up with another way- kind of like truth and reconciliation. -Still today they face challenges in reconstruction.

-A very unique case. It is reconstructing after a bloody civil war in the 1990s, which completely destroyed the country. There's a lot of deep emotion, mistrust, wanting revenge for atrocities, which is not easy to overcome. - 1787: Sierra Leone was founded by British abolitionists as a settlement for repatriated and rescued slaves. Capital city: Freetown. - 1808: The British made Freetown and the immediate surroundings a British colony while the rest of the country was made a 'protectorate'. These differ in that within a colony, British law applies, and within a protectorate it does not. (Meaning: Slavery is a-ok in the protectorate.) - As people were brought to Sierra Leone, they created a new ethnic group: kreyol. This was different from their cultures of origin, and their language became a pidgin English with its own grammar. The kreyol were the smallest group in Sierra Leone—with about 15-20 ethnic groups in the country, two of them relatively large, within a population of about 6-7 million. - Even though they were small, they were influential and the other ethnic groups accused them of allying with the British and collaborating to reproduce the same colonial relationships with the other groups that the British had. 1961: Sierra Leone gained independence but remained chronically unstable with multiple coups d'état and different attempts at different forms of government. - 1991: They tried to return to democratisation with a multi-party system, and that same year a civil war began. The rebels in Sierra Leone were led by the RUF—Revolutionary United Front—a movement that was intended to topple the government but couldn't do so immediately. So the RUF and its leader, Foday Sankoh, began attacking towns and villages near the border with Liberia and slowly advanced toward the capital, Freetown. They were aided by Charles Taylor (a rebel), the ruler of Liberia, and financed by resources like blood diamonds. They devastated everything in their path, as the civil war went on for about 9 to 10 years. - 2000: 800 British soldiers were sent (not to help the former colony) to evacuate British citizens in danger and help secure the airport area for UN peacekeepers. Eleven of these British soldiers were taken hostage by RUF militias, which forced the British to intervene in the conflict. This was the beginning of the end of the civil war. UN and British troops helped to train the Sierra Leonean army and they deployed to begin disarming the rebels and take back the country. - 2002: Elections were held and the British troops left. - 2004: The UN and the government of Sierra Leone created a special joint war crimes court and began tribunals, as well as a truth and reconciliation commission (the model taken from South Africa). - 2006: Liberia's ex-president Charles Taylor fled, was arrested and handed over to this war crimes tribunal and indicted. He was moved immediately to The Hague, because SLrefused to take the risk of holding him as they couldn't keep him secure. The Hague trial began in 2007. He was accused of instigating atrocities in Sierra Leone (so he was not on trial for what he did in his own country but in SL). - 2012: Taylor was convicted of aiding and abetting war crimes in Sierra Leone and sentenced to 50 years in prison. The British agreed to keep him in their prisons, as SL was concerned about having the capability to do it themselves.

• Heavy use a lot of religion and religious institutions in the service of reconstruction. • 70% of Sierra Leoneans are Muslim but historically there is an atmosphere of religious tolerance in the country. • Enthusiasm for evangelical preaching • Civil society is reviving, with the creation of many different social organizations like women's organizations, handicapped orgs etc. - Society has adjusted around the many handicapped people as one of the main atrocities during the war was forced amputations, as well as polio (which failed to be irradicated in SL) • Sports are heavily used for the purpose of reconstruction and building national sentiment. • The economy is gradually reviving, but poverty and unemployment were still extreme problems. •Using up all land for Agriculture to help rebuild economy • In the political sphere, there are attempts to integrate traditional leaders within the state and its official organs, particularly on the local level. This is a symbolic move; some of them get salaries, but not all. It's a mechanism to help legitimize the courts and government. • Civil society flourishing - united by a common enemy (Taylor) •Democratization - biometric voting initiative set up to foster trust in the system, and makes it easier for illiterate people to vote • Education - seriously underfunded, low enrollment, no teachers. • Corruption is severe and continuous, and damages the trust the state is trying to build within the society. Government began to publically shame the act of misappropriating publ funds The civil war damaged a lot of state systems, and it is still learning how to cope with it. Is the future bright in Sierra Leone? - That remains in the hands of the post-civil war generation. As long as the rich/poor disparity remains deep, reconstruction will take a miracle!