Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Anders Sjögren
To cite this article: Anders Sjögren (2015) Territorialising identity, authority and conflict
in Africa: an introduction, Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 33:2, 163-170, DOI:
10.1080/02589001.2015.1065577
Article views: 58
such contexts of uncertainty, state rulers and other social forces advance competing
notions of the relevant and legitimate boundaries of territories and identities. This
collection of articles examines how, across the continent, struggles over territory
are linked to divergent understandings of identity and authority, with
significance for territorial integrity, national identity and conflict.
Keywords: Africa; territorial politics; identity; authority; conflict
Half a century after independence from colonial rule, sub-national territorial demar-
cations, political identities and the locus of authority remain deeply contested in most
African countries. These issues continue to generate conflicts around constitutive fea-
tures of state and nationhood and remain at the heart of political struggles in many
societies including countries with consolidated international borders. In addition,
regional and global economic, technological and ideological processes are reshaping
notions of the relevant and legitimate boundaries of territories and identities. In
most of Africa, regions and populations have been incorporated into the national
polity in highly uneven ways, leading to real and perceived group exclusion. In such
politically divided societies, violent conflict is a standing serious threat, and the func-
tional and spatial organisation and distribution of political power are high-stake
issues. It is against this background that this special issue of the Journal of Contempor-
ary African Studies addresses the dynamics of territory, identity and authority.
One perspective on this nexus has been offered by Catherine Boone, who, drawing
on the case of Cote d’Ivoire, proposes that Africa faces a new territorial politics which
‘centers on rearranging core-periphery relations, reordering political hierarchies
among and within territorially defined constituencies, redefining the locus of control
over resources and market access, and enforcing political authority and sub-national
citizenship rights within regions and localities’ (2007, 61). Many examples of such
politics immediately come to mind. Beyond the cases examined in this collection of
articles, suchlike features have long shaped developments in Kenya, Mali, Ethiopia
and Mozambique, to name just a few countries. Nor is territorial politics in this
sense confined to Africa. Most countries characterised by cultural pluralism and/or
*Email: anders.sjogren@nai.uu.se
© 2015 The Institute of Social and Economic Research
164 A. Sjögren
colonial or imperial histories harbour similar tendencies, which are currently played
out in a most violent way in the Middle East and parts of the former Soviet Union.
A conceptual point of entry to the debate on territorial politics might be shorthand
notions of territory in a general sense as ‘bounded political space’, and territorialisa-
tion as ‘the attempt by an individual or group to affect, influence or control people,
phenomena and relationships by delimiting and asserting control over a geographic
area’ (Sack 1986, 19). The most common practices of territorialisation within states
can be summarised in terms of how state power is deployed to regulate people, prop-
erty, places and institutions within internationally recognised borders. State strategies
of territorialisation typically aim at, among other things, controlling external bound-
aries and organising authority and resources across the national space. Such strategies
by rulers and managers of the state are always executed in relation to the political
aspirations of other social forces. In many societies, state structures and political insti-
tutions are patterned in relatively stable and predictable ways. Social orders where ter-
ritorial politics is activated are however marked by a much higher degree of
Downloaded by [81.213.41.213] at 09:53 03 October 2015
spaces. Most frequently, forceful strategies of this kind are undertaken by states, in
direct and indirect ways. Direct measures include the spatial organisation of the
state apparatus (creating boundaries and hierarchies of state institutions) and the
political system (shaping the geographical grids of institutionalised access to
power). State interventions with an indirect territorial bearing are summarised by
Brenner et al. as the creation of state space in the integral sense, and comprise the
spatially specific ways in which states mobilise institutions to regulate social and econ-
omic relations (2003, 6–7, 9–10). The direct measures of state territorialisation locate
spatial and functional jurisdiction to units, levels and actors – that is, they demarcate
who may exercise what power, where, how and over whom. The scope and scale of
such power may be spatially more or less concentrated. The same goes for indirect
measures. The strategies for regulating social and economic relations reinforce ten-
dencies of centralisation or decentralisation of the control and allocation of resources
in the widest sense, such as property and means of production, infrastructure, social
welfare and security. As such control and allocation is nested with power, it can be
Downloaded by [81.213.41.213] at 09:53 03 October 2015
expected to be unequal.
As suggested above, however, territorialisation is not only promoted by state rulers
and managers. State-driven territorial projects are typically uneven in purpose, design,
execution and anchoring. They are often resisted at different levels and in different
arenas and countered by contending versions of the legitimate demarcation of, and
authority over, the same physical space (Lund 2006, 694–695; Vandergeest and
Peluso 1995, 389). This dimension of territorial politics is discussed by Brenner
et al. as state space in the representational sense, including ‘changes in popular geo-
graphical assumptions about politics, political community, and political struggles’
(2003, 7). In most cases, and especially in culturally pluralistic societies, the territoria-
lisation of authority – promoted by either state-based actors or social groups – rests on
or invokes social identities. Social collectivities may be assigned to or claim particular
geographical spaces. Frequently, this is linked to struggles over the allocation of rep-
resentation, resources, rights and recognition to a certain area and/or population, with
significant consequences for citizenship and conflict.
them into demands and actions. Local political representation is often fragmented,
however. The interplay between formal and informal institutions and identities can
be expected to be pronounced in sub-national arenas (Lund 2006; Sikor and Lund
2009). Where formal institutions are uneven in terms of their presence and effective-
ness, there are strong incentives for making use of informal notions and regulatory
mechanisms of authority and identity, discussed in terms of hybrid political orders
(Boege et al. 2008). As Meagher (2012) shows, however, such expressions of hybrid
governance can be deeply ambiguous in terms of the developmental and democratic
potential of the forms of identity and authority that they promote.
between the contending parties, including the state, of the basis for communities,
and the relevant scales for institutionalising authority. The religious character of the
conflict has deepened the polarisation between the groups and raised the importance
of having access to a demarcated territory, something which reinforces a pattern of
demands for separate spaces.
Ole Frahm shifts the perspective on territorialisation from social groups to a focus
on the state. His study of how the government of South Sudan has attempted to
territorialise central state authority and national identity centres on the making of
boundaries and on the ways in which the central government has tried to project its
authority across the territory. Frahm examines efforts to extend service delivery,
guarantee security and infuse a national identity that extends beyond the pre-indepen-
dence unity against Sudan, and concludes that even prior to the outbreak of the civil
war in 2013, the government had by and large failed in its endeavours. Of course, after
decades of war and destruction the developmental challenges in independent South
Sudan were always going to be colossal. The civil war (ongoing at the time of
writing) further underscores the enormous political obstacles to such efforts.
Anders Sjögren’s article sets out from the context of shifting central-local relations
in Uganda and examines territorial politics in three sub-national regions for purposes
of analysing forms of conflict and exclusion at local levels. In Uganda, districts and
cultural regions co-exist as parallel forms of sub-national entities. Changes in
central-local relations occur through redrawn administrative boundaries, by formal
and informal recognition of cultural groups and in the context of regionally specific
shifting economic fortunes by way of the discovery of oil. These processes in turn
set off similar struggles at the local level. Drawing on the dynamics of this in
Acholi, Bunyoro and Buganda regions, Sjögren argues that all these tendencies con-
tribute to intensifying competition among political projects with an identity-base
and territorial ambitions, both among and within regions, and that such competition
generates fragmentation of territory and identity, and multiple forms of exclusion.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Judith Verweijen, Maria Wendt and a reviewer for comments on an
earlier version of this text. A special thanks is extended to the two reviewers who meticulously
read and commented upon all of the contributions to this special issue.
Journal of Contemporary African Studies 169
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Note on contributor
Anders Sjögren is a Senior Research with the Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. He
holds a PhD in political science from Stockholm University. Working in the field of comparative
political economy of development, his current research is on land conflicts, state formation and
citizenship in Kenya and Uganda. Among his recent publications are Between Militarism and
Technocratic Governance: State Formation in Contemporary Uganda. 2013. Fountain Publishers.
Kenya. The Struggle for a New Constitutional Order. 2014. Zed books. He can be contacted at:
anders.sjogren@nai.uu.se
ORCID
Anders Sjögren http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1520-4191
Downloaded by [81.213.41.213] at 09:53 03 October 2015
References
Berman, Bruce. 1998. “Ethnicity, Patronage and the African State.” African Affairs 97: 305–341.
Berman, Bruce, Dickson Eyeh, and Will Kymlicka, eds. 2004. Ethnicity and Democracy in
Africa. London: James Currey.
Berry, Sara. 2009. “Property, Authority and Citizenship: Land Claims, Politics and the
Dynamics of Social Division in West Africa.” In The Politics of Possession. Property,
Authority and Access to Natural Resources, edited by Thomas Sikor and Christian Lund,
23–45. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bøås, Morten, and Kevin Dunn. 2013. Politics of Origin in Africa. Autochthony, Citizenship and
Conflict. London: Zed Books.
Boege, Volker, Anne Brown, Kevin Clements, and Anna Nolan. 2008. On Hybrid Political
Orders and Emerging States: State Formation in the Context of ‘Fragility’. Berlin: Berghof
Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management.
Boone, Catherine. 2007. “Africa’s New Territorial Politics. Regionalism and the Open Economy
in Cote d’Ivoire.” African Studies Review 50 (1): 59–81.
Brancati, Dawn. 2006. “Decentralization: Fuelling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic
Conflict and Secessionism?” International Organization 60: 651–685.
Brenner, Neil, Bob Jessop, Martin Jones, and Gordon MacLeod. 2003. “Introduction: State
Space in Question.” In State/Space. A Reader, edited by Neil Brenner, Bob Jessop, Martin
Jones, and Gordon MacLeod, 1–26. London: Blackwell.
Choudhry, Sujit, ed. 2008. Constitutional Design for Divided Societies: Integration or
Accommodation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coakley, John. 2003. “Introduction.” In The Territorial Management of Ethnic Conflict, edited
by John Coakley, 1–22. London: Frank Cass.
Crawford, Gordon, and Christof Hartmann. 2008. Decentralisation in Africa: A Pathway out of
Poverty and Conflict? Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Dorman, Sara, Daniel Hammett, and Paul Nugent, eds. 2007. Making Nations, Creating
Strangers. States and Citizenship in Africa. Leiden: Brill.
Jessop, Bob, Neil Brenner, and Martin Jones. 2008. “Theorizing Sociospatial Relations.”
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26: 389–401.
Laakso, Liisa, and Adebayo O. Olukoshi. 1996. “The Crisis of the Post-colonial Nation-state
Project in Africa.” In Challenges to the Nation-State in Africa, edited by Adebayo O.
Olukoshi and Liisa Laakso, 7–39. Uppsala: The Nordic Africa Institute.
Lund, Christian. 2006. “Twilight Institutions: Public Authority and Local Politics in Africa.”
Development and Change 37 (4): 685–705.
Mamdani, Mahmood. 1996. Citizen and Subject. Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late
Colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
170 A. Sjögren
Mann, Michael. 1984. “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and
Results.” European Journal of Sociology 25 (2): 185–213.
Mann, Michael. 2008. “Infrastructural Power Revisited.” Studies in Comparative International
Development 43: 355–365.
Marston, Sally. 2000. “The Social Construction of Scale.” Progress in Human Geography 24 (2):
219–242.
Meagher, Kate. 2012. “The Strength of Weak States? Non-state Security Forces and Hybrid
Governance in Africa.” Development and Change 43 (5): 1073–1101.
O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2010. Democracy, Agency, and the State. Theory with Comparative
Intent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sack, Robert. D. 1986. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sikor, Thomas, and Christian Lund. 2009. “Access and Property. A Question of Power and
Authority.” In The Politics of Possession. Property, Authority and Access to Natural
Resources, edited by Thomas Sikor and Christian Lund, 1–22. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stewart, Frances, ed. 2008. Horizontal Inequalities and Conflict. Understanding Group Violence
in Multiethnic Societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Vandergeest, Peter, and Nancy Lee Peluso. 1995. “Territorialization and State Power in
Downloaded by [81.213.41.213] at 09:53 03 October 2015