Whether done deliberately or unconsciously, all analyses of politics are at minimum informed by a series of prior assumptions, even if they do not rely on an explicit theoretical paradigm. It is, therefore, a grave oversight not to lay bare one’s own biases and political leanings with the overt concretisation of first, a theoretical framework in which to place one’s study, and second, an outline of one’s conceptual approach. The clarification will ultimately serve a dual function: to deal honestly with one’s own predispositions as much is possible, and to demarcate the boundaries of investigation. The latter of these functions is crucial, for there cannot be any effective observation in the absence of a clarification of what you already – albeit perhaps incorrectly – expect to find. As stated above, the claim that the social scientist has the ability to approach a subject of political enquiry with complete neutrality is a somewhat untenable position to take. In order to observe, one must first, at least to some degree, delineate the subject of observation.
In undertaking a study of African politics in particular, it quickly becomes apparent that almost all works seem to rely on one of two theoretical assumptions, namely what I will demarcate as Universalism and Third-Worldism. The latter is the purview of many development scholars, and those who defend the position that the developing world cannot be understood through a Eurocentric, Western lens. Traditional political science, having its roots in the evolution of Western thought from Plato to NATO, is ill- equipped to comprehend the unique political reality of sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed
19
there is a fair point in these claims of the Third-Worldism approach, and perhaps the leading International Relations (IR) paradigms of realism and liberalism leave much to be desired.
However, there is another question related to this debate, regarding the investigator and the agents of investigation. Who has the right to study whom? Particularly with regard to African politics, we are faced with the question of where non-African researchers fit in the scheme of investigation. This, I contend, ties into the debate surrounding Third-Worldism, as again, it can be seen to be the imposition of a Western focus, on what is uniquely an African subject. Most useful to my own research, is a paper written by Marlize Rabe on the role of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ in social research. In her paper, Rabe (2003) begins by examining the counter arguments for use of outsiders as researchers and the disadvantages of not possessing local, insider knowledge. Not being aware of one’s position as outsider, and not attempting to understand local conditions through local eyes, can result in extremely skewed results. Rabe discusses the inequality of power relations between outside researcher and those being researched, in that the investigator has the upper-hand. It is the researcher’s account of the situation which is published, and not necessarily the account of the individual being researched.
However, Rabe makes an interesting point with regard to the role of the insider as researcher, in that at times this can work to one’s disadvantage, as there are certain social norms and practices which may inhibit the insider from finding answers. In the end, Rabe concludes that if one makes a conscious effort to take into account his or her own shortcomings as researcher – whether insider or outsider – then either perspective can provide a narrative which furthers our knowledge of the subject of enquiry (Rabe, 2003).
The second of our theoretical paradigms is what I have classified as Universalism. This is the view that politics, regardless of the idiosyncrasies of continent and state, can be
20
studied under the rubric of common theoretical approaches. In this respect, I draw much from the framework devised in Patrick Chabal’s edited piece on Political Domination in Africa (1986). In the introduction to the book, as a theoretical exposition to underlie the subsequent contributions by a variety of Africanists, Chabal states that Universalism is better suited to the understanding of African politics, rather than restricting oneself to the confines of narrower theories. In this way, he and the other scholars, prefer “an approach grounded in universal political theory rather than in the theory of political development (or dependence) devised for Third World countries today” (Chabal, 1986, p. 1). It is a strategy that combines common political theory, with the growing knowledge of African history, which previously was not readily available. In this way, a Universalist epistemological and methodological toolset can be applied to local contexts, without resorting to Third-Worldism.
One final note to this brief discussion is the underlying condescension which inadvertently seems to accompany Third-Worldism, whether or not applied by African scholars themselves. To claim that African politics is theoretically distinct from politics the world over, I contend, does a serious injustice to the reality of sub-Saharan Africa. It is not that the politics are inherently different, but rather that the context and history of the political arena in Africa may not always correspond to the Western reality. Therefore, this thesis will employ a more Universalist approach to political theory, in the examination of regionalism in West Africa, while attempting to be as explicit as to the possible biases held by its author.