3. In the place of legal-rational institutionalization, what strategies have African leaders used to maintain and extend their power? What are the consequences of these strategies?
Legal-rational was a source that many thought African leaders were going to use in order to achieve legitimate governments. Legal-rational is a government that is based on a social contract, in other words for the people. People would obey the government because it was established to serve the peoples collective interest and needs. Yet, legal-rational government did not occur in Africa. Although many African countries had elections, parliaments, and presidents, they did not function like they normally would in other countries. In fact, the entire system was corrupted …show more content…
Compare the state building experiences seen in Botswana and Somalia. Discuss at least three contrasts that help explain Botswana’s success and Somalia’s failure.
When Somalia got its independent it was much institutionalized. For the first nine years it was relatively peaceful. It was until the president of Somalia was shot and killed that tension started to rise. Somalia then tried invading neighboring country Ethiopia in order to take back a piece of territory that was once theirs. Civil was started and many rebel groups were created. The country became extremely weak with not real central government.
Botswana when it got its independence it also was much institutionalized yet it did not go through the conflicts Somalia has gone through. Currently, Botswana is still institutionalized and as of now has never experience an uprising or coup. They are the reasons for this that are presented in the case of Botswana but not in Somalia. First, there is a sense of equality and unity that is not present in Somalia. Botswana has a kotla system, which is a meeting where anyone is allowed to speak and when they are speaking no one is allowed to interrupt them. This means that people from Botswana feel like they are being represented and heard. While in Somalia went from a democratic republic to a communist
Legal-rational was a source that many thought African leaders were going to use in order to achieve legitimate governments. Legal-rational is a government that is based on a social contract, in other words for the people. People would obey the government because it was established to serve the peoples collective interest and needs. Yet, legal-rational government did not occur in Africa. Although many African countries had elections, parliaments, and presidents, they did not function like they normally would in other countries. In fact, the entire system was corrupted …show more content…
Compare the state building experiences seen in Botswana and Somalia. Discuss at least three contrasts that help explain Botswana’s success and Somalia’s failure.
When Somalia got its independent it was much institutionalized. For the first nine years it was relatively peaceful. It was until the president of Somalia was shot and killed that tension started to rise. Somalia then tried invading neighboring country Ethiopia in order to take back a piece of territory that was once theirs. Civil was started and many rebel groups were created. The country became extremely weak with not real central government.
Botswana when it got its independence it also was much institutionalized yet it did not go through the conflicts Somalia has gone through. Currently, Botswana is still institutionalized and as of now has never experience an uprising or coup. They are the reasons for this that are presented in the case of Botswana but not in Somalia. First, there is a sense of equality and unity that is not present in Somalia. Botswana has a kotla system, which is a meeting where anyone is allowed to speak and when they are speaking no one is allowed to interrupt them. This means that people from Botswana feel like they are being represented and heard. While in Somalia went from a democratic republic to a communist