This paper intends to highlight the categories, which need to be considered in the discourse on good governance from a partisan viewpoint towards pastoralism.  It starts with an attempt to contribute to the new development discourse, which sets out to deconstruct the dominant discourse on development, gender, environment, pastoralism and human rights.  It attempts to situate the negative Western discourse on pastoralism in the dominant discourse that has hitherto become  dominant and hegemonic.  Pastoralist marginalisation is traced back to the deprivation of pasture (land) that paved the way to political, social and cultural marginalisation. 

The second part links the marginalisation of pastoralism with macroeconomic policy formulation that again leads to state-society relationship which, in turn, makes the discussion on good governance necessary.  In this part, the paper presents a critique of the African State and tries to highlight the categories that have hitherto been neglected and thus cost African societies a great deal when viewed in relation to the ever worsening conditions of poverty and conflict.  It then underlines the indispensable role of civil society in the development process which needs to be recognized by the state. 

I.          The Dominant Discourse and Pastoralism 

Much has been said - and for long too - about the marginalization of pastoralists particularly by those scholars who understood pastoralism as a viable and alternative way of life in this increasingly competitive world that left no part of the planet unexploited by the forces of the market. The efforts of those scholars have borne fruit as the plight of pastoralists is being increasingly heard and as more and more scholars are drawn into the cause of pastoralism.  Despite that African states have turned a deaf ear to the problem although a few of them still pay lip-service to the plight of pastoralists. It was indeed high time that one had gone beyond explaining the marginalization of pastoralists as such and cross the rubicon to delve into the evolution and construction of the prevailing “world view”, the “dominant discourse”, on development with relevance to pastoralism. For the dominant discourse is the expression of the prevalence of the globalization of the market. 

The prevalence of the globalization of the market in the contemporary world has a long history of evolution though its alpha and omega was marked by the end of the division of this world into presumably opposite ideological camps: namely the end of the Cold War. Market globalization is the culmination of a process that which was set in motion by and was an aspect of the Industrial Revolution with a concomitant triumph of the knowledge system upon which it was constructed. The buildup and development of the market was simultaneously a function of the weakening of other economic and knowledge systems. The market system has systematically undermined and destroyed other knowledge systems for the realization of its hegemony. The undermining and destruction of knowledge systems other than the dominant discourse was not a smooth process. On the contrary, it was extremely violent, brutal, and have had debilitating effects on the losers. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed, millions were thrown out of their homes and many became destitutes. 

In its ascendance, the market system destroyed and/or irreversibly changed the hitherto harmonious relationship between humans’ production systems and the environment.  Industrialization changed this relationship subjecting the environment/ecology to a permanent system of destruction. The knowledge of the market system grew concomitantly with the process of the destruction of the natural economy.  This expansion was further complimented by the process of colonization, which enhanced the process of capital accumulation and its capacity to control the globe politically, peacefully, where possible or forcibly where there was resistance. 

What is more tragic is that with the process of decolonization, the nation states in the South, tied in so many ways with their former colonial powers, which have now become neo-colonial, had unquestionably taken for granted the notion of development as defined by the dominant discourse.  Soon after Harry Truman, the US president, who first coined the term, “underdeveloped”, to characterize the South, it did not take long for the South itself to accept this designation, internalize it and consider itself “underdeveloped” which was/is synonymous with being ‘uncivilized’. By surrendering to the dominant discourse, the South accepted and considered the Northern (Western) knowledge system as the universal knowledge system, and hence its notion of development as the only one, and that development is synonymous with ‘modernization’ i.e. westernization and marketization. Other knowledge systems are considered as ‘backward’, ‘unscientific’ and hence subject to disappear and/or have to be replaced by the Western knowledge system and civilization. 

It is this notion of civilization and development that informs the dominant discourse. Beyond the shade of doubt, such a discourse is not only hegemonic for it imposes itself as superior but also is based on the market’s philosophy of greed. How pastoralism is viewed in this discourse may not come as a surprise. The theory of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ is just one aspect of how pastoralism is viewed in the dominant discourse. It is important to pose the dichotomy between pastoralism - as a way of life and knowledge system as a whole - and the dominant discourse on development including ‘pastoralist’ development. The dominant discourse advances the expansion of the market through industrialization thereby destroying the environment and ecology while pastoralism coexists in harmony with nature and the environment. What we have here is a contradiction of a fundamental nature between the market system and pastoralism if not they are mutually exclusive. It is this prevailing notion of the dominant discourse on pastoralism that has become the root cause of the marginalization of pastoralists. 

It is for no reason that pastoralism as a way of life is portrayed as a ‘problem’. Despite the existence of pastoralism, the high priests of the dominant discourse who just ‘discovered’ them when they ‘discovered’ Africa (as if Africa had not existed for millennia) talk about a host of  ‘problems’ for pastoralism to sustain itself. Because the notion that Africa is ‘the dark continent’ - synonymous with savagery and barbarism – is still pervasive, and pastoralism as an aspect of the other pre-industrial social systems is supposed to change and ‘modernize’ and give way to become a part of an industrial society. In the dominant discourse ‘development’ is equated with modernization a la the West and modernization is taken to mean the same thing as industrialization and in this connection some factors are mentioned as ‘constraints on development’ allegedly posed by pastoralism. According to David Turton these include: movement, overstocking, resistance to change, lack of contribution to the national economy and pastoralism and farming as polarized (Summary of a Conference on Pastoralism in Ethiopia, 1-2:1993). Volumes can be written to refute this assertion.

II.            Pastoralism Versus Market Globalization 

The completion of the process of globalization simultaneously marks the triumph of the western knowledge system and the prevalence of what Vandana Shiva calls ‘monoculture of the mind’. Throughout the world, governments including those who still call themselves socialist such as China, Cuba and Vietnam, have adopted a general economic policy - identical in its essentials – designed to develop the market and market forces. To this end, the Bretton Woods Institutions (World Bank, IMF and now the World Trade Organization), have assumed the position of being the global regimes dictating economic policies, development strategies etc. as conditionalities for loans. Despite the tremendous destruction and loss of human lives during the war in Vietnam, which was fought then on the prevailing ideological divide for and against the market system, that country has now surrendered to the dictates of  the World Bank and IMF without a shot. With the end of the Cold War the option for the market system has become global. 

The turn to the market as a strategy of development at a macroeconomic level by itself  constitutes a setback to marginalised communities such as pastoralists since such a strategy connotes the eventual phasing out possibly leading to the abolition of natural and subsistence economies which, incidentally, have hitherto been in harmony with the environment and ecosystem. On the other hand, even if we accept this aspired transformation, the dominant forces have so far failed to provide pastoralists with any meaningful alternatives. 

This policy of substitution of pastoralism by the market system is part of the global urge, the ‘sudden awakening’  towards the market. But, what are the consequences of the globalization of the market? Poverty has now become global with feminization of poverty as its principal feature, the hitherto marginalized groups such as women and “indigenous” peoples have been pushed further down to a more wretched existence. Pastoralists are among these. For the sake of the expansion of the market, pastoral lands are increasingly being commercialized and in some cases turned into national parks depriving pastoralists the right of having access to pasture land. 

The most significant and worrisome consequences of the globalization of the market are the degradation of the environment and ecological changes. From the Amazon to the Mekong, the recent expansion of commercialization into the hitherto impenetrable fortresses of nature has affected communities whose livelihood depends on the preservation of the environment, biodiversity and the climate. Pastoralists who depend on a stable climate and preservation of biodiversity are among the first to be affected by the degradation of the environment and ecological changes. Scientists have proved that the cutting down of trees in some highlands of Africa was one of the major causes for both the drought that hit the Sahel belt in the early 70s and later and for the recurrent floods that occurred recently in the Horn of Africa. Both extremes, i.e. drought and flood, have devastated pastoralist communities. 

At the end of the day, the effects of the globalization of the market is so devastating that scholars in a number of countries are compelled to reflect deeply on the impact of this disaster. Will this disaster lead to rethinking development strategies? If, in the final analysis, the manufacturing and industrialization drive for the purpose of expanding commerce and the market, has resulted in a global environmental and ecological disaster which in turn causes pauperization and misery to millions of people not just once but in a continuous pattern then the future of human civilization must indeed be at stake. Are human beings committing suicides through a process of what  Rajni Kotari calls ecocide? If that is the consequence of industrialization and ‘development’ according to the dominant discourse, the question then is what constitutes development? Can market-driven industrialization be considered as a recipe for development? The destruction of the environment and the alarming changes in the ecosystem compel us to question the prevailing development paradigm. 

On the other hand, would it be possible, even if we unquestioningly accept the ‘rationale’ of the dominant discourse, including that of the Bretton Woods institutions, to bring about the aspired, desired and planned development, namely, modernization and market-driven industrialization? If that were so, where would Africa be after thirty years of political independence? Which African country has registered sustained successes in the areas of social development? Though a few success stories have been registered here and there such as in Botsawana, South Africa and Tunisia, the sustainability of such success has come into question. That is more so because even the much appraised ‘Asian Tigers’ supposedly successful a la the dominant paradigm have now plunged into a deep crisis. Undoubtedly, the records of the African states in the field of social development have been dismal and every African knows what this involves. This is one more reason that compels us to question the validity of the prevailing development paradigm, namely, modernization and market-driven industrialization. Moreover, this is yet one more reason to make us feel strongly that pastoralism as a way of life for  many millions of Africans prevails over the heretofore-desired yet unattained industrialization, modernization and westernization. It is indeed a paradox of historical proportions to witness the marginlaization of pastoralists in the face of this failed paradigm that the dominant discourse dictates and which the nation state in Africa unquestioningly accepted. 

III.            Political Marginalization 

Like in most cases, political marginalization of the nomadic pastoral communities was preceded by their forcible displacement from their land and/or restrictions imposed on their movements. In a multi-ethnic setting such as Ethiopia where the domination of one or two ethnic groups prevailed, the political marginalization of pastoralists who are of marginalised ethnic groups themselves occurs as a result of pursuing a policy of ethnic domination or national oppression. Under such circumstances, pastoralists face double-edged marginalization: as one of the dominated ethnic groups and as pastoralists. 

The marginalization that pastoralists faces as pastoralists has a characteristically peculiar feature. Other dominated ethnic groups suffer from being excluded from running their own affairs, unable to use their own language in schools and work and be compelled to adopt the languages of the dominant ethnic group/s, and suffer culturally. As a way of life or production system, sedenterization is much preferred to pastoralism. With the exception of places where peasants are evicted from their lands to be used by large scale commercial farms, as sedentary and farming communities they were not required to change their production systems and their way of life in general. However, when it comes to pastoralists, their very way of life is considered as a problem because, in the eyes of the dominant forces, pastoralism constitutes a way of life which is incongruous with a ‘civilized’ way of life or, conversely, it is considered as “uncivilized”. [Hence, the drive for venturing on a civilizing mission.] 

The prevailing view on development [and on pastoralism] in many African countries are the views of the ruling elite which emanates from the ‘colonization process’ that caused the marginalization of pastoralist communities on the one hand and that brought the dominance of the African ruling elite on the other. Thus, pastoralists are considered as ‘uncivilized’ not because they are not civilized as such but because their way of life and civilization are different from but not necessarily incompatible with those of the dominant forces. Yet, pastoralists are considered as ‘uncivilized’. As such stereotypes sprang out of this notion and multiplied and consolidated through time. In Amharic, the official language of Ethiopia, the word ‘zelan’ for nomad has come to mean mannerless, unruly and undisciplined. There are so many stereotypes in Amharic about pastoralists that are completely baseless but still continue to strengthen the existing prejudices against them. 

As far as pastoralists’ participation in the decision making process, both at the marco and micro levels, goes the situation is more frustrating. The fundamental contradiction here is between the Northern (Western) notion of the nation-state and the pastoralist traditional institutions of decision-making pattern. They are incompatible because the nation-state in Africa opted to impose the notion and practice of the modern state on pastoralist communities with no respect to traditional system of governance and authority. On top of that, the major functions of the African state are in general authoritarian and in behavior, it is coercive rather than persuasive, corrupt than transparent, tax collector and embezzler than developmental, authoritarian/autocratic than democratic, and displays all sorts of behavior which are alien to pastoralists. Hence, the pastoralists’ perception of the state as an alien institution, and hence their reciprocal hostility towards it is well-founded. As a result whatever the state stands for is viewed by pastoralists with suspicion. As Richard Hogg (1997;13) noted in the case of pastoralist and state relationship in Ethiopia, 

The said suspicion and hostility towards the state need also to be examined from a regional, transboundary perspective. It is well known that pastoralists do not respect African state boundaries created and demarcated by former colonial powers and these boundaries do no mean much to them. The fact that the traditional pastoralist governance and authority over its resources predates the creation of the African nation states may be one explanation for this. However, the fact that pastoralist governance has always been universally accepted, functioning well and effectively when seen in relation to the ostensibly ‘modern’ state administration of the African state may be a stronger reason. Although pastoralists of various regions (the national states of today) have generally coexisted in peace, they also had and still have conflicts over access to resources particularly to water and grazing land. They also have their own traditional mechanisms for resolving conflicts. One of the tragedies created as a result of the political marginalization of pastoralists, as is the case in East Africa, is the fact that these traditional mechanisms of conflict resolution have also been undermined and made unworkable mainly as a result of changes in land tenure systems unfavorable to pastoralists. As Charles Lane (1983:3) noted, “Historically, pastoral groups have managed conflicts over resources through tried and tested traditional systems. However, with tenure reform and the alienation of pastoralists from their lands, customary methods of negotiation, arbitration and adjudication are breaking down in competition with more omnipotent forces”.

IV.            Changes in Pastoralist Land Tenure: Basis for  Marginalization 

What is a common view in the dominant discourse as well as in the traditional agrarian societies is the one that treats the land issue as if it is the problem of settled agrarian societies and that of peasants in particular. As the well known slogan of agrarian revolutionaries, “land to the tillers”, had it the only rural economic activity which is recognized as productive, and whose contributions to the national economy are singularly high is farming, land cultivation. Contrary to this prevailing view, however, the issue of land is equally important to the pastoralists. There is a strong viewpoint which contends that in terms of land tenure and land use pastoralism is the most sustainable. In this connection, Charles Lane has the following to say: “Land belongs to a group or ‘family’ that is linked by descent or cultural affiliation. It is not ‘owned’ in the sense that users enjoy unlimited rights to exploit and dispose it at will. It is held in trust by the living for future generations.  To ensure that they inherit land currently enjoyed by the living, levels of use are limited by the rights of usufruct - the right to enjoy the product of land only in so far as it does not cause damage and reduce its future productive capacity” (Lane, 1998:1; emphasis/italics, mine).  And as one Nigerian herder said, “... land belongs to a vast family of which many are dead, few are living and countless members are still unborn” (quoted by Lane, 1993:1). Both Lane’s summary and the Nigerian herder’s expression of the essence of pastoralist land tenure are apt descriptions of the substance of what in the contemporary discourse goes as “sustainable development.” 

The essence of sustainable development is not just raising productivity and increasing production but adopting a strategy of development one whose important component is laying the groundwork for the construction of social and physical infrastructure needed for production by future generations. The essence of pastoralist land tenure corresponds with this notion. Moreover, the pastoralist economic activity, which is basically livestock production, has gone relatively in harmony with nature and the environment for centuries. Pastoralists have successfully maintained their way of life in general and their production system in particular without endangering the environment upon which they depend for their survival. Harmony with the environment and its protection from erosion in any way should constitute the soul of contemporary discourse on sustainable development. 

As noted above, the marginalization of the pastoralist communities also emanates from the neglect the policy makers have towards pastoralism as a viable way of life, which is virtually written off from macroeconomic policies.  This in turn leads to the discussion on state society relationships, general questions of democracy, the role of the African State in decision making and the development process, the ensemble of categories that constitute the discourse on good governance. 

V.        Good Governance and Africa 

It has become indisputable that the role of the African state in development has demonstrably been an utter failure. A number of institutions ranging from local to the ‘brains’ of the world, namely, the World Bank/IMF, have been engaged in numerous projects to change the  corners. Unfortunately, as the current reality of the continent reveals poverty, famine, instability and conflict have become the hallmark of that reality not to speak of les damnes des la terre from the city of the dead in Cairo to the slums of Soweto and from stateless Somalia to staggering Sierra Leone; from those who perish like flies in Ethiopia by famine, the homeless who try to eke out their meager existence in the cities of the continent, to those who die in thousands from AIDS, malaria, and so on. The African states have not yet solved any of  these fundamental problems. On the contrary, it seems that these problems have been aggravated as a result of perennial power struggle among politicians. Many countries in Africa such as Congo (Democratic Republic) have once again facing a similar crisis of the one that it had faced immediately after independence. In Somalia, there has not been a centralized state for nearly a decade now and the country is passing through an experience totally incomprehensible to an outsider. The Horn of Africa has once again become a region of conflict and even countries such as Djibouti, which had hitherto been uninvolved have increasingly been drawn into conflict. On top of all these, state repression on civil society and the forces of democracy has become something common in most African countries with the exception of a few ‘islands’ such as South Africa.  Corruption has pervaded the whole fabric of public institutions. In a simplified fashion, that is a dismal record of the post-colonial States in Africa. 

The anatomy of the record of the African States compels us to look beyond the prevailing conditions of underdevelopment, which include generalized poverty, conflicts and wars, just to mention a few. Is the Western notion and experience of the nation state as inherited from the colonial state still valid/relevant to Africa? Cannot Africa develop its own form of state, governance, etc...? 

The quest for a suitable form of state for Africa also needs to address one fundamental problem that the African state has so far systematically perpetuated: the exclusion of the African civil society! The African civil society has since independence been the recipient of the brunt of all these crises and fundamental problems that gripped the continent. The state has always been the sole actor since the dawn of independence (euphemistically referred to as ‘political’ independence) in decision making and in the development process. In view of the failure of the African state we stated above, it was indeed high time to question the raison d’être of the African state as it has hitherto existed and functioned and to highlight the necessary role of civil society. 

VI.       From Society in Itself to Civil Society for Itself 

The expression ‘society for itself’ denotes a sharp distinction of a fundamental nature from 'society in itself'. “Society for itself” connotes the emergence/existence of a society belonging to a historical epoch in which its citizens enjoy/exercise their full right to participate independently [i.e. independent of the state] in the political, social and economic development processes of their country mainly as a result of existence of space or an enabling environment for popular participation. What is crucial in ‘society for itself’ is the consciousness/awareness of citizens of the historical role that they can independently play in the development process (i.e. independent from the state). It is this consciousness and awareness that transforms ‘society in itself’ into “society for itself’. 

As the concept and practice of the nation-state has it the state signifies the public domain.  In the ‘South’ and particularly in Africa, the distinction - let alone the dichotomy - between the public and the private spheres has not come out sharply due to the specific characteristics of the third world states which have become the major actor in the development as well as decision making processes.  The latter, as we witness it today has debilitating effects on the emerging African civil society.  Thus, after nearly forty years of flag independence, we need now to reflect on state-society relationship in Africa.  This paper does not however attempt to do so; that is something which falls beyond the preview of our present inquiry.  Instead, it will only highlight what is essential in good governance and civil society, namely,