Moscow: IAfr RAS, 2015, 178 p.

The last work of a prominent Russian scholar of African studies, historian, political scientist, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Nikolai Dmitrievich Kosukhin (March 4, 1932-December 25, 2014), who worked at the Institute of Africa of the Russian Academy of Sciences since 1967. He is the author of more than 300 academic publications on the political development of Africa. Among them - " Modern ideological systems "(Moscow, 1999), "Political Science of the development of African countries" (Moscow, 2009), etc.

The book is devoted to one of the most important problems of modern African studies - the evolution of political leadership in the countries of the Black continent. The undoubted advantage of the work is an in-depth analysis of domestic and foreign works on this and similar topics, as well as a generalization of the results of previous studies. N. D. Kosukhin focuses mainly on the leaders of the so-called first wave (to use the author's definition), who led the struggle for national liberation, and after gaining independence (mainly in the late 1950s-early 1960s) occupied the highest state posts in the corresponding African countries. Among them, as N. D. Kosukhin repeatedly points out throughout the book, were both pragmatic leaders who maintained close ties with the former metropolis, and idealists who sought to build a society of social justice.

The author identifies three groups of factors in the formation of a leader: his personal ("personal") qualities, the tools he uses to exercise power, the situation in which he acts and which affects him. Among the personal qualities of a leader, he identifies natural (willpower, determination, intuition, magnetism), moral (humanism, responsibility, honesty) and professional (p. 8). By leadership, he understands "the mechanism of interaction between leaders and followers", and a political leader is defined as "a person who directs political processes, exerts influence social behavior of individuals, groups, strata, and society as a whole." The author's statement that a political leader is not only a subject, but also an object of politics seems to be correct, since when solving various problems, he "always experiences the influence and pressure of various interested parties and must be ready to accept their demands, to various compromises" (p.12).

In the review and theoretical part of the work, almost all the principles and parameters of typologization of political leaders are indicated, which in theory are divided into "ruling and opposition", "national and regional", "authoritarian and democratic", "formal and informal", "conservatives, reformists, dogmatists, fundamentalists", " ideologists, idealists,etc. pragmatists", "compromisers, fanatics" , etc. (p. 20). Unfortunately, the author avoids any specific typologization of African political leaders, distributing them mainly by "generations" and "waves", therefore in one group - leaders of the "first generation" (or "first wave") - He also has Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana).,

1957-1966), and F. Houphouet-Boigny (Cote d'Ivoire, 1960-1993), and J. Nyerere (Tanzania, 1964-1985), and J. Kenyatta (Kenya, 1963-1978), and a number of other rulers, which is true from the point of view of chronology, but with a more thorough "breakdown" they would undoubtedly be assigned to different, both overlapping and opposite categories.

The author believes that they were "bright leaders-tribunes", but some doubts are raised by his statement that the leaders of the" first wave "" had a charismatic ability to rally all ethnic groups in a common struggle " (p.123). After all, it was in the late-colonial and post-colonial periods of development of the countries of Tropical Africa that tribal contradictions manifested themselves with particular force, and national leaders, with rare exceptions (for example, J. Nyerere), primarily expressed the interests of their ethnic group. It is also difficult to agree with N. D. Kosukhin's statement that these " people's leaders "in their political activities" most fully "reflected the" aspirations and aspirations of their peoples " (p.123). Thus, F. Houphouet-Boigny did not even hide the fact that he primarily defends the interests of large planters, and representatives of the Baoulet ethnic group.

Indeed, in Russian African studies, it is customary to refer the first African nationalist leaders to the leaders of the "first generation" or "first wave", and, naturally, it can be assumed that the "first" were inevitably followed by "second", "third", etc. The author of the peer-reviewed monograph has set himself an extremely difficult task of distributing African nationalists among the leaders of the "first generation" or "first wave". leaders in "generations", but found himself in a self-imposed trap. Thus, he does not limit the "first generation" to any time frame, while the replacement of the " second "generation by the" third " refers to the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. This is partly understandable: after all, one of the most prominent "firsts", K. Nkrumah, was overthrown in 1966, and among the others - J. R. R. Tolkien. Nyerere, for example, resigned in 1985, Houphouet-Boigny died in 1993, i.e. chronologically, the last two leaders not only survived the" second "generation, but also partially captured the"third" one.

The researcher links the change of the "first" generation to the "second" generation with the gradual surrender of" charismatic " positions, as he calls them, to more pragmatic leaders. Meanwhile, it would be unfair to deny pragmatism to F. Houphouet-Boigny, S. Senghor, K. Kaunda, J. Kenyatta and some others. At the same time, one cannot deny their charisma. The change of the "second" generation to the "third" was allegedly caused by "the beginning of the process of political change", "the transition from authoritarianism to democracy" (p. 123). Unfortunately, the author does not specify what exactly he means by "process" and "transition", although it can be assumed that this refers to the holding of presidential and parliamentary elections and the transfer of power by military leaders to civilians. Both have indeed become particularly widespread since the late 1980s, although this has been observed before. However, it is at least premature to talk about the transition from authoritarianism to democracy even in some countries of the continent. With a certain stretch, one can point to "first steps towards democratization" and "democratic tendencies", as is usually done in the domestic literature in relation to Africa. It is interesting that the leaders of the "first wave" - Senghor, Houphouet-Boigny, Nyerere and others-were the first to start democratic reforms-for various reasons, and not the "second wave", as can be concluded from the author's words.

The author sees" The origins and peculiarities of political leadership " in African countries in the specifics of the functioning of the institution of traditional leaders in the pre-colonial period and later, to which he refers sacred kings (kings) of pre-colonial African states; supreme leaders and lower-ranking leaders-holders of various local titles; so-called palace leaders (courtiers), etc. D. Kosukhin examines in detail various aspects of the activities of traditional rulers. He notes, in particular, that the position of supreme chief is usually inherited, although in some cases it is chosen from among minor chiefs, and that traditional chiefs are often seen as persons endowed with special supernatural powers, closely associated with the spirits of their ancestors and mediating between them and their living descendants (p.34). The author makes a valid conclusion that "the traditional ruler was the bearer of secular and religious functions, and in many societies the latter prevailed over the former" (p. 35). Unfortunately, he does not specify, despite repeated references to" continuity", to what extent and from what angle the real and fictional qualities of traditional rulers are reflected in the activities of modern politicians.

According to N. D. Kosukhin, the colonial period saw the rebirth of the institution of leaders, many of whom were integrated into the colonial administration,

authorities were created with the participation of traditional rulers, who were often appointed to high administrative positions.

After independence, traditional chieftains were also able to participate in public administration in many countries in Tropical Africa, although government policies towards them varied markedly. Where chiefdoms were seen as the mainstay of tribalism and separatism, traditional leaders were stripped of all rights and privileges, as was the case in Guinea under Sekou Tour. In other societies, traditional institutions of power have retained some of their functions, continue to enjoy influence and are perceived as "a symbol of cultural traditions, identity and moral values" (p.38).

The author's conclusion about the widespread patronage-clientele system in Tropical Africa since pre-colonial times seems to be correct, which implies, on the one hand, the loyalty of a particular group or individual to the leader, patron, and on the other - his obligation to share part of the material benefits with his clients. It should be noted, however, that the author's approach is somewhat one-sided: after all, the patron-client relationship implies not only a "duty to share", but also bribing potential supporters, such as the electorate. Loyalty often turns into betrayal as soon as the system is weakened due to lack of funds or other factors. The author ignores this problem, although it is nowhere more obvious than in the African context.

Much attention in the monograph is paid to the phenomenon of the charismatic leader, while the author finds the origins of his charisma in the bowels of traditional society. According to N. D. Kosukhin, " charisma is usually used to denote a certain special human property or a sum of properties. A charismatic person... it can influence people, evoking special trust and affection" (p. 42). Despite all the variety of existing definitions of charisma, the author's understanding of this phenomenon is generally close to the generally accepted one, but how can we explain his statement that "in African countries, charismatic rule arises, in which charismatic elements are inherent in the very institution of power or status and do not depend on the personal traits of the ruler" (p. 43)?Of course, "a place makes a person beautiful", but a charismatic leader differs from others in that he attracts people primarily because of his personal qualities - human charm, oratorical abilities, the gift of persuasion, etc.

N. D. Kosukhin's statement that "the charisma of a leader is a prerequisite for authoritarianism" (p. 42) is also perplexing, and the author's "charisma" has a positive connotation, and "authoritarianism" as a "style of government" has a negative connotation, which is clearly traced throughout the text. This raises at least two questions. First, can't a charismatic leader be inherently authoritarian? It seems that it can. Second, can't a dictator have charisma? History has shown that even as it can!

But how can we explain, for example, the following statement of N. D. Kosukhin: "Charismatic leaders always act as "saviors" and symbolize the aspirations of the people"? (p. 43). It is not entirely clear how leaders can "symbolize the aspirations of the people" at all, although perhaps the author meant that their programs reflected the interests of the broad masses of the population, as he, by the way, says below. But this is not the main point: after all, the meaning of charisma is precisely that the leader who possesses it, due to his special qualities, is able to force you to follow him in any direction, even if his path leads to a dead end, and the political program is ambitious and ridiculous. Meanwhile, it would be possible to make a considerable list of African leaders-pragmatists, including the military (in no way "symbolizing" popular aspirations), who, without possessing charismatic qualities, were able-thanks to effective management-to lead the country out of a political or economic crisis, while not claiming the status of a "savior".

The author insists on the interrelation and interdependence of "charisma", "authoritarianism" and features of "traditional governance", the basic principles of which (for example, the unquestionable authority of elders) They have a great influence on the political life of modern Africa. However, speaking about the need to preserve traditions, N. D. Kosukhin refers to the words of the President of the Republic of the Congo Denis Sassou-Nguesso, who, as an example of not authoritarianism at all, but "traditional democracy", points to the collective discussion of various problems characteristic of traditional society or the activities of councils of elders, which, "like parliamentary assemblies","they served as a decision-making tool" and which, therefore, "it would be a pity to lose" (p. 53).

It is fair to point out that the influence of traditions is manifested "in the preservation of the political influence of leaders", "in the prevalence of group political consciousness over individual consciousness, since according to tradition the interests of an individual are subordinated to the interests of society (a large family, tribe, clan)", and that "traditional social structures are tenacious" and spread including As for the sphere of economy, the author unexpectedly makes an in no way reasoned conclusion that "an important factor in the survivability of traditional relations is favorable natural and climatic conditions that allow extensive farming, and the availability of valuable minerals" (p.53). But after all, favorable climatic conditions and the availability of rich natural resources can serve both to strengthen traditional relations and to transform them. In addition, nothing destroys traditional relations more than the struggle for access to natural resources, which is the reason for the emergence, escalation and expansion of most African conflicts.

Some of the author's statements, which are not supported by any relevant explanations or empirical data, may confuse the reader. For example, this applies to "democratization", which, according to N. D. Kosukhin, "leads not to the elimination of traditions, but to the return of" African exclusivity", the revival of pre-colonial public institutions " (p.55).

Contradictions also lie in the author's claims that, on the one hand, "the political reforms that have begun have stirred up African society, allowed it to at least partially overcome long years of apathy", that "in many countries of Tropical Africa, a significant number of voters participated in election campaigns" and that "such activity can become a starting point for the development of political activity in Africa." mass culture "(p. 56) (apparently referring to the modern type), and on the other hand, "in modern African society, which is characterized by disillusionment with Western systems of political governance and a negative attitude towards Westernization, there are strong sentiments of idealization of the past, which continues to live in both the behavioral and political culture of today's Africa" (p. 57). Of course, both trends can be traced, but their coexistence requires not only a statement, but also a more extensive explanation of the intertwining of tradition and modernism inherent in African society, as well as different views and ideas.

The author's claim that "studying the influence of ethno - religious factors on African political culture (by the way, the use of such a phrase is illegal due to the fact that "ethnic" and "religious" "factors" do not necessarily overlap with each other, etc.) and traditions confirms that in political actions that characterize the mass culture of the country, it is not necessary to use the term "ethnic" and "religious" factors, etc.) political culture in the countries of Tropical Africa, there are almost no rational principles that work for the national, national interest" (p. 57). But what about the mass protests against the failed economic policies of the authorities that took place in many countries of the region? What about the opposition, for example, to Islamic extremism in Nigeria, provided by both Christians and Muslims?

No less doubtful is the author's statement that "in the absence of democratic traditions, modern legal and political culture, and the dominance of archaic values and traditions, a significant part of young states evolved in the direction of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes" (p. 58). First, earlier it was said about the elements of democracy (elections of the ruler, collective self-government). decision-making, etc.) typical of traditional society. Secondly, why are we talking only about "a part of young states"? And in what direction did others evolve? And what was the starting point?

Leaving aside the problem of the existence of "totalitarian regimes" in Africa (most likely there were none), I would like to raise the question in which direction African countries could evolve, except along the path of forming authoritarian (more or less rigid) regimes, if the author himself again and again throughout the book plays the "traditional" scheme. society - charismatic government-authoritarianism."

Despite numerous contradictions, N. D. Kosukhin's book is extremely valuable because it raises a huge number of questions that African political scientists have yet to answer.

Permanent link to this publication: