The study of the evolution of political leadership in Africa in the last decade has become particularly relevant. An important incentive for an in-depth study of this phenomenon can be considered the strengthening of political instability in the countries of the continent. The development of West African studies in the 2000s was marked by the publication of a number of works dealing to varying degrees with various aspects of African political leadership.

For example, the British economist and political scientist P. Collier, in his book "Wars, Guns and Electoral Votes" (Collier, 2009), questions the validity of defining the policies pursued by the heads of even the most "progressive" African regimes as "processes of democratization". In fact, he rightly points out, the only sign of a democratic transformation of social and political life on the continent is the holding-regularly or occasionally, peacefully or accompanied by armed clashes between supporters of a particular candidate - of general elections, which have become "the most visible feature of democracy"here. However, even the relative success of election campaigns and the "transparency" of vote counting are usually due to external pressure on candidates, as well as to the monitoring of elections carried out by observers from the international community represented by the EU, the United States, the World Bank, etc. That is, the "great political sea of change," Collier ironically notes, is actually " a statistical increase in the number of elections." Moreover, if the power of the winner is not limited by law, the elections can become a" matter of life and death " and transform into a tough confrontation between rivals, up to armed clashes between their supporters. The result is a political system that the author calls "demokracy" (demokrazy - "demosumashestvie"). [Collier, 2009, p. 15]. As a prerequisite for the emergence of "democracy", the British scientist points to the formation of a personal dictatorship regime that reached its apogee in Africa under the rule of President Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), whose power rested on "two pillars" - greed and fear of the environment. Under the patronage system, he generously rewarded the loyalty of his subjects and severely punished the slightest signs of discontent.

Solving the question " to be or not to be an election?" dictators often suffer from their own lack of awareness, as they are surrounded by sycophants and are unable to assess the mood of the electorate. First of all, this applies to"long-lived" leaders who have been in power for 20 or more years and are used to hearing from their advisers how much the people "love"them. A similar "mishap" occurred, for example, in 1991 with the former ruler of Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda, who proclaimed a course towards democratization, organized elections and received only 20% of the vote. Under pressure from a team of observers led by former US President John Kerry. Karterom Kaunda resigned from a high government post, but later toured African countries, warning his recent colleagues not to repeat his mistake.

Collier examines the impact of the accountability and legitimacy factors that characterize Western-style democracy on the level of political violence. Theoretically, he believes, in a democracy, the level of violence should decrease: leaders have no alternative to effectively perform their functions in the way that the country's citizens expect them to. If the electorate is satisfied, the ruler is re-elected for a new term, if another candidate is preferred, the incumbent president is defeated. Knowing that the voters

with this in mind, all leaders, with the possible exception of some bloody dictators, are trying to show their best side. As even the first steps towards democratization lead to a relative improvement in governance, the population becomes less likely to take up arms.

According to many politicians, democratization is a prerequisite for political stability and accelerated economic development. Meanwhile, Collier concludes that this postulate does not have any solid foundation. So, he notes, "democratization" in Africa has caused general enthusiasm, but the process has turned out to be much more complex and contradictory, and the main thing is not even that African countries did not have the conditions to establish real democracy, but that the theories that were suitable for developed countries did not work for developing countries.

According to Collier, democratization in poor countries has the opposite effect to what is observed in rich countries: if it reduces the risk of political violence in countries with at least an average level of economic development, then in underdeveloped countries it makes societies more explosive; if in developed countries it promotes political stability, then in developing countries it increases the risk of political violence. previously existing prerequisites for instability. As an example, the author cites the situation in Iraq. Whatever the limitations of the current regime, it is more democratic than Saddam Hussein's regime. However, although his rule was not attractive (primarily from the point of view of Western democracies), it provided internal peace, although it remained dependent on preventive repression more than on civil support.

However, in developing countries, "accountability" and "legitimacy" - essential features of democratization-do not reduce the risk of political violence. Collier explains this by saying that achieving them here remains a matter of the distant future. Does the need to please the electorate really discipline politicians? In developed societies, the answer to this question seems obvious, since the actions of the leadership are closely monitored by the media, and if it is ineffective or affects the interests of ordinary citizens, the head of state will not be elected for a new term.

In developing societies, poor economic performance can always be attributed to an unfortunate combination of circumstances, and the government's inability to overcome political instability can always be attributed to objective reasons. Indeed, due to the dependence of developing economies on external factors (falling prices for export goods, the global financial crisis, etc.), many phenomena occur outside the control of the authorities. In such situations, the electorate is rarely aware of whether the economic collapse was caused by events outside the country or government incompetence.

Often, voters support the incumbent president regardless of how he led, given his tribal affiliation, which, as the author points out, remains almost the main factor in voting for him. In such cases, voters unite in rival electoral blocs, the support of which is all the more important for the leader, since in this case its scale does not depend on the effectiveness of his activities.

Among the negative phenomena of the electoral process in African countries, Collier often notes the desire of various groups to nominate candidates for elected positions of persons with a criminal past. It would seem that such "baggage" should have deprived the latter of the right to participate in elections, but the electorate usually does not have enough information to separate suspicions and rumors from reality. Moreover, voters are given so much unverified information that they stop believing what they are being told. The tribal bloc supports its politicians, even if they are involved in crimes. In addition, being in a public office provides protection from prosecution and punishment. Often, immunity from punishment allows you to resolve the conflict "presidential office-prison". In Nigeria, for example, after the 2007 gubernatorial election, one of the winners, the Vice-governor, did everything possible to take the oath of office before being arrested.

Another way to win an election is to count the votes incorrectly. This strategy can be combined with other methods of fighting for victory. Moreover, if voters understand that the incumbent president is determined to win by any means necessary and how they vote is not a big deal, they are less likely to take risks by supporting opposition candidates. Falsification of voting results as a method of struggle can remain in reserve until the very last moment, until it becomes clear in whose favor the situation is. So, in the elections

2007 in Kenya, during the announcement of the results of the district vote, it seemed obvious that the opposition was winning, but suddenly it turned out that the president received a larger number of votes. However, doubts about the results were caused not even by the margin in his favor, but by too large a difference in votes between the preliminary and final counts.

African rulers use different ways to win elections, except for the seemingly logical one - to try to exercise good leadership. The British researcher notes an interesting fact: in developed countries, the re-election of the head of state for a new term occurs on average in 45% of cases. In developing societies, despite the fact that voters there have significantly more reasons for complaints and discontent, this figure reaches 74% [Collier, 2009, p. 36].

According to Collier, African leaders intuitively ask themselves why they should even adhere to the principles of accountability, transparency, etc., if elections can be won by unfair means, especially since the losing opponent will not call for the establishment of the rule of law, because he himself did not intend to follow it. Rather, it will turn to violence. That is, formally democratic elections cannot lead to the emergence of a decent government. Electoral rivalry, the author concludes, is a struggle for political survival, in which the winner is the one who used the most effective means.

Why are elections easy to hold even under dictatorships? Collier asks. And he answers: because for the ruling party, this is a way to legitimize power in the eyes of the world community, for the opposition - a chance to gain power, and for voters-satisfaction from using their own voice as a way to express their opinion, join the political process, mass action, etc.

One cannot but agree with the author that in the course of instilling democracy in Africa, the West sought to transform the continent's societies in its own image, without taking into account the length of the path they took before becoming what we see them today. The West did not democratize in a single leap, and it would be absurd to expect this from developing societies.

The American political scientist J. M. Mbaku, in his work "Corruption in Africa: Causes, consequences and Purges" (Mbaku, 2007), considers such an important aspect of African political leadership as the corruption of most leaders of the continent's countries. In particular, he notes that this practice encourages many leaders to resist changes, especially institutional reforms, which could make it more difficult for them to obtain illegal income. Mbaku distinguishes between two types of corruption: bureaucratic and political. The first is the use of a high state position for personal purposes. The second one - "violation of laws in order to seize and maintain political power" [Mbaku, 2007, p. 12] - involves bribing the electorate, illegal registration of voters who do not meet the necessary requirements (age, citizenship, etc.), falsification of voting results, illegal wiretapping of opponents ' phones, illegal acceptance of financial resources from sponsors for conducting elections. campaigns, threats, and physical destruction of opponents. The author notes that both types of corruption are closely linked, especially in Africa and other developing countries, where political power tends to create opportunities for wealth.

According to Mbaku, in recent years, the trend towards "state privatization" and the use of state structures as tools for consolidating capital in the hands of high-ranking officials and politicians has become widespread in Africa. At the same time, he notes that certain actions that qualify as a crime in developed countries have a legal basis in many African States. In Uganda, for example, political leaders are allowed to make almost unlimited use of public resources or the resources available to the department directly headed by them during the election campaign. Often, a high-ranking official or political leader sees his office as an enterprise for generating income. As a result, the so-called compensation package of a civil servant does not depend on the scope of his work and the benefits of his activities for society. African leaders and officials generally receive more money from external sources (i.e., from individuals or groups interested in easing government regulation of business activities, entering into contracts, obtaining licenses, concessions, etc.what is due to them in the form of a regular salary. In countries where, according to the legislation,

There is a high level of state control in the economic sphere, and managers whose functions include administrative regulation of business activity in the country often direct more efforts to help entrepreneurs than to exercise control, thus acting to the detriment of the interests of the state.

The authors of the book "Africa in World Politics: Reforming the Political Order" (Africa in World Politics..., 2009) note the spread of such a phenomenon as the privatization (personalization) of international relations, which is expressed in the appropriation by one or another person of the right to perform diplomatic functions on behalf of the entire country or part of it. Thus, the well-known American political scientist K. Young, in the chapter "The Legacy of colonialism," notes that the formation of foreign policy contacts between African leaders was influenced by a number of circumstances: first of all, the modern states of the continent are young entities; the peoples living on their territory have for a long period of time been objects of such a specific system of international relations as colonialism, which left its mark on further development In addition, the independent countries of the region have externally imposed State borders, which rarely correspond to historically established divisions based on the principle of tribal affiliation.

The fact that African States, for the most part fragile, often internally unstable, with weak political institutions and imperfect leadership, were able not only to survive, but also in some cases to strengthen themselves within the framework of the world system of international relations formed by much stronger countries, indicates that they have created effective principles and mechanisms for implementing external contacts. Moreover, the objective weakness of African States has not turned them into inert entities whose fate would be determined by external forces. On the contrary, external pressure prompted their leaders to take measures to survive, or at least to increase their chances of survival.

The question of "survival" and the "well-being" directly related to it raises, according to Young, an equally significant question about whose, in fact, survival is meant - the state or its leader? And how interconnected are these two types of survival? As a rule, because of their human nature and the nature of the position they occupy, in an effort to ensure their own survival and, if possible, well-being, rulers, willingly or unwittingly, strengthen their state. Often, the measures taken by the leaders of African countries to strengthen the state, and above all its economy (in parallel with activities aimed at their own survival and enrichment), are directly due to their fear of overthrow and physical violence. While asserting this, Young also makes a number of reservations. Thus, a significant role in shaping the behavior of a leader in the international arena is played by his life and professional experience, the level of education and the nature of upbringing, predisposition (or lack thereof) to a broad political outlook (and not just to intrigue) and the ability to create a decent environment for himself. Although, of course, leaders are also driven by the understanding that they can more effectively ensure their own security by strengthening the state they lead. Therefore, its protection as one of the foreign policy functions of the country's leadership becomes an essential component of the strategy of personal survival and strengthening the position of the ruler.

Although the issue of personal security and political survival is usually formally relegated to the background when African leaders engage in external contacts, it is actually present in the discussion of all issues, whether it is liberation from colonial or neocolonial enslavement, obtaining the support of a particular superpower in a situation of political crisis, or external assistance in times of droughts and epidemics. Official rhetoric voiced by African leaders during international events, visits, and negotiations plays an important role in both the implementation and research of African foreign policy, but what matters most is the deep, true motives and political interests of the leaders themselves.

Unlike the leaders of developed countries, the most important condition for effective foreign policy activities for African leaders, the American political scientist notes, is the recognition of the legitimacy of their government by the world community or at least part of it. It happens that the government of an African state generally formally exists only because other countries are ready to recognize it. And these are not empty words: recognition by the outside world gives African leaders the right to membership in international organizations.-

the ability to seek external assistance in the event of a threat to their regime. Maintaining the post of head of State means simultaneously remaining a player on the international chessboard; conversely, someone who is not an international player has an uncertain and unstable position within the country. But even a leader who is weak and does not enjoy authority among his people can receive external support and material assistance in exchange for his voice in resolving certain issues in the UN and other international organizations. It is important, however, says Young, that a foreign power can openly support a particular African ruler in accordance with the rules approved by the international community. First of all, because the moral and material cost of supporting an official government is usually less than the cost of supporting illegal rulers who have usurped power, or leaders of rebel movements. At the same time, military assistance to legitimate, even despotic, regimes is usually provided under the slogan "ensuring the security of international principles of statehood", and economic assistance is provided in accordance with previously signed bilateral agreements, which are unprofitable to cancel only because of a change in the color of the regime. I must say that for African leaders, the very possibility of signing a document not on their own behalf, but on behalf of the state, is a real source of power.

Thus, from the first day of their rule, African leaders set themselves the task of establishing themselves as leaders recognized by the international community. They could do this in a variety of ways: by winning a general election, launching a military coup, leading a victorious rebel movement, or organizing a separatist movement that managed to break off part of the territory of an existing state and form a new one. As a rule, these leaders receive external assistance even before coming to power, but since they were not considered full-fledged international players before taking up a high state post, external assistance could only be secret and limited. Only once in power could these leaders really begin to act, using domestic resources to expand their control over national territory and gain international recognition. All rulers, when they came to power, proclaimed national goals of achieving political and economic independence, strengthening the national unity of the state, etc., however, with rare exceptions, they also achieved personal goals - power and/or self-enrichment. Achieving these goals depended primarily on the ability of leaders to attract external assistance, and only then on effective management and control.

The collection Beyond the State's Failure and Disintegration: on the Way to Increasing the Importance of the state in Africa [Beyond State..., 2007], prepared by a group of American and African researchers, examines several aspects-cultural, economic, political, social and ensuring the security of citizens-in which the African state has failed to justify itself in the eyes of the population. Shortcomings in the development of a national culture are attributed to the inability of political leaders to manage multi-ethnic societies, especially in countries such as Nigeria, where tribal fragmentation has long been a cornerstone of the State structure.

In some African States, the ruling regimes played the ethnic card, pitting individual groups against each other. This strategy was effective in diverting the attention of Africans from the inability of the political leadership to meet the needs of citizens, while the energy of national and regional leaders was spent on small, often personal disputes that often escalated into civil wars.

According to the authors, the lack of personal and State security in independent Africa is a byproduct of cultural, economic, and socio-political mistakes, as the inability of leaders to address these issues generates tension, distrust, and confrontation, which in turn leads to armed conflicts and civil wars.

As a result of the inefficiency of the leadership, i.e. the inability and unwillingness of political leaders to solve these problems, the state may collapse. The fact that not all African States, which experienced long periods of instability, collapsed, is explained by the creation of various mechanisms, including control and suppression of the opposition, designed to compensate for mistakes in governance. The leaders of such states often face the need for their restructuring. Using the example of African countries, the authors identify three main directions in the implementation of state transformations. In some cases

in some countries, the authoritarian nature of governance was strengthened, which helped them prevent the collapse of the state; in others, the first steps on the path of democratic transformation were taken; in others, they continue to exist, having survived, in the words of the authors, the "phenomenon of non - perestroika", that is, preserving the old state structure while strengthening its individual components. Looking at the causes of state inefficiency in nine African countries (Burundi, DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Uganda), researchers note its actual alienation from its citizens and ignoring their daily needs. Five of these countries (DRC, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Uganda) have experienced or are currently experiencing State disintegration.

P. O. Agbese identifies certain types of inefficient state: "rentier state", "tax state", "selection state", "personalized state", "underdeveloped state", "non-patrimonial state", etc. He argues that these characteristics may be more or less pronounced at different times. As for state perestroika, it ultimately involves the involvement of the broad masses of the population in the political decision-making process, regular reporting by state bodies, "transparency" of their activities, as well as political and economic transformations, which, in contrast to "personal accumulation of wealth", should contribute to rapid development.

G. Murunga examines the mistakes made by Kenyan leaders during the country's independence period. Chief among them, in his opinion, are the "vicious" use of power and the unfair distribution of state revenues. The author claims that the basis for state inefficiency was created during the reign of the first leader of independent Kenya, J. R. R. Tolkien. Kenyatta, who institutionalized the rigidly authoritarian regime and personality cult of the president. Built on the foundation of the "Kenyatta state", the country under Daniel Arap Moi continued to develop along the path of authoritarianism, and the growth of corruption, brutality in suppressing the opposition, and deepening interethnic contradictions led it to de facto collapse.

It should be noted, however, that the authors ' analysis of the mistakes of African political leaders is not accompanied by an explanation of why Western recipes for democratization and development are still weak in Africa.

In the collection of articles" Big African States " (Big African States, 2006), the authors of which were such well-known foreign Africanists as J. R. R. Tolkien. Herbst, G. Mills, K. Clapham, etc., consider the features of state development and management in large (by population and/or territory) states in comparison with the same processes in small countries. In particular, the authors try to answer the question of whether a large state really has more opportunities for effective development and whether a small state really has more problems, and often it is problematic as a state in general. Having studied the state of the six largest African countries: Nigeria, Ethiopia and South Africa (by population), DRC (by population and territory), Sudan and Niger (by territory), the researchers concluded that the states of this group were vulnerable in many ways. Of course, a number of small African countries performed poorly both economically and politically at the turn of the century and in the first decade of this century, but the situation in large States was particularly disappointing. Moreover, the "tragic" developments in the DRC, Nigeria, Sudan and Ethiopia, which are home to more than 300 million people in total. This inevitably affects the situation in the respective regions, i.e. "big countries" become a brake for their neighbors rather than a locomotive of development.

The authors try to answer the question of why the largest and therefore supposedly most favorable states, at least from an economic point of view, developed so inefficiently. Indeed, in all the countries they studied, with the exception to a certain extent of South Africa, the state was unable to provide any noticeable increase in the welfare and security of citizens. In contrast, the vast majority of these countries experienced political instability, economic decline, State atrophy, and social corrosion.

These large states are extremely diverse in terms of geographical location, ethnic and religious composition of the population, and the availability of natural resources, but they have similar problems due to their polyethnicity and multi-confessional nature. The economies of these countries, with the exception of Ethiopia and South Africa, depend on the export of mineral resources. These are mainly countries with huge remote areas, which are located in the Middle East.

difficult to manage and almost impossible to ensure the safety of the population. At the same time, most of these countries continue to play an important political role in their respective regions, so the authors conclude that Africa as a whole will not be able to develop without noticeable multidimensional progress in the continent's largest countries.

Every African region has at least one large country that serves as a center of political and economic activity. Thus, South Africa dominates in South Africa, DRC - in Central, Nigeria - in Western, Sudan and Ethiopia-in the Horn of Africa. At the same time, Nigeria's economic problems are reflected throughout West Africa. Negative developments in the 1980s and positive developments in the 1990s in South Africa affected neighboring countries, albeit in different ways, as demonstrated by Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The chronic political instability in Ethiopia and Sudan has had a significant impact on its neighbors. Finally, the political vacuum in the DRC has significantly affected the situation in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda.

The authors conclude that the "big states" in Africa are dysfunctional by definition. First, their sheer size becomes a management problem. Second, instead of playing their natural role as leaders on the continent, they often become destabilizing factors in their respective regions. These statements of researchers are largely intuitive and run counter to the provisions contained in most of the political science literature, but they are extremely important for understanding the evolution of large African countries, and therefore they must be taken into account when studying the socio-economic and political problems of the continent.

The authors show that the size and dysfunctionality of the state are interrelated. The dispersion of the population automatically undermines the power of the central government, which is compounded by the complexity of the ethnic composition of the population. In other words, the leaders of large African states are faced with the problem of the existence of numerous peripheral groups, not only geographically remote, but also united by ethnic and cultural symbols and as such associations that can compete with the ruling elite. Leaders in these countries often seek to pacify potentially dangerous groups by including them in the patronage network, but the experience of some countries has shown that this approach is not always effective.

As a rule, the degree of effectiveness of" big states " is also affected by the fact that they often have several centers of power. If in small countries the capital is almost always the largest city and the center of economic and political activity, and their citizens tend to turn here with all their problems, then in large countries the population does not automatically become focused on the capital. Important provincial cities, ancient capitals, and even the capitals of neighboring states are often located closer to them and offer more attractive alternative sources of power and problem solving. To a large extent, for example, this complicates the resolution of political conflicts, as they involve several parties and the political leadership loses control over the situation. That is why many Nigerians in the north of the country, unlike residents of other areas, recognize only Sharia-based laws; DRC residents are ready to submit even to the authorities of foreigners if they can establish at least a relative order for them; southern Sudanese fought for independence from Khartoum for several decades, and only in South Africa it is definitely recognized that the majority of the population that the national capital is the source of power.

Problems that are now commonly referred to as "logistics", such as the organization of transport infrastructure, are most acute in large countries. Ministries, primarily responsible for agriculture, and other parts of the administrative apparatus may be so poorly represented in remote regions that the population living there gets the impression that the state is not interested in them at all.

However, the advantages of a large State are also not being used properly. In the era of economic globalization, a country can become rich only by trading with other countries of the world. And it is the "big states" that have significant natural resources that are easier to integrate into the world economy. For example, South Africa would not become an economic giant of the continent, relying only on the domestic market. However, unresolved political problems prevent major African States from making full and productive use of their wealth. As Clapham points out, it is impossible to say that "cutting" large states into more manageable "pieces" will help overcome the difficulties they face. But in three main aspects:

The largest states in Africa are noticeably lagging behind the majority of the continent's countries (Big African States, 2006, p. 291).

Looking at the features of political leadership in large African countries - Angola, DRC, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Sudan and South Africa, Ghanaian scholar J. R. R. Tolkien writes: Ayi argues that the development crisis and the emergence of bankrupt states on the continent are directly related to poor governance. He points out that, despite numerous studies of the problem of "political leadership" in Africa, a satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon has not yet been given, and therefore it is understood by him as a combination of behavioral characteristics, personal qualities and political value of a particular leader. Ai highlights the main features of leadership: the ability to mobilize people who would otherwise be inert, the ability to achieve and maintain unity in the ranks of followers and the state by creating a clear hierarchical structure. However, there is always a certain danger that the leader may concentrate power in his own hands or in the hands of a narrow group of associates, contributing to corruption, etc.

Most, if not all, African political leaders, Ayey argues, have simply taken the place of colonial governors and become the single source of power in the countries they govern. A single party or military rule was often seen as the most effective way to overcome ethnic divisions and suppress dissenters. At the same time, weak or, on the contrary, tyrannical rule could lead to the collapse of the state. The author describes the states that are on the verge of collapse due to the inefficiency of the leadership. He considers their main features to be a highly centralized management system, excessive state control, the use of one's position for personal purposes based on personal whim rather than on the law, the weakness of both state institutions and civil society, a bureaucracy that is not accountable to the latter, widespread corruption, vague legislation, limited participation of citizens in government, dependence on access to power and resources depend on religious, ethnic, and other factors.

Disintegrating states experience a whole series of "crises": a crisis of identity, in which the inhabitants of the country consider themselves as representatives of a particular tribe, and not citizens of a particular state; a crisis of legitimacy, i.e. the lack of faith among the population that the government is able to manage them; a crisis of participation, i.e. the inability for citizens to influence political decision-making; a crisis in the distribution of public revenues, which leads to socio-economic inequality. These problems, according to the author, are more common in large countries with diverse ethnic populations than in small ones. It should be noted that this situation is controversial, since such relatively small and homogeneous ethnic countries as Somalia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda experienced more severe political, socio-economic and humanitarian disasters than the large States studied in this paper. That is, the relationship between the size of the state and the presence of intractable or even unsolvable problems is not always traced.

list of literature

Beyond State Failure and Collapse: Making the State Relevant in Africa. Lanham (MD), 2007.

Big African States / Ed. by Ch. Clapham, J. Herbst, G. Mills. Johannesburg, 2006.

Collier P. Wars, Guns, and Votes. N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishers. 2009.

Young C. The Heritage of Colonialism // Africa in World Politics: Reforming Political Order I Ed. J. W. Harbeson and D. Rothchild. Boulder, CO: Westviev Press, 2009.

Mbaku J.M. Corruption in Africa: Causes, Consequences, and Cleanups. Lanham (MD), 2007.

Permanent link to this publication: