[MUSIC] State has something particular. It the only kind of political system which is founded on rationality. The legitimacy of the state is coming from its special relation to rationality. All the other kinds of political system are different. Some of them are based on tradition some others on charisma but State is consider first of all as a rational expression of the particle order. For this reason State is supposed to be universal for this reason State must be extended in all the parts of the world. Even if cultures, histories, social structures are quite different from the Western model. This exportation. Of the state model took place in America, toward America during the 19th century. And towards Africa and Asia with the de-colonization process. If we take into account the American adventure the process was rather successful for a very clear reason. The main culture in America in North America and South America is coming from Europe. And the main state builders In all the parts of America, we're trained as Western leaders. And we're really trained by the Western cultures. They. Now, it's quite different for the African and Asian case for many reasons and I would just point three reasons. The first is a question of temporality. The colonization implies to build a political system, the definite political system, the sovereign political system, in a very short time. The time of the colonization is quite different from the time of state building in Europe. Keep in mind that the European, the Western nation state was built according to a long process which lasted several centuries. Probably from the end of the middle age to the 19th century but Africa and Asia and in these continents, those countries which were decolonized didn't have centuries for building their own prodigal system. They didn't have even some years they had I would say some minutes, those minutes of the independence. The second reason, the second factor is of course the Western Culture in Germany which was very important, clear, obvious, dense during the colonial period but even or so at the time of decolonization. That's to say, the only model that the leaders of independence had in mind was the Western model. And for a nationalist, an African nationalist, or an Arab nationalist, The political model that they had to implement was obviously the Western state model. The third reason is a reason of political hegemony, that's to say to admitted in the international arena In the second part of the 20th century. That's to say the very moment of the colonization implied to introduce itself as a state, as a formal state if a new political system wanted to be admitted at the UN, it had to present the main attributes of the classical traditional western mother of state. These reasons transformed the state builders into importers. And this probably one of the main features and the main ambiguities even one of the main of contradictions of decolonisation. It's a contradiction because a state builder was strongly a nationalist and however He had to build in his society, in his culture a political system which was imitating the political system of the colonial power. This strong contradiction, Is probably at the basis of the process which took place during decolonization. These importers were, all of them, socialized by the Western culture Through Christian missions. And you know how Christianism in Africa contributed to socialize and offered to train the new leaders. Like Julius Nyerere in Tanzania in Tanganyika this time. Or for instance Fulbert Youlou in the French Congo. Or the best nationalist leader Michel Aflak one was trained in the Christian school, so Christianism is an important agent of this importation. The second one is Western universities, that's to say the main nationalist leaders, went to Western universities for being trained Nehru, the great Indian Nationalist leader was trained in Cambridge or KwameN'krumah which is considered as one of the main progresses and anti Western leaders of Africa. And was the first president of Ghana, was trained in Lincoln University in U.S and this is probably one of the main bases of this contradiction. That's to say the nationalist ideology in Africa and in Asia was learnt In Western universities and what shape according to the main structure of meanings which are the characteristic of the Western culture. The third [INAUDIBLE] was the Western Parliament most of these leaders seated in the French or British Parliaments, where they were trained, like the Ivory Coast leader, Houphouet-Boigny, who was even a minister in the French government of the. Or Mamadou Dia and Leopold Sedar Senghor in Senegal and so on. And the fourth agent of socialization are the Western parties. Socialist party, communist party which played a very important role in socializing sequence in was attending the congress of tool in 1920 in which was created the french communist party. And we can add also or [FOREIGN] who were trained in France round this communist environment. These importers were triggering two kinds of importation, what I would call the conservative modernization and what I would call the revolutionary modernization. Conservative is a way for keeping the throne for the traditional princes who were at power formally or informally during the rule and will try to save the throne and their crown by importing some lemons of this Western culture for consolidating their power and for bearing these new independents. In the case of the Meiji Japan, in the case of Ottoman Empire, which was westernized along the 19th century for reinforcing an Ottoman power, which became more and more fragile. It decays of Persia. It decays of Siam,the former, which was after Thailand. It decays of Burma, and so on. And the revolutionary modernization Is the same importation, but not for consolidating traditional legitimacy, but for breaking with traditional legitimacy and for building a state on the basis of a new legitimacy which was an imported one. And this is another paradox that's to say the revolutionary modernization implied the mobilization of the traditional elements of the Western culture for breaking with the traditional elements of the traditional order in Arab or African societies, as the case for instance of Nasser in Egypt or the Basque party in Syria or in Iraq or the FLN in Algeria and so on. Ladies and gentlemen, I said the question. Can these imputation be successful. Is it possible to import a state as someone would import a plant, factory of cars or of different kinds of economic activities, of course not. This importation was widely a failure. It's a failure because these imported institutions were not legitimate. It's very difficult to conceive the legitimacy of a political order, which is not generated from inside, but which is imported from outside. That's why in the new states in Africa or Asia and especially in the Arab world the civil society and even the traditional civil society appears nowadays as more legitimate than the prodigal power. Because the prodigal power seems to import structure of meanings coming from abroad. And in this situation power is getting authoritarian. The less a power is legitimate the more it's authoritarian, and this is probably the main source of authoritarianism that we can find in newly independent countries. And for these reasons or so this power is effected by a strong extraversion that's to say why they are not legitimized inside they have to look for outside some new resources. That's why this new leaders are particularly more dependent on powers and western powers, also eastern powers. This is also as we will see later, one of the sources of collapsing state and of war societies that we can observe. In Africa or they are in world elimination. That's why this contradiction between the state coming from abroad and oppression coming from the local society is one of the main features of this new world and this new age, North vs South. [MUSIC]
