Institutional AffiliationDate[KA1] 

Posted: January 4th, 2023

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Institutional AffiliationDate[KA1] 

Personal Rule Questions

1. Summarize the definitions of personal rule Ogbazghi discusses, as well as his own.

Ogbazghi discusses the definitions of personal rule definitions advanced by Jackson and Rosberg (2), Leonard and Straus (3), and Ayittey (3). For instance, Jackson and Rosberg define personal rule as a political system in which the controversies around a small clique of influential individuals, instead of independent institutions and public interest, dictate political life. Similarly, Leonard and Straus advanced the definition that personal rule prioritizes personal decisions over those of formal institutions because the ruler and institutions are indistinguishable. According to Bramstedt, personal rule personifies the national psyche and thought by discouraging intellectual independence and public rationality (Ogbazghi 3-4). Ayittey viewed views personalized rule [KA2] as a situation where individuals monopolize political power and exercise political sultanism (Ogbazghi 2).

Ogbazghi uses these definitions to summarize[KA3]  synthesize the essential defining characteristics of personal rule. Firstly, personalized rule exalts the individual ruler over the law, institutions, and the public. As such, the ruling individual dictates the policies, actions, and behavior in a county, advancing the cult of personality cult[KA4] . Secondly, personalized rule uses coercion and persuasion[KA5] . The military, security forces, and the police along with personal charisma[KA6] , are used to promote and maintain personalized rule. Obedience and fear rather than rationality characterize this kind of rule. Thirdly, personalized rule replaces pluralist thinking with individualized ideologies  that support the rulerusing constrained civil space[KA7] , compromised governance structures and misdirection of public resources. Fourthly, personal rule is unpredictable and thrives on rumors, suspicion, dependency, threats and rewards.    

• How does the Afewerki regime in Eritrea fit into Ogbazghi’s theory of personal rule?

Ogbazghi’s theory of personal rule is premised on the use of coercion, the capture of independent public institutions, the violation of law and the centralization of power to advance the interests of an individual interests [KA8] at the expense of public benefits. According to Ogbazghi’s theory, the individual ruler oversees everything in the country by using coercion and persuasion, with loyalty being prized over rationality.  The Afewerki regime in Eritrea fits this theory in several ways. Firstly, the regime uses the security system in Eritrea to force people to act, behave and think in a certain ways that is are prescribed by Afewerki. The police, military and other secret services terrorize the Eritreans who do not conform to Afewerki wishes and threaten his regime. Secondly, Afewerki has captured the institutions in the country, including the parliament, the judiciary, and the dominant political party, among many others[KA9] . These institutions, along with public resources, are used to advance the interests of Afewerki and sustain his regime. Thirdly, Afewerki’s regime violates many laws at with the express authorization permission offrom the leader. For instance, human rights are violated when citizens are used for forced labor and lose their property and livelihood for holding contrary opinions.     

• Ogbazghi draws a picture of a regime in Eritrea that is very purposive in their efforts at maintaining power, and yet he refers to it as a failed state—is this a strong state or a weak one? What will it have to do to stay in power, do you think?

The Eritrean state is weak because, despite Afewerki’s making purposive efforts [KA10] attempt to maintain power, the his efforts are founded on a weak and vulnerable foundation. Support for the rRegime support [KA11] is premised on loyalty to Afewerki, which is rewarded indiscriminately. The rewards to loyal supportersists come from the country’s wealth, which is finite. The state will fail if such rewards are no longer forthcoming, throwing the country into anarchy. Also Eritrea is fragile because the regime has subverted law and replaced it with the personal wishes of Afewerki. Therefore, the country lacks a robust institutional foundation to anchor its statehood. Moreover, the regime’s legitimacy is under constant threat from disenfranchised Eritreans, despite the continuous efforts at indoctrination, social programs and calls for self-reliance. The lack of legitimacy makes the state weak.  [KA12] 

To stay in power, Afewerki will have to open up the civic space to allow more freedom to the people. This change includes opening up the political space for political opposition and competition. Afewerki can could subject himself to elections to gain legitimacy is he wins. Considering that political competitors would struggle to coalesce into a united front to rival Afewerki’s party, Afewerki is likely to benefit from such fragmentation, extending his ruleand win a seemingly democratic election.   

• According to Ravenhill, why was the coup in Uganda originally received with a lot of popular support? What are some examples the author gives of how Amin’s regime lost that support in the months following the coup?

The Amin-led coup gained popular support initially because ordinary people related to Amin was relatable to [KA13] ordinary people, unlike the aloof, intellectual-led Obote’s regime[KA14] . Also, the Buganda, who hold much sway in Uganda supported Amin as an alternative to the repressive Obote. This support was infectious across the country. Moreover, Amin was the only person that opposed Obote successfully, projecting himself as a personification of “‘[KA15] political masculinity”’ (Ravenhill 230). Further, Amin promised to perpetuate the stature of Uganda as a unique country and address social problems such as robbery with violence[KA16] , which resonated with the populace. Notably, the inclusion of “D‘dada”’ , meaning grandfather, into his title, and renaming his government as the ‘“Ssecond Rrepublic”’[KA17]  appealed to Ugandans (Ravenhill 230). 

Following the coup, Amin’s regime lost support because of the constant conflicting with his cabinet constantly and then his arbitraryily dismissing dismissal of them the entire cabinet for inefficiency.  For instance, hHardly a year few months into his regime, Amin the first decrees were issued to allow the state to detain its citizens without trial, and in August 1971, seven months after the coup, “the first major political ‘disappearance’ occurred when the Acting Director of Uganda T. V. was taken away” by men pretending to be security police dismissed 22 senior civil servants [KA18] (Ravenhill 233238). Besides, in 1973[KA19] , Amin rules alone for 2 months after sending this cabinet for a compulsory holiday (Ravenhill 234).   

• Think about the theories of personal rule (including Ogbazghi’s), and other cases we’ve looked at so far in this section. Is Amin’s regime, as portrayed by Ravenhill, a good example of a personalist dictatorship? Why or why not?

Amin’s regime exemplifies personalist dictatorship. This regime exalted Amin and his personal interests over the Ugandan public. As such, leadership revolved around Amin as demonstrated by the his frequent use of personal decrees without consultation with anyone elses. Amin dismantled the public institutions and violated the[KA20]  law with impunity severally[KA21] , to that he may act arbitrarily.  For instance, he had dissidents detained dissidents without trial and assassinated his opponents, thus violating international laws on human rights. He organized the[KA22] re structured the public institutions to further his own interests, with loyalty being rewarded while opposition was punished. Also, Amin retained [KA23] sought international relations that advanced his interests, and severed those that were hostile to his administration. For instance, Amin turned to the Arab countries and China when the British withheld weapons and criticized his government (Ravenhill 249). These examples demonstrate that Amin’s personalist dictatorship fits the theory of personal rule.     

Works Cited

Ogbazghi, Petros B. “Personal rule Rule in Africa: the The case Case of Eritrea[KA24] .” African Studies Quarterly vol. 12, no. 2, 2011, pp. 1-25.

Ravenhill, F. J. “Military rule Rule in Uganda: the The politics Politics of survivalSurvival.” African Studies Review, vol. 17, no. 1, 1974, pp. 229-260.

Dear Erick

This paper reflects that you read the two articles in question before you launched into writing the paper. The content is certainly better than any of your previous papers, and your citations support your text. I would like to see you continue in this manner.

Review all my comments carefully and read the online pages I recommend for specific grammar and style issues. I say this with every paper, but do you ever read any of the pages I recommend? I would like your answer to this question in Chat.

Below are the major concerns:

mHLC content modification

mHLC referencing

mLLC word choice

mLLC punctuation

mLLC formatting

mLLC grammar

MLLC stylistic

---

 [KA1]Ensure that you include these in exactly this order in all MLA papers.

 [KA2]The term is “personal rule” not personalized.

 [KA3]You summarize in this answer, the author synthesized.

 [KA4]The phrase “cult of personality” has a specific meaning, which you can find in any dictionary.

 [KA5]The two terms mean exactly the same.

 [KA6]Not logical to use charisma here because it has no relevance to your next sentence “Obedience and fear …”

 [KA7]I have no idea how ideologies would use “constrained civil space”. Or the rest of the items in your list for that matter.

 [KA8]I expect my government to support individual interests, but not that of a specific individual.

 [KA9]If there are others, name them.

 [KA10]Avoid repetition.

 [KA11]You tend to do this quite often: use a noun as an adjective. It does not always work, so be careful.
Usually the semantic shift is unobjectionable, as in the first word in each of the following phrases: body weight, insurance policy, telephone wires, home repairs, family problems.

Occasionally, however, shifts of this kind give rise to ambiguities or play tricks on the reader. Perhaps the worst problems arise when an adjective used as a noun is then used as an adjective—a recipe for ambiguity.

For example, poor relief (relief for the poor). And it would be unwise for one writing about a statute concerning invalids to call it an invalid statute.
(Thank you, Bryan Garner for explaining the concept clearly in
Garner’s Modern English Usage)

 [KA12]Very well argued.

 [KA13]Read this page on how to improve awkward sentences
https://collegewritingclinic.com/sample-lesson-plans/improving-awkward-sentences/

 [KA14]Was the entire regime intellectual and aloof, or only Obote?

 [KA15]Use double inverted commas, not single.
https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/revising/punctuation/

 [KA16]The country had far bigger problems.

 [KA17]Acknowledge the source of your information.

 [KA18]I doubt the country would be in uproar if 22 secretaries lost their jobs.

 [KA19]The coup was in January 1971, the question is about “the months after the coup”.

 [KA20]Review the rules for using definite and indefinite articles
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/using_articles.html

 [KA21]This adverb modifies the verb violated. What you say is that he severally violated the law,, which, I assume, you have to agree is incorrect.

 [KA22]Redundant.

 [KA23]He looked for the relations because none of the influential African states wanted anything to do with Amin’s Uganda.

 [KA24]Use title case for MLA.