2015 | Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5 (3): 257–261
BOOK SYMPOSIUM
Disentangling the laws
On Juan Obarrio’s The spirit of the laws
in Mozambique
Ato Quayson, University of Toronto
Comment on Obarrio, Juan. 2014. The spirit of the laws in Mozambique.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Juan Obarrio’s Spirit of the laws in Mozambique foregrounds a number of issues in
politics and political economy that have long been of interest to scholars of state
formation in Africa: What is the status of tradition and custom in the exercise of
sovereignty? What is their salience to modernization? How have they been historically corralled to conservative processes of tying people to land, and therefore to
the production of ideas of locality? And how do all these questions relate to the
neoliberal project that comes to reanimate nation-making by routing it through internationalist discourses of democracy and international development at the present time?
Already the questions I have just enumerated reveal a number of keywords,
each of which gets extensive conceptual and ethnographic treatment in Obarrio’s
account: tradition, the customary, state formation, sovereignty, locality, modernization, and development. But because his setting is Mozambique, the history that
he adduces for interrogating these issues also make them representative of debates
to be had elsewhere on the continent. Mozambique’s history of Portuguese colonialism, the lengthy civil war that took place after the dismantling of colonialism,
and the processes of nation-building in its aftermath generate intense focus on the
urgency with which the questions are being navigated in the postcolony. And this
urgency proliferates significations that go well beyond the Mozambican context
itself. Crucial to this context is that tradition and customary laws were banned
in the country for thirty years following the victory of FRELIMO in 1975. As
his work is licensed under the Creative Commons | © Ato Quayson.
T
ISSN 2049-1115 (Online). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14318/hau5.3.015
Ato Quayson
258
Obarrio shows us, however, the lengthy hiatus did not necessarily spell the end
of tradition and custom. Rather, the hiatus provided the opportunity for various
actors to progressively retranscribe the terms by which the issues might be engaged. Some chiefs in FRELIMO-controlled regions retained residual authority;
others in such districts seized opportunities for channeling local political sentiment; while yet others exerted continuing if disguised control through kin surrogates and affiliates. Furthermore, the abolition of chieftaincy and custom in the
name of building a socialist state during that three-decade period was replaced
with the policy of villagization, which in itself bore uncanny resemblance to the
social organizing structures that had hitherto been pertinent to the customary
realm. The policy of villagization, inspired by the ujaama experiments carried
out in Julius Nyerere’s Tanzania, entailed the collectivization of families (from
250 to a 1000 families in each instance) into villages that became the nodal points
for land redistribution, conflict resolution, resource allocation, and relationships
with the bureaucratic state apparatus. In Mozambique’s period of villagization the
protocols for nominating or electing heads of these collectivities often folded into
them the recognition of “customary” heads but now expanded to include church
leaders, local state activists, and even erstwhile traditional chiefs. Under pressures
of neoliberal modernization in the 1990s customary law and the chiefs that had
always been considered their prime custodians were officially unbanned by the
Mozambican state. The domain of the customary was reassigned new roles in
the neoliberal nation-making project, including primarily juridical ones in addition to the integrative socio-political dimensions that were always thought to
be in their purview. The unbanning of the domain of the customary in the country, however, does not represent a “return of the repressed.” Rather, it must be
seen as the reluctant acknowledgment of what Frederic Jameson has described
elsewhere as “multisynchronicity.” As Jameson puts it, multisynchronicity is “the
coexistence of various synchronic systems or modes of production, each with its
own dynamic, or time scheme” (1981: 97). The “or” between synchronic systems
and modes of production in this formulation is a telling sign of ambivalence on
Jameson’s part, since the two terms are clearly not equivalent. If we focus on the
multiple social, cultural, economic, and psychic sedimentations that colonial and
postcolonial nation-formation in Mozambique entailed, and remember that tradition and the customary, while placed in abeyance, never completely evaporated,
we come to understand that their resuscitation under the aegis of neoliberalism
represents the coming-to-the-foreground of a hitherto repressed temporality.
This multisynchronicity is something that Obarrio himself recognizes in his own
account when he writes,
The Mozambican juridical sphere is itself a multilayered pastiche
of various legal and regulatory regimes, combined with various
normativities, sedimented throughout colonial and postcolonial history.
The current “system” of legality and conflict resolution is a mosaic of
overlapping political structures and legal regimes, resembling one of the
Chinese encyclopedias famously “uncovered” by Borges. A manifold
array of “informal” mechanisms of conflict resolution (chiefs, religious
structures, kinship) mixes with aspects of Roman law, colonial codes,
2015 | Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5 (3): 257–261
259
Disentangling the laws
Socialist normativity, Western constitutionalism, and common law,
constituting an extremely complex infrastructure in a landscape of
political fragmentation and juridical difference. (Obarrio 2014: 35)
The overall history of tradition and custom that Obarrio provides for Mozambique
in The spirit of the laws recalls to mind at various times Mahmood Mamdani’s now
well-known discussion of the dialectical relation between citizen and subject within colonial governmentality. But beyond Mamdani’s Citizen and subject, which
is clearly a strong influence behind Obarrio’s conceptual apparatus, is his more
recent Define and rule (2012). A critical distinction that must be noted between
Obarrio’s and Mamdani’s accounts of colonial rule is the different emphases they
place on the question of migration, whether internal or external. If we take a leaf
from Mamdani’s elaborate discussion of the production of tribes (Obarrio’s tradition and custom) under colonial governmentality in Africa, India, and elsewhere,
we note in the case of British colonial West Africa that one consequence of indirect
rule was the installation of origin as the dominant mode for understanding native
populations. Migration was concomitantly rendered a conceptual anomaly, even
though the realities of colonial governmentality entailed generating conditions in
which people either had no choice but to migrate to economically more viable
nodes or were persuaded to do so through different incentives or blatant force.
Thus in East Africa, Britain’s indentured labor policy was to bring over 30,000 Indians from the Indian subcontinent to work on the East African railway lines from
the 1880s to the 1920s. A similar process was to take place with Indian labor to
Mauritius by both the French and the English, and with convicts from British Malaya to South Africa, setting up what in each context of settler colonialism was to be
described by historians as the “colonial sandwich,” with whites in the higher echelons of colonial administration at the top, Indians and coloreds in the commercial
middle classes, and blacks at the bottom of the pile, typically in the sphere of agriculture. The distinction between “tribes” and “races,” as Mamdani (2012) shows us
in Define and rule, allowed the category of race to be attached to Europeans, Arabs, and other nonnatives, while indigenous groups, perceived as essentially longterm sedenterists rather than nomads, retained the nomenclature of native tribes.
It was not uncommon to find rural-to-urban economic migrants in West Africa
described as “aliens” in the colonial record (this was the case, for example, in the
Gold Coast Colony; see Quayson 2014). This was completely in keeping with the
idea that only those who could be demonstrated to have had long-term settlement
in a particular area could claim rights to origin and therefore to land and thus the
traditions that defined the social relations of that area. Not only that, as Mamdani
further shows, the privileging of tribes as the primary conduits for localizing political organization in the colonial period also produced mono-tribal administrations “overseeing a triple tribal monopoly—over land, governance, and dispute
settlement” and thus also institutionalizing tribal discrimination (Mamdani 2012:
52). While Obarrio amply illustrates the progressive institutionalization of monotribal administrations under Portuguese colonialism, their break-up during the
war, and their subsequent reconstitution under FRELIMO, he does not provide us
an account of the different configurations between insiders and outsiders that the
domain of tradition and custom came to instantiate within each historical epoch.
2015 | Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5 (3): 257–261
Ato Quayson
260
This is an especially pressing question given the realities of mass displacement and
ethnic return migration that were concomitant to the long drawn-out civil war in
Mozambique. And the issue becomes even more pertinent when looking at the
long durée of Mozambican population movement in the context of labor migrations in the southern African region in general. Tens of thousands Mozambican
men were actively recruited to go and work in the mines in South Africa from
the 1880s onward, setting up a continuous loop of intraregional migratory flows
from and to Mozambique within the region and instituting a complex relationship
between capitalism, alienation, nostalgia, and self-making that is still pertinent
to this day. That Mozambique’s civil war intensified the process of indigent labor
migration there is little doubt, but the question is what happened to the migrants
that may have decided to finally come back home to settle on the termination of
the war? How did the processes that attended the domain of tradition and custom
impact upon how these postwar migrants were considered as inside-outsiders, and
thus objects of both adulation and suspicion? If we scrupulously review the processes of Mozambique’s nation-state formation from the perspective of mobility,
what contradictions might it reveal about the now dominant neoliberal project,
which as a rule works with an old model of sovereignty that is colonialist in more
ways than one? These questions transcend the Mozambican case and may be addressed to African political theory in general.1
That The spirit of the laws does not touch on these questions is not necessarily a
flaw or tragic absence in its conception. For what Juan Obarrio does he does beautifully and provocatively: to provide a rich, detailed, and variegated ethnographic
account of the templates by which the socio-legal, political, and juridical frameworks of the African nation-state have been and are being forged in the full face of
the contradictory constituencies within which laws are articulated. The book will
come to be seen as an abiding classic in this respect.
References
Mamdani, Mahmood. 2012. Define and rule: Native as political identity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Jameson, Frederic. 1981. The political unconscious: Narrative as a socially symbolic act.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Obarrio, Juan. 2014. The spirit of the laws in Mozambique. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Quayson, Ato. 2014. Oxford Street, Accra: City life and the itineraries of transnationalism.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
1. It is interesting to note, for example, that in Terence Ranger’s review of the now-classic
The invention of tradition that he undertook in 1993, he shows no sense that mobility
impacts in any way on the inventions of tradition.
2015 | Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5 (3): 257–261
261
Disentangling the laws
Ranger, Terence. 1993. “The invention of tradition revisited: The case of colonial Africa.”
International development studies occasional papers, special issue on “Inventions and
boundaries: Historical and anthropological approaches to the study of ethnicity and
nationalism,” no. 11: 5–50.
Ato Quayson
Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies
University of Toronto
St. George Campus
170 St. George Street
Toronto
Ontario M5R 2M8
Canada
[email protected]
2015 | Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5 (3): 257–261