Cultural differences exist in every facet of the society and affect other aspects of life. One of the areas that this phenomenon affects is the political cleavages and dominance. In most African countries and boundaries, culture plays an essential role in determining who rules over the other. The divisions always contribute to political salient. This is the issue that Daniel Posner investigates in his work, “The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas Are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi.” The main contention here is summarized in his first question, “why do some cultural difference matter for politics and others do not?” He goes ahead to conclude that the cultural difference is not the only factor that leads to political salience.
Also, he questions the potential conditions that can lead to cultural cleavages causing the political dispute. The author studies the two boundaries of Zambia and Malawi and determining how the same groups in the two geographical positions are related to each other and how they add to the politics in the respective countries. The dependent variable here is the political salience or viability of the two groups. The independent variable is the relationship between the opposing teams and how the individual group views themselves in regards to the other, the inspiration behind the formation of cultural cleavages, and the most important one is the size of each in relative to the size of the geographical. I agree with Daniel Posner that political salience is not necessarily dependent on cultural cleavages.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Posner studied the main difference between the Chewa and Tumbuka ethnic groups and their political salience in Malawi and lack of in Zambia. The primary contention here is the reason behind the two tribes being allies in one country and adversaries in the other. The two countries are separated by a boundary that was first drawn by Cecil Rhode’s British South African Company and then reinforced by the colonialists. The two tribes were then divided with each having a presence in either country. The Chewas and Tumbukas on the Zambian side of the administrative boundary are somewhat similar concerning their counterparts in the Malawian side regarding appearance, allegedly cultural difference such as language among others.
But, the author found a compelling difference in the attitudes that exist between the two groups in the two countries. In Zambia, Chewas and Tumbukas would be willing to vote for the member of the opposing divide as the president. The two groups are more exposed to intermarriages and have a view of the rival tribe as “ethnic brethren and political allies (Posner, 2004).” In other words, the different tribes have close ties with each other despite their differences. On the other hand in Malawi, each group has been associated with its political party and is compelled to vote along ethnic lines. The Chewas and Tumbukas do not prescribe to the idea of intergroup marriages and are averted to voting in a member of the other group as the president. In short, each ethnic divide in Malawi is quick to point out the negative aspects of the other group. These two differences are compelling and striking as the two ethnic groups are the same. Now the question is what factors have contributed to different reactions to one another across the border?
According to the author, the age-old differences between the Chewas and Tumbukas in a location on either side of the geographical divide cannot be employed in the explanation of the distinct different intergroup relations in Zambia and Malawi. Posner poses a claim that “like many African borders, the one that separates Zambia and Malawi was drawn purely for [colonial] administrative purposes, with no attention to the distribution of groups on the ground (Posner, 2004).” Thus, the boundary cannot explain the different vies in which the two groups view one another. As an alternative, there has to exist other factors that make the Chewas and Tumbukas politically salient in Malawi and not in Zambia. In a broader view, these factors have something to do with the exposure and the access to treatment on one side of the boundary and the lack of that exposure on the other.
This gives rise to the question of what makes the interethnic attitudes and political salience brought about by the cultural division to be varying on both sides of the administrative boundary. For the answer, Posner suggests that it has to do with the different sizes of the ethnic groups in the two states, about the national polities’ sizes. Regarding relative sizes, the political dynamics of Zambia makes the Chewas and Tumbukas be allies as the country is populous and thus making it difficult to form bases of political support (Posner, 2005). In Malawi, the less crowded environment makes the groups be relatively bigger concerning the country thus making it viable to form political coalitions and antagonistic voting blocs. In such studies (that are randomized controlled experiments) as Posner’s there always arises a question which the author also had to encounter when arguing this point; what is the exact treatment?
In other words, what characteristic of being in Malawi as opposed to Zambia causes the difference in political and cultural cleavage? The evidence that Posner provided was helpful in ruling out the impact of electoral rules and the differential influence of missionaries on either side of the boundary. To support this, he added that in Zambian side, the Chewas and Tumbukas are mobilized politically to form the coalition of the “easterners” as neither has enough size independently to contribute a considerable support base in the national politics due to their relatively smaller sizes. However, in the smaller Malawi, each group alone takes up a more significant proportion of the total population; hence the mobilization takes place between the Chewas and Tumbukas.
In my understanding, the author’s arguments hold ground on the basis that the politics of the world (especially in Africa) is based on the control of the resources. As the base becomes big, there is a higher chance of the awareness that they need to be in control of the national resources and make the other tribes subordinates ( Agbese, 2017) . This is the case in Malawi, where the mobilization of the two groups is beneficial for the competition of the country’s wealth hence creating an opposing setup between the Chewas and the Tumbukas. Both have the notion that they are the ones who have enough numbers to control the nation. On the other side, the two groups are the minority and thus has to be forged together to form a considerable support for the competition of the national wealth ( Yeros, 2016) . The coalition is what “reduces the salience of the cleavage that exists between them” as influenced by the cultural difference. This study is a clear indication of the way ethnic demographics are critical political factors that actors use to advance their agenda ( Carlson, 2015) . This is a common problem in Africa and other developing countries.
In conclusion, Daniel Posner recounts how the cultural divisions relate to political salience with a case study of Chewas and Tumbukas in Zambia and Malawi. In Zambia, Chewas and Tumbukas would be willing to vote for the member of the opposing group as the president while in Malawi, each team has been associated with its own political party and is compelled to vote along ethnic lines. Thus, the cultural difference is not necessarily leading to the political salience. The author justifies his claim by suggesting that it has to do with the different sizes of the ethnic groups in the two states, about the national polities’ sizes. I agree with him because the politics around that region is based on ethnic demographics to determine who controls the national resources.
Reference
Agbese, P. O. (2017). Revival: Ethnicity and Governance in the Third World (2001) . Routledge.
Carlson, E. (2015). Ethnic voting and accountability in Africa: A choice experiment in Uganda. World Politics , 67 (2), 353-385.
Posner, D. N. (2004). The political salience of cultural difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas are allies in Zambia and adversaries in Malawi. American Political Science Review , 98 (4), 529-545.
Posner, D. N. (2005). Institutions and ethnic politics in Africa : Cambridge University Press.
Yeros, P. (Ed.). (2016). Ethnicity and Nationalism in Africa: Constructivist Reflections and Contemporary Politics : Springer.
