assurance; but this is very different from theproclaimed purpose to 'provide sociological in-sight into a scene already over-charged withemotional stereotypes, as well as stimulating aUniversity of Rhodesiacloser relationship between sociology and history'(p. xvi). In fact, this work contributes little toeither discipline.K. MAGUIREHARRIS, P. B, 1970 Studies in African Politics. London, Hutchinson, 181 pp. 13s.Political change in Africa during the twentiethcentury has often been as rapid as it has beenvaried. Keeping abreast of developments is there-fore a difficult task for any scholar or author.By his Studies in African Politics Professor Harrishas demonstrated his scholarship and his skillas an author. The field he has tackled is anenormous one. ranging from pocket historiesof the processes of decolonisation to a study ofdemocracy in independent Africa, from detailedanalyses of East and Centra! African attempts atcloser union, politics in South Africa and Rho-desia to the luxury of 'pointers to the future';and all this in little more than 150 pages. Theproduct is a work of value to students andscholars for the knowledge it demonstrates andthe insight it contains.A brief introductory chapter considers 'TheProcess of Decolonisation in Africa'. Despiteits brevity, this contains much interesting com-ment. For example, Professor Harris explainsthe withdrawal of the major European powersfrom Africa as not a retreat but 'a process ofpolitical disengagement' (p. 9). Thus he warns'colonialism does not end merely because wehave very obvious external signs removed. De-colonisation has simply meant that the ex-colonynow takes its own sovereign decisions ... Infact it may be wrong to see a simple dichotomybetween pre-colonial and post-colonial phasesin recent African politics' (p. 30). A reminderto search for continuity as much as change inAfrican history must always be valuable.Yet it is because of the complexity of theAfrican situation, the unique features of everyexercise in decolonisation, and the need forextreme caution in generalisation, that the readermay be unhappy about another of ProfessorHarris' comments: 'The French appear to havebeen generally the most successful decolonisers . . .the Belgians had least success and the Britishhave had mixed fortunes' (p. 31). The basis forthis judgement is not explained, whether thatof bloodshed spared or goodwili preserved, ofeconomic interest maintained or institutions con-tinued, or a score of other factors that meritconsideration. Perhaps Professor Harris' ratingmay even run counter to his own 'theme' that'Africa's problems can best be understood . . .in African terms without reference to norms andconcepts derived from other sources' (p. 7).Similarly a more detailed analytical study ofthe internal Congo crisis would be more usefulthan the comment of one observer that 'whenexternally imposed authority, the only element oforder and cohesion in the vast expanse of aterritory as large as Western Europe, was abruptlywithdrawn, the endemic centrifugal forces oftribalism, regionalism, and conflicting politicalambitions asserted themselves. Chaos and vio-lence followed' (p. 26). So too Professor Harrisleaves the reader to assess for himself the com-ment: 'One of the most remarkable conferencesof recent times was the so-called Round TableConference of January and February I960'(p. 27). With the difficulties of the Paris PeaceTalks only recent history this reader is fascinatedby the possible shape of the table, but on theother hand does not find remarkable the removalfrom prison of a future prime minister to attenda constitutional conference.By his analysis of democracy in Africa, Pro-fessor Harris has again a valuable contributionto make, especially with regard to the study ofpolitics. For example, he comments: 'Africanpolitics is oligarchical, i.e., political power tendsto be concentrated in the hands of a few persons'(p. 37). And, according to Professor Harris,'the notion opposite to democracy is not dic-tatorship but oligarchy' (p. 37). Moreover Afri-can politics is party politics for 'the party is thesupreme, political organisation in modern Africaand the legislative body appears in many cases tobe no more than an unnecessary intermediary'fp. 37).Yet when Professor Harris introduces 'tribe' tohis analysis the picture becomes at once con-fused. For example, the suggestion that 'the91simplest way to consider the single-party statewould be to regard party, tribe and state asthree circles which overlap exactly' (p. 50) cer-tainly would require the reader to overlook atleast the Malawi experience where Chewa, Tum-buka, Yao, Ngoni, Mang'anja and Tonga arecontained within a single party and one state.So too, while the concept of 'in' tribes and 'out'tribes may be a valuable one, it is excessivegeneralisation to suggest that everywhere 'thosetribes which may be regarded as "out" are "cutoff from power and perquisites down to thevillage level" ' (p. 44).When he discusses the pre-colonial Africansituation Professor Harris shows a curious weak-ness. For example, he equates the Central Afri-can nganga with a witchdoctor (p. 53) whichcan only serve to confuse the reader on accountof the multiplicity of interpretations that thewords 'witchcraft' and 'witchdoctor' bear. So tooit may be misleading to assess from the standpointof 'post-independence Africa' the statement ofNdabaningi Sithole that 'it is bad history andbad civics to say that Africa never had demo-cracy until the coming of the white man toAfrica' and that Africans are not fighting for'the things of the white man' but for 'the thingswhich the white man stole away from them'(p. 56). Certainly it is widely accepted that manyAfrican societies had forms of traditional govern-ment that included representation in council andat court, wide consultation of opinion and deci-sion based upon popular consensus. This wouldapply especially to the regions of southern Africaof which Sithole has experience. Moreover Pro-fessor Harris' quotation of Sithole's opinions donot derive from K. A, Busia, Africa in Search ofDemocracy (1967), p. 140, as his footnote sug-gests it does.Once he engages himself in his studies ofSouth African and Rhodesian politics ProfessorHarris demonstrates his close knowledge andhis perspicacity. Recent South African foreignpolicy is accounted for in that 'South Africastood in the same relationship to the rest ofAfrica as did the United States to Latin America'(p. 66). Professor Harris shows valuable in-sight into the verkrampte-verligte split within theNational Party in South Africa, and his studiesof the United and Progressive parties are ex-tremely useful.On Rhodesian politics Professor Harris showsa similar insight but much has been omittedthat might qualify the impression obtained bythe reader. For example, although it is true thatthe Bledisloe Commission of 1938 'advocated anamalgamation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland'(p. 92) as feasible and possibly beneficial, it alsodoubted 'the practical wisdom' of uniting thethree territories as long as the African popula-tions could 'prejudice the prospect of cooperationin ordered development' by their suspicions to-wards amalgamation. In 1948 Sir Godfrey Hug-gins was no longer pressing for 'amalgamation'(p. 92) but already for its successor scheme offederation, suggested by the British ColonialOffice in 1945. It may also be misleading torefer to 'any objections which the British Govern-ment might have had' after the September 1951Victoria Falls Conference (p. 92) when boththe Colonial Secretary James Griffiths and theSecretary for Commonwealth Relations, PatrickGordon-Walker, had declared that they were 'inno doubt that African opinion was overwhel-mingly hostile to the federal scheme,' and themain object of the Conference had been tosound African opinion. So too the British 'checks'on Southern Rhodesia's internal government after1923 did not include a check on 'African advance-ment' (p. 94) but rather one on legislation con-sidered discriminatory against African interests.Rhodesia, Professor Harris considers, providesa case of 'White African Nationalism', justanother 'variant of black nationalism (whiteAfrican nationalism) and consequently Mr. IanSmith may be represented as an African nationa-list' (p. 127), However attractive this approachmay be, it ignores decades of Rhodesian historyand political development. Since 1923 Rhodesiahas had not only responsible government, it hasalso had minority rule. On the basis of theLand Apportionment Act of 1930 these minorityrulers built a whole apparatus of discrimination,in industrial conciliation, grain marketing, per-sonal registration. To overlook this is to missthe essence of the Rhodesian situation and theirreconcilability of the division of power. Toignore the question of race is to commit thesame error as the British Government in 1923.which considered the transfer of responsibilityto the colonies as a means of forestalling rebellionon the American model and which saw no compli-cations arising from minority rale, by an oli-garchy that had control of skills and wealth andthe group-interest that race and privilege mayproduce.Questions arise from the 'Studies' of ProfessorHarris, which are themselves tribute to his author-92ship. This is a work that should be read closelyby students of history and political science andby all interested in modern African affairs. TheHutchinson University Library must be con-University of Rhodesiagratulated on its superb presentation. The onlyirritant this reader found was the custom ofcollecting all footnotes at the end of eachchapter.A. J. DACHSŁ ».Iiv:WIDSTRAND, C. G. ed. 1970 Co-operatives and RuralCorporation for the Scandinavian Institute of AfricanThe publication comprises papers read at aseminar on 'Co-operatives and Rural Develop-ment' together with an introduction by the editorand some observations on the seminar, byNyanjom. The seminar, organised by the Scan-dinavian Institute of African Studies, was heldat the University of Uppsala in 1970 and thepapers were contributed by officials and researchworkers either currently or previously engagedin research on co-operative problems in EastAfrica. This was important in ensuring intimateknowledge of the subject and in dictating theparticularistic approach of the study which yieldsinsights of wider validity than more ambitiousattempts to achieve universality.The paper by Migot-Adholla effectively dis-poses of the popular myth that the communalstructure in traditional society (or that modifiedby colonialism) is conducive to the developmentof modern co-operative organisation. The 'ideologyof traditionalism' is aSso shown to have littlevalue other than as a rallying point for co-opera-tive interest with subsequent success or failure ofco-operative ventures being dependent on specificeconomic and environmental factors. The sameviewpoint is advanced by Cliffe in his evaluationof the prospects for village producer co-operativesin relation to the 'traditional ujamaa system'.It is contended that even in areas where a signi-ficant degree of economic and social differentia-tion has not been created by exposure to capitalistinfluence the success of the Ujamaa Vijijini policywill be closely related to economic advantagegoverned in turn by the appropriateness of thenew form of production organisation in any givensituation. The argument concerning the value oftraditional organisation is taken a further stageby Hyden who delineates the positive barrierscreated by the socio-political environment in EastAfrica to the introduction of a European-typeorganisation.Development in East Africa. New York, Africana PublishingAffairs, 271 pp. no price stated. ,Both here and in other papers attention isdrawn to the unfortunate consequences of theimposition of co-operative marketing organisationin all three territories, though in Kenya it wouldappear that the ideological committment is beingabandoned. This raises the question of the extentto which governments can overcome environ-mental obstacles through the popular remedy ofa combination of legislative control and co-opera-tive education, the former being necessary as animposition from above to combat inefficiencyand corruption while the latter should in timeprovide the essential element of membership par-ticipation; or is the collective will and philosophyof co-operation dependent on the evolution ofthe 'right' economic and social conditions? Thedrastic control measures introduced in Tanzaniaand, to a lesser extent, Kenya, are shown to haveresulted in a marked increase in overhead costsand, more significantly for the future, in a drasticloss of co-operative spirit and leadership. Thetwo papers by Okereke and Kasfir on Ugandaalso indicate that the solution adopted by thatcountry of granting monopoly processing powersto co-operatives is proving costly to the supposedbeneficiaries, the ordinary peasants.The closely related problems of economicefficiency and democratic control are furtherdiscussed in papers by McAuslan, Westergaard,Apthorpe and Widstrand. The deficiencies in thelegal framework pinpointed by McAuslan couldbe remedied by government but other weaknessesof co-operative organisation call for more far-reaching changes in governmental attitudes andpolicies. It is appropriate that the two concludingpapers should be devoted to problems of evalua-tion for as Apthorpe points out, 'Any inter-nationally and historically complex social organi-sation with spiritual as well as practical ramifica-tions that have become ends in themselves tends,frankly, to defy "evaluation" as in "projectevaluation" . . .'.93