The combination of direct and indirect rule in Africa during late colonialism created a dual state where, broadly speaking, rural areas were under indirect rule through chiefs while urban areas were subject to direct rule. This article explores the developments that in Malawi have led to a state in which most individuals are exposed to both forms of rule simultaneously. Nowadays, people in most areas experience two parallel state organisations, and individuals are simultaneously citizens of the state and subjects under a state-enforced chieftaincy system. Recently indirect rule has also experienced institutional expansion: the chiefly hierarchy, which previously reached only to district level, now extends all the way to the president, making the choice between the two parallel organisations relevant at higher levels of the state hierarchy. For those able to straddle the two forms of rule, this means a wider scope of opportunities for interacting with the state. Yet, for others it means a dissonance between the rhetoric of civil, rights-based governance and the practice of chiefly rule. For state agencies, it makes available more options for effective governance, and the president in particular can choose between two separate institutional hierarchies in the execution of state power. For academic studies, the case of Malawi demonstrates that research on state building and governance should not equate bureaucratic capacity with state capacity. The chieftaincy, standing outside the bureaucracy, constitutes a key component of state power and everyday governance, and it is difficult to imagine it being replaced by any part of the formal government in the foreseeable future.

Tidligere norske misjonaerer inkluderte Hans Egede på Grønland og H. C. Knudsen som reiste til Afrika, men for et tysk misjonsselskap.

No abstract

No abstract