Explore the vast range of titles available.

In parts of the developing world the fundamental requisite of democracy-stateness-is in recession. This paper engages the literature on failed states with regard to the implications for global democratic diffusion. The heart of the paper summarises and analyses the four main frameworks for assessing and responding to failed states. The status quo framework regards failed states as sick patients that can be revived. This state revival framework has a mixed track record, however, and many critics. The 'shared sovereignty' framework advocates quasi-permanent intervention in the most difficult cases of state failure. A third approach argues for the recognition of de facto sovereignty and the restructuring of de jure international boundaries when necessary. A fourth framework insists on a historically grounded analysis of modern statehood as a failed global project. The article's final section surveys the stateness - democracy nexus in sub-Saharan Africa.

State failure is both a key cause and symptom of underdevelopment in Africa. This article provides a geopolitical perspective on the reasons for state failure in Africa, and offers the following solutions to dealing with this phenomenon. First, local and external actors should prioritize state building and order over quick democratization. Second, in rare cases, the principle of national sovereignty may be overridden in the interests of security and development. Third, in very carefully selected cases, international boundaries may need to be redrawn.

Africa is a region of renewed interest for American foreign-policy elites, both in and out of government. The purpose of this paper is twofold: to explore American foreign-policy elites' assessments of Africa before and after 11 September 2001, and to analyze how these assessments have been translated into American foreign policy toward Africa. The analysis is based on a review of government, think-tank, and other publications and transcripts associated with American foreign-policy elites, including the journal Foreign Affairs. Special focus is given to the strategic ranking and assessment of foreign countries within a global geopolitical code, or mental map of priority areas for U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic resources and engagement. American foreign-policy elites' assessments of Africa have shifted substantially since the 1990s, when the continent was largely regarded as quite marginal to American interests. Since late 2001, concerns about failed and failing states have emerged as a central theme in American foreign-policy elites' assessment of Africa and other parts of the developing world. Concerns about the nexus of transnational Islamist terrorism and failing states have prompted many such elites to call for a grand American geopolitical program of nation-building and military decentralization. To date, the United States has taken only small steps to align its foreign policy toward Africa. Significant tensions and contradictions limiting the execution of a new grand strategy remain. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

This paper explores - through a geo-political perspective - the changes and continuities in South African foreign policy over the period 1990-2010, focusing on the themes of military relations, migration, democratization, and pan-Africanism. The demise of apartheid led to significant changes in South Africa's relations with southern Africa and the rest of Africa, including: transition of South Africa from pariah state to a key leader of the continent; an end to South Africa's destabilization of its immediate neighbours; transition toward more humane treatment of migrants; and transition toward a commitment to democracy promotion in Africa. Yet, continuities among the apartheid and post-apartheid eras persist, including: the persistence of nationalism and realism as guiding principles; ongoing economic and political constraints imposed by neighbouring countries; the persistence of socio-cultural divisions amongst South African and migrant workers; and overall ambivalence about pan-African identity and policies.

This article examines the state-creation process in Nigeria in the context of military regime survival in the 1990s. Nigeria entered a period of protracted political crisis following the annulment of the 12 June 1993 presidential election and the entrenchment of the Abacha military government. The southwest, or Yorubaland,was the hotbed of opposition to continued military rule. This research shows how the Abacha government utilized the neo-colonial strategy of ‘divide and survive’ to fragment opposition in Yorubaland, and how the government divided regional opposition both socially and spatially. A local coalition of Ekiti elites chose statehood over solidarity with their fellow Yorubas opposing Abacha, particularly those aligned with Afenifere and the Oduduwa People’s Congress. New state movements — like that for Ekiti State — promoted more local identities at the expense of pan-Yoruba solidarity and unified opposition to the regime. The article is based on six months of fieldwork in Nigeria in 2002, including a case study of the movement for the creation of Ekiti State. Overall, it seeks to contribute to our understanding of the geography of regime survival.

There has been a long-term, halting diffusion of the liberal democratic state. The literature on democratization, however, tends to underplay issues of geo-historical context. This paper addresses the relationship between geo-historical context and democratization through a case study of Nigeria. Key contextual factors of transition discussed include: international pressure for democratization, geo-political dynamics of pro-democracy coalitions, and local and trans-local political economic relationships. Nigeria under the military governments of Babangida and Abacha (1985-1998) was in a perpetual half-hearted state of transition to democracy. The country's status as a major oil exporter allowed it relative immunity from international pressure for democratization. Beyond repression and neo-patrimonialism, both governments deployed a distinctly spatial resistance strategy, that of state creation. The generals tried to shift attention away from regime failures and excesses, notably the illegitimacy of military rule and economic decline. Mobilization for state creation served to divide opposition to military government because it focused attention at the local scale, as new state movements competed for access to centrally controlled resources and political recognition of their ethno-regional group(s). This transition period produced several legacies for Nigeria's Fourth Republic (1999-). These include: a dysfunctional national state apparatus; problems of national disunity; and a stagnant economy. These legacies of transition present major obstacles to national development and the consolidation of a liberal democratic state. The Nigerian case points to a broader need for an understanding of geo-historical context in assessing prospects for the spread of democracy.

Africa is a region of renewed interest for American foreign-policy elites, both in and out of government. The purpose of this paper is twofold: to explore American foreign-policy elites' assessments of Africa before and after 11 September 2001, and to analyze how these assessments have been translated into American foreign policy toward Africa. The analysis is based on a review of government, think-tank, and other publications and transcripts associated with American foreign-policy elites, including the journal Foreign Affairs. Special focus is given to the strategic ranking and assessment of foreign countries within a global geopolitical code, or mental map of priority areas for U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic resources and engagement. American foreign-policy elites' assessments of Africa have shifted substantially since the 1990s, when the continent was largely regarded as quite marginal to American interests. Since late 2001, concerns about failed and failing states have emerged as a central theme in American foreign-policy elites' assessment of Africa and other parts of the developing world. Concerns about the nexus of transnational Islamist terrorism and failing states have prompted many such elites to call for a grand American geopolitical program of nation-building and military decentralization. To date, the United States has taken only small steps to align its foreign policy toward Africa. Significant tensions and contradictions limiting the execution of a new grand strategy remain.

Since independence in 1960, Nigeria has undergone almost constant pressure for the restructuring of jurisdictional space. This study examines the successive sub-division of Nigeria from 3 to 4, 12, 19, 21, 30, and 36 states, focusing on restructuring during the 1980s and 1990s. The overarching research question is: What processes at multiple scales have promoted and sustained movements for new states in Nigeria? This study seeks to draw from and expand literatures on the jurisdictional organization of space, the new regional geography, and studies of the national state in Africa. Qualitative methods and data were used to assess both national and local actors and relationships. Three case studies of new state movements were conducted, allowing for different windows on the state-creation process and on regional change and struggle in different parts of the country. These cases included Ekiti, Nasarawa, and Kaduna States, with the former serving as an in-depth case. The primary methods utilized were semi-structured interviews of key correspondents and archival searches. Textual sources were triangulated with interview material. A key conclusion is Nigerian military governments of the period 1985–1998 used state creation as a key strategy of regime survival. The Babangida and Abacha governments manipulated jurisdictional space to garner support and divide the opposition. Top military leaders used state creation as a strategy of “divide and survive” or “spread patronage and survive.” Simultaneously, local groups mobilized to secure access to oil rents controlled by the central government. State creation became a kind of “development teleology” as regional coalitions broadcast the view that state creation is the way that “development” proceeds in Nigeria. Better access to central government patronage has beer, conflated with real development. Another key finding is dominant class pressure has contributed to the restructuring of jurisdictional space in Nigeria. Politicians, civil servants, and traditional rulers were the groups in the forefront of new state campaigns and the main beneficiaries of restructuring. Local elites mobilized support for new states by appealing to precolonial and colonial events, institutions, and precedents, thereby emphasizing more local identities.