Notes

The contractarian view explains conflicts of interest between individuals while the predatory view highlights conflicts of interest between states and its individuals. Within the reading, Herbst argues that governments in Sub Saharan Africa should engage in warfare in order to create strong states. Herbst concludes that doing so will lead to a stronger national identity, an increase in the willingness for citizens to be taxed, and can strengthen a state’s sovereignty and autonomy. Herbst’s argument thus relies on the predatory view because not only is he describing a relationship between the state and its individuals, but he also seeks to understand the conditions which lead states to enforce rules. In this context, Herbst argues that the conditions under which the previously mentioned results occur are warfare. In other words, if war was to break out, it would help states become stronger.
Although Herbst attributes the weak nature of Sub Saharan states to war, there are two specific factors that war is meant to impact. As alluded previously, taxes and nationalism are the primary factors which Herbst argues strengthens states. For one, war impacts a states’ finances in a way that forces them to raise taxes out of necessity for defending its borders, and citizens tend to be more open to higher taxes during war time. The byproduct of this is that the state will have more funds to use, which gives them more autonomy and strengthens sovereignty, and moral will likely be higher, creating a sense of civic nationalism.
Herbst uses the example of Europe to illustrate why nationalism is vital to a country’s strength. During the time when European states were at war with one another, nationalism created a national identity and common enemy that shaped the people within the confines of a country’s borders. This sense of unique national identity is lacking in Sub Saharan Africa due to Africa’s colonial history, which has made it difficult for countries to distinguish themselves from one another.
In conclusion, Herbst argues that peaceful means of strengthening states in Sub Saharan Africa are likely not possible and that war seems to be the most logical, yet grim, option.