One of the most important lessons I have taken from Raufu Mustapha’s work is that African politics and institutions should be taken seriously, not as ‘mere’ institutionalised forms of rent-seeking but also as true attempts to create political systems that govern both morally and effectively. This ‘taking seriously’ involves not only systematically analyzing the African state, but also the politics that takes place in the margins of and beyond the state: what has alternatively been termed ‘hybrid’, ‘real’, ‘mixed’, ‘brokered’, or ’twilight’ governance. Nigeria is a prime case for studying these dynamics, given the astounding range and influence of its traditional, religious, ethnic, economic, community, and other ‘informal’ types of leaders engaged in the wider processes of politics and governance.
This paper reviews the (surprisingly large number of) current theoretical approaches to understanding the politics beyond the state. It shows that while there appears to be great theoretical diversity, with over a dozen distinct conceptual frameworks aiming to perform roughly equivalent analytical functions, there is actually an emerging consensus based on at least three points of overlap. Simply put, the consensus argument is that analyzing African politics and governance requires, first, a focus on governance functions and outcomes rather than actors; second, a focus on ‘real’, practical governance arrangements rather than ideal-typical ‘parchment’ institutions; and, third, a focus on Abrams’ dual state-idea and state-system rather than an assumed Weberian state. Using illustrative evidence from northern Nigeria, the paper discusses the usefulness of these insights, both for understanding and policy, but also highlights their analytical gaps and weaknesses. It ends by outlining a research agenda, particularly with the aim of studying contemporary Nigerian and African governance comparatively.