Global Journal of Human Social Science, D: History, Archaeology and Anthroplogy, Volume 23 Issue 3

However, some semi-autonomous states (chiefdoms) came to existence through conquest, assimilation, association, alliances or colonial fabrication. Some powerful migrant leaders and groups conquered indigenes (autochthones) and imposed their dictates and supremacy over them. In the position of weakness, the autochthones and leaders were compelled to accept a subaltern position under the foreign invading leader and his people. Some groups in search for security against invaders and predators, decided to either seek refuge under a stronger, reliable group and leader or create a protective alliance (association) with the powerful group so that a stronger front can be created against the invading enemy or aggressor. Alliances were common among groups or states in the Northwest Region especially with the onslaught of Bali chambers invasion and aggressions in the area. The Bali decision to ally with the Germans to bring the other groups or people in the area under their swear increased the spirit of defensive and protective alliances (association) amongst the states and groups in the area. A typical example was the alliance between Bafut and Mankon formed to fight their common enemy- the Bali and Germans. Some alliances eventually resulted to the assimilation of the weaker groups by the stronger ones (against their will) thus reducing them to a semi- autonomous state or position in the union. Their leaders also become subaltern to the leader of the stronger group. In other instances, some leaders by consensus, decided to hand over their power and authority to a superior leader to legislate on their behalf while they support him from the rear. In this case, such leaders automatically made themselves and their people subordinate to the stronger group and leader. Others by means of coup d’état took control of an area or community and made themselves and leader superior over the rest of the people whose leaders were bound to assume subaltern position under the superior leader and group. All the aforementioned constitute the base of semi-autonomous states in African communities. The Bafut fon dom went through these processes at different times in its history and evolution. The introduction of colonial rule came with a different interpretation and application of the concept of semi-autonomous states in Africa. First, the procedure of willfully handing over power or ones autonomy to a superior leader while assuming a lower position under him is what modern state systems refer to as federations (federated states). This modern concept gave a different paradigm to what the Africans initially understood and practiced within the context of semi-autonomous states. In actual fact, federated states are created partly out of the willingness of different groups of people to come together for a common interest and to leave as one body (entity); while still maintaining some of their identities and cultures peculiar to the different people or groups within the federation. Examples of such federated states in Africa are found in Nigeria, Cameroon, Mali and many others. In local African context, this arrangement will be regarded or described as semi-autonomous states (polities) within a state. In all these, one thing is evident and it is the fact that the form of the state in Africa at any given time was determined by the interest at stake. Some states resulted from self- interest (orchestrated by personal zeal, ambitions and anxiety) or common interest orchestrated by the desire to work for the general good of a multitude. This brings to question the metamorphosing process of state formation in Africa from origin to present. II. S tate O rganisation ( F ormation) in A frica An understanding of the process of state formation in Africa requires a historical investigation from precolonial to colonial and post-colonial Africa. State organisation in Africa took the form of groupings which ranged from families, quarters, lineages, villages, tribes, clans, kingdoms and empires. Any of these forms could represent a state at any given time in the process of evolution. According to Catherine Coquery, states in Africa were not created or defined through specified lines or margins drawn on a map to differentiate a state from another. African leaders (family heads, lineage and village heads) new the extent and limit of their authority and understood that beyond a certain level, their authority was no more biding on people (Catherine, 1999: 39-54). Group relations at the level of families, villages, kingdoms and empires were regulated within a complex and diversified mechanism of links and network. Given the complex nature of relations, these structures could not by any means be compared or reduced to the kind of vertical and hierarchical monarchies, dynasties and republics obtained in Europe. In fact European structures (states) were regulated by a system of governance with well-defined territorial jurisdiction and powers. African states were constituted based on relations that assumed one of the following forms: Lineages founded on family links. That is, through blood affiliation or reconstructed social relations such as marriages, religion, culture and traditions (Ibid: 39-40). The second form was political relations based on the recognition of an authority over a group or state. Such a group was characterized by a hierarchical territorial structure which existed long ago in the continent. Examples include the Ashanti empires of Ghana, Mali, Songhai and other isolated creeks, Islands and lakeside communities. The third form of relations had to do with personal dependence (interdependence). Such relations were created between people, communities or villages by means of trade network or economic exchanges. Social needs and obligations Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 2 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 D © 2023 Global Journals The Concept of ‘States within a State’ Amidst Conflict and Peace Building Ventures in Bafut, Cameroon