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

such as unity and security imposed dependence relations between lineages, villages and between families. Even superior leadership at the helm of the structures (states) needed a kind of personal dependence relations to disseminate their authority to the least commoner or grass root community in the structure. For this to succeed, the authority had to pass through intermediaries such as subaltern leaders (sub- chiefs) whose lineages, villages, tribes, provinces or states were linked to the superior leader by personal dependence relations. This is where an apt definition of the concept of states within a state fitted well in the African political system. Coexistence in the same system or structure also required personal dependence relations (Ibid: 40). All these made state formation in Africa a complex issue. However, this arrangement did not stop the African leaders from clamouring for a certain degree of territorial boundaries or frontiers that will portray their authority and autonomy. From colonial rule henceforth, a different interpretation of the concept of states in Africa emerged. Here the concept was interpreted within the context of how much power and authority a leader wield or exercised in society. In this, history, tradition, native customs and culture or status were not prerequisites or determining factors in the eyes of the colonial masters. Colonial rule created new chieftaincies in African communities which never existed before and empowered some. They empowered some subaltern leaders and mounted some against their natural bosses and superiors. This situation caused the existence of the phenomenon of warrant chiefs in the African states (Afigbo, 1972: 1-35). Whatever that meant, the fact remains that colonialists created such leaders and power structures for their interest so that they can facilitate their exploitative administration in Africa. Out of this, a new mentality about power and subalternship emerged in African political structures. The concept of states within a state took a different twist. Some leaders exploited their warrant positions under colonial leadership to wield much power and authority in their respective communities or local areas. Some exploited the security accorded them by colonial leaders to challenge the authority of leaders they initially honoured and respected as their superiors. Some used new colonial ideas such as liberty, freedom, human rights, democracy to liberate themselves from any form of oppression that had existed in the past. The sure course was to assert their autonomy and independence. This attitude was encouraged by the fact that under colonial rule, the power and authority of an African leader could increase or decrease depending on his relation with the colonial master. Thus it became possible for a subaltern leader to woe the support of the colonialist to fight or challenge his superior. This led to wanton power tussles and wrangles amongst the African leaders. Another aspect was the creation of states in Africa by the colonialist. States were created out of the balkanisation of African Communities and people with no recourse to the family, lineage, and village, ethnic, tribal or cultural relations. The systematic fragmentation of the continent created arbitrary frontiers or boundaries in the African communities (Olufemi, 2003). The consequence of this situation was the disappearance of solidarity and unity amongst the people. Brotherhood made no meaning any more as families became estrange to each other. This turned out to be an indirect ploy that created ‘states within state’ in African relations and mentality. That became a source of conflict. The situation was aggravated by the nature of the states created by the colonialist in terms of sizes. Some of the states were either too big in size while others were too small. This was done without any conventional formula to determine the sizes and creation of the states. This attitude became imbued in the African mentality who now thought that at any time and in any form a state can be created in the community irrespective of the size. Subaltern leaders thus developed a spirit where once they felt jilted or uncomfortable in their relations with their superiors, the solution was to assert their autonomy and independence. This has remained in the physical and mental psyche of African leaders more as a vector of conflict than peace building. To them being autonomous is the only panacea to their problems. However the failure to consider the context, environment and situation at hand in such bid has rather created more complex situations and conflicts than solutions. We earlier mentioned, the kind of power system instituted amongst African leaders by the colonialist. All was geared towards serving colonial interest and causing it to succeed. One attitude cultivated by African leaders from this was that while the authority of some leaders grew beyond proportions in their communities, others thought that their opinion on issues of local state politics determined the final decision taken. In other words, higher state authorities cannot decide on an issue without consulting them. Consequently, some communities and leaders became permanent actors and acolytes of state machinery. Their opinion in state decisions and policies could eventually influence the final decision taken by the state on an issue. In fact, where subaltern authorities impact the policies and politics of the state, Africans ironically described such as a state within a state. In north Cameroon for instance, the Lamido of Ray Bouba and his community are considered a strategic power and political bastion in the area. When it comes to issues of state politics such as elections, the Lamido and his palace decides who occupies what position. Any gallery in the form of democratic elections is mere window dressing. The final choice comes from the Lamido and the state government ratifies. State authorities consulted the Lamido on state policies related to the northern region © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 3 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 D The Concept of ‘States within a State’ Amidst Conflict and Peace Building Ventures in Bafut, Cameroon