^{Page 1 note 1} See Berlin, Isaiah, Two Concepts of Liberty (Oxford, 1958), pp. 42–4;Google Scholar and Carr, E. H., The New Society (London, 1951).Google Scholar

^{Page 1 note 2} W. Arthur Lewis has written: ‘Plurality is the principal political problem of most of the new States created in the twentieth century. Most of them include people who differ from each other in language or tribe or religion or race; some of these groups live side by side in a long tradition of mutual hostility, restrained in the past only by a neutral imperial power. French writers use the word “cleavage” to describe a situation where people are mutually antipathetic, not because they disagree on matters of principle, like liberals and socialists, or because they have different interests, like capitalists and workers, but simply because they are historic enemies. Cleavage cannot be overcome merely by argument and economic concessions, as in the traditional British manner, because it is not based on disputes about principles or interests. Hence it is the most difficult of all political problems.’ Politics in West Africa (London, 1965), p. 66.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 1} ‘For our purposes’, write James S. Coleman and Carl G. Rosberg Jr., ‘national integration is regarded as a broad subsuming process, whose two major dimensions are (1) political integration, which refers to the progressive bridging of the élite–mass gap on the vertical plane in the course of developing an integrated political process and a participant political community, and (2) territarial integration, which refers to the progressive reduction of cultural and regional tensions and discontinuities on the horizontal plane in the process of creating a homogeneous territorial political community.’ Political Parties and National Integration in Tropical Africa (Berkeley, 1964), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

^{Page 3 note 1} President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania has perceived this difference clearly: “In order to avoid internal conflict and further disunity each nation state is forced to promote its own nationhood. This does not only involve teaching a loyalty to a particular Unit, and a particular flag—although that is serious enough. It also involves deliberately organising one part of Africa economically, socially and constitutionally to serve the overall interests of the people of that part of Africa and (in case of conflict) not the interests either of another part of Africa or of Africa as a whole.’ (Address at the installation of President Kenneth Kaunda as Chancellor of the University of Zambia, July 1966.) This thought-provoking address elaborated on the contradiction between pan-Africanism and nationalism in Africa, and was not wholly pessimistic: ‘It is not impossible to achieve African unity through nationalism, just as it was not impossible for various tribal associations or tribally based parties to merge themselves into one nationalist movement.’ The present writer takes a similar view of national integration as an expansive idea that transcends existing national sovereignties.

^{Page 4 note 1} This approach is advocated for the study of developing countries by Almond, Gabriel A. in his notable essay, ‘A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics’, in Almond, G. A. and Coleman, J. S. (eds.), The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton, 1960), pp. 3–64.Google Scholar A comparable exposition of ‘systems analysis’ is Easton, David, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1965).Google Scholar

^{Page 4 note 2} See, for example, Apter, David E., The Politics of Modernization (Chicago, 1965).Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 1} There is a current fad of in-group criticism in Africanist circles which reproaches western scholars for defending one-party régimes that have since fallen from popular grace, and attacks the allegedly patronising Afrophile sentimentalism that is said to have done a disservice to both Africa and scholarship by lending intellectual respectability to ordinary dictatorships. The criticism is misdirected. Books in this field are too often judged for their conclusions instead of their analytic qualities. Some of the best books that have spoken well of African one-party states are not at all patronisingly Afrophile. They are plainly objective from the functionalist point of view.

^{Page 5 note 2} See Coser, Lewis, The Functions of Social Conflict (Glencoe, 1956).Google Scholar A comparable work in the field of social anthropology is Gluckman, Max, Custom and Conflict in Africa (Glencoe, 1955).Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 3} The main theme of my own substantive work concerns the political implications of class formation in Nigeria. See Nigerian Political Parties (Princeton, 1963).Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 4} See the discussion of these types of explanation in Meehan, Eugene J., The Theory and Method of Political Analysis (Homewood, Illinois, 1965), pp. 116–25.Google Scholar

^{Page 7 note 1} An admirable exception is Cohn Legum. See his sophisticated interpretation of tribal violence in Nigeria in The Observer (London), 16 10 1966.Google Scholar

^{Page 8 note 1} ‘The single party is the modern form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, unmasked, unpainted, unscrupulous, and cynical.’ Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth (New York, 1963), p. 133.Google Scholar

^{Page 9 note 1} Moore, Barrington Jr, Political Power and Social Theory (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), pp. 89–110.Google Scholar

^{Page 9 note 2} See Gellner, Ernest, Thought and Change (London, 1964), pp. 26–7,Google Scholar following, on this point, Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies (Princeton, rev. edn., 1950).Google Scholar

^{Page 10 note 1} See Baran, Paul A., The Political Economy of Growth (New York, 1957), pp. 190–8.Google Scholar

^{Page 10 note 2} O'Brien, Conor Cruise, To Katanga and Back (London, 1962), pp. 211–14 and 238.Google Scholar

^{Page 11 note 1} The recent example of some 400 Tanzania students, mainly from the University College, demonstrating in protest against two years of national service at reduced salaries is symptomatic. A Zambian newspaper commented acidly on their behaviour: ';The youngsters feel that the ordeal of passing examinations entitles them to membership of a new “meritocracy”. They forget about men who studied in prison, when they could get the books, or snatched an hour with book and candle between sessions of political organisation and dodging the colonial police. 'The great danger is that they may forget the ideals and objectives for which their fathers arid elder brothers fought. ’Among these objectives was the education, at State expense, the students are now enjoying. More than that, is the ideal of societies where one class does not prey on others as leeches of laziness.’ Times of Zambia (Lusaka), 26 10 1966.Google Scholar