Suchergebnisse

The political-ideological characterization and analysis of Angolan nationalist movements and the conflicts between them, has always been subject of major and passionate political-academic discussion, which became an important component of the nationalist movements' international and domestic characterization and definition. The MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola) rapidly acquired the epithet of leftist, Socialist and Marxist since the anti-colonial struggle through the independence and afterwards. However, during the so-called founding period of an officially proclaimed Socialist MPLA, in an apparent contradiction, the MPLA's governing practice went objectively in an opposite direction, while still reinforcing that unquestioned epithet of Socialist. It is here argued that foreign attributed classifications (political and academic), influenced by the passionate political-idological struggles of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the civil war and the Cold War, ended up diplomatically-politically assumed (instrumentalised) by the movement itself, whereby an illusive characterization/identification prevailed, hampering a more objective analysis of the post-independence political practice. Our paper will focus on the contrast between the academic discussion on the political-ideological characterization of the MPLA (part I) and the governing practice of the party during the administration of the first President of the Republic, which was the founding period of the MPLA as a so-called Marxist-Leninist Socialist party (part II). Keywords: Angola; MPLA; Socialism; Agostinho Neto administration; political orientation. ; The political-ideological characterization and analysis of Angolan nationalist movements and the conflicts between them, has always been subject of major and passionate political-academic discussion, which became an important component of the nationalist movements' international and domestic characterization and definition. The MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola) rapidly acquired the epithet of leftist, Socialist and Marxist since the anti-colonial struggle through the independence and afterwards. However, during the so-called founding period of an officially proclaimed Socialist MPLA, in an apparent contradiction, the MPLA's governing practice went objectively in an opposite direction, while still reinforcing that unquestioned epithet of Socialist. It is here argued that foreign attributed classifications (political and academic), influenced by the passionate political-idological struggles of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the civil war and the Cold War, ended up diplomatically-politically assumed (instrumentalised) by the movement itself, whereby an illusive characterization/identification prevailed, hampering a more objective analysis of the post-independence political practice. Our paper will focus on the contrast between the academic discussion on the political-ideological characterization of the MPLA (part I) and the governing practice of the party during the administration of the first President of the Republic, which was the founding period of the MPLA as a so-called Marxist-Leninist Socialist party (part II). Keywords: Angola; MPLA; Socialism; Agostinho Neto administration; political orientation.

Abstract Development thinking has been progressively dominated by neo-institutionalism, influencing major donors in Africa, and recently included in the UN 2030 Agenda for development. This paper discusses some unintended impacts of such strategies in neo-patrimonial regimes such as Angola and Mozambique, whereby neo-institutionalism favoured donors' apolitical "partnership" with resilient neo-patrimonial structures, facilitating its recycling, sophistication, and modernization, taking advantage of financial globalization to its own ends and improving its democratic image through elections, but leaving untouched the principles of neo-patrimonial political management for a minority to hold on to power since independence. Theoretically, this approach contrasts with varieties of democracy and varieties of capitalism perspectives.