6 INTRODUCTION moil.I understand the regionalists'desire,after the analytic disasters caused by the homogenizing tendencies of both modernization and de- pendency theory,to hew closely to the empirical facts.However,failure to examine the broad continuities over space and time has meant that Africa has been excluded from the political science mainstream becausc overarching arguments about the trajectory of the continent do not exist to compare with the well developed models of how political order was constructed in Europe,Latin America,and other regions.By attempting to describe the African state-building experience,I hope to join the am- bitious academic project well described by Wong:"those of us who spend most of our time laboring on so-called non-Western parts of the world should make greater efforts to offer analyses that engage arguments about historical change in European history systematically...to generate the elements of well-grounded comparative history that can...create a new basis for building social theories to replace the great nineteenth-century efforts limited in large measure to European foundations."6 The failure to develop more powerful generalizations is also increas- ingly hurting the study of Africa itself.For instance,the effort that came to full life in the 1960s to study the history of Africa before the Euro- peans has not had the impact that it should have had because commen- tary almost always has been devoted to one polity or one region.Sim- ilarly,the study of relations between capitals and chiefs has,but with a very few exceptions,been developed on a country-by-country basis with no hint of a comparative effort.As a result,the study of African politics has sometimes been in accord with the critiques of area studies:more a jumble of accumulated facts than a clear scholarly project that has sought to continually test facts against hypotheses.It is possible to answer those critiques without abandoning the study of African states qua African states. To do so requires the development of an analytic perspective that allows the African experience to be understood in comparative perspective This book does not provide all of the answers to the big questions posed herein.However,I do hope that it initiates a debate that is long overdue about state consolidation in Africa and in other parts of the world.Such a debate should flourish if it is possible to recognize both the enormous variation within Africa and the possibilitics of overarching sim- ilarities.To understand,then,what is apparent to anyone who goes to Africa. Soon after taking power on 17 May 1997,Laurent Kabila changed the name of Zaire to Democratic Republic of the Congo.This book refers to .R.Bin Wong,China Transformed:Historical Change and the Limits of European Expe- rience(Ithaca:Comnell University Press,1997),p.ix.6 INTRODUCTION moil. I understand the regionalists’ desire, after the analytic disasters caused by the homogenizing tendencies of both modernization and de￾pendency theory, to hew closely to the empirical facts. However, failure to examine the broad continuities over space and time has meant that Africa has been excluded from the political science mainstream because overarching arguments about the trajectory of the continent do not exist to compare with the well developed models of how political order was constructed in Europe, Latin America, and other regions. By attempting to describe the African state-building experience, I hope to join the am￾bitious academic project well described by Wong: “those of us who spend most of our time laboring on so-called non-Western parts of the world should make greater efforts to offer analyses that engage arguments about historical change in European history systematically . . . to generate the elements of well-grounded comparative history that can . . . create a new basis for building social theories to replace the great nineteenth-century efforts limited in large measure to European foundations.”6 The failure to develop more powerful generalizations is also increas￾ingly hurting the study of Africa itself. For instance, the effort that came to full life in the 1960s to study the history of Africa before the Euro￾peans has not had the impact that it should have had because commen￾tary almost always has been devoted to one polity or one region. Sim￾ilarly, the study of relations between capitals and chiefs has, but with a very few exceptions, been developed on a country-by-country basis with no hint of a comparative effort. As a result, the study of African politics has sometimes been in accord with the critiques of area studies: more a jumble of accumulated facts than a clear scholarly project that has sought to continually test facts against hypotheses. It is possible to answer those critiques without abandoning the study of African states qua African states. To do so requires the development of an analytic perspective that allows the African experience to be understood in comparative perspective. This book does not provide all of the answers to the big questions posed herein. However, I do hope that it initiates a debate that is long overdue about state consolidation in Africa and in other parts of the world. Such a debate should flourish if it is possible to recognize both the enormous variation within Africa and the possibilities of overarching sim￾ilarities. To understand, then, what is apparent to anyone who goes to Africa. Soon after taking power on 17 May 1997, Laurent Kabila changed the name of Zaire to Democratic Republic of the Congo. This book refers to 6 R. Bin Wong, China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of European Expe￾rience (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), p. ix