In Belinda Bozzoli's recent article in PW (25 June) 'DA-style "good governance" is not just a nice-to-have' she describes clientelism in practice: big man politics at various levels dispensing favours of various kinds to clients in return for loyalty and support. When that is combined with outward forms of national democracy which have largely been emptied of content the term, originally coined by Eisenstadt, is neopatrimonialism - a dominant form of politics throughout most third world states and notably within sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
It's worth deconstructing and examining these political systems briefly. The clientelism Bozzoli describes can assume various forms. Favours may include various forms of personal security or protectzia all the way to special business deals, introductions, rent-a-mob or whatever other needs and gratifications the client may express. Clientelism works via personal networks of influence, family connections, reciprocity, intimidation and friendships of various kinds.
The problem with clientelism it delivers goods chiefly to the smart, ruthless, lucky and connected; it robs the poor to feed the rich. Also, clientelism in its various manifestations is poor at coordinating large groups of unrelated or distantly-related individuals, e.g. for military purposes. Thus, for thousands of years larger collectives were hierarchical autocracies of various kinds and different degrees reflecting the time, place and special characteristics of the society. The concentration of power at the centre minimised the development of local power nodes characterising clientelist-patronage systems, but came with disadvantages, too well-known to review here.
The recent evolution of institutionalised democracy in industrialising societies has been the major cultural-political innovation of the modern era. It liberated individual initiative and talent to an unprecedented degree while legitimising power exercised by the state. Over the past century or so liberal democracies have come to dominate the global stage politically, morally, economically and militarily, at least until recently. Right now, they're under considerable pressure from a new versions of authoritarianism and internal divisions partly precipitated by migrant pressures coming from failed states in Africa, parts of Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere.
In many ways democracy runs counter to basic human nature except for the higher degree of personal freedom it delivers. A genuine, rule-based democracy requires considerable postponement of gratification and long-term pragmatism, neither of which comes easily. It limits the default human tendency to favour family and comrades and constrains the acquisition and projection of personal power by both individuals and groups.
In order to do this long enough and effectively enough to reap the benefits, democracy requires strong institutions supported by most citizens even against short-term gains as well as impartially enforced laws, strong informal cultural norms, a threshold degree of shared national identity and an acceptably fair distribution of resources between the different, sub-state social groups.