Page 222 - UKZN Proceedings of the Conference Report

is not solely held by the state but also by institutions regulating social behaviour, such as schools and hospitals, where individuals internalise norms and participate in governance. Governmentality emphasises the involvement of individuals in their government (Shoshana 2022). People are encouraged to self-regulate their behaviour through societal standards and expectations, resulting in a type of internalised control in which individuals actively participate in their governance. This characteristic is especially noticeable in neoliberal situations where personal responsibility is emphasised.
Materials and methods
The data for this study was solicited from desktop information derived from book chapters, peer-reviewed papers, government reports and newspaper articles. The authors selected more than 100 relevant papers, book chapters and reports and used 100 of them to situate and conceptualise the paper. The Google Scholar, ResearchGate and JSTOR search engines were used to retrieve information relevant to the subject under study. The majority of the data was collected from Google Scholar, and the rest from ReseachGate and JSTOR. ResearchGate has a plethora of sound papers, but it was a challenge to access some of the papers that could have enhanced the paper due to costly fees demanded by the search engine.
results
Governmentality in Egypt
The Egyptian government has shaped public opinion and upheld social control using a variety of strategies, including media and education. Adly (2021) posits that the authoritarian form of the state is a crucial component of Egyptian governance. Vatikiotis (2021) maintains that Egypt has been ruled by authoritarian administrations since the 1952 revolution, the most recent being Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s presidency. These governments have used a variety of methods to manage and punish citizens, including coercion, patronage, and moral authority. Kandil (2015) maintains that the state’s use of power has been characterised by a combination of repression, manipulation, and coercion to change citizens’ behaviour and loyalty.
Ismail (2014) argues that Egypt’s governmentality represents the intricate interplay of state authority, neoliberal policies, and individual and population. Watts (2017) points out that this notion, based on Michel Foucault’s theories, is especially pertinent to examining how the Egyptian government has controlled its inhabitants under various political regimes, particularly since the 1990s. Thus, neoliberal policies were first implemented in Egypt in the 1990s, particularly during the presidency of Hosni Mubarak (Roccu 2020). The policies aimed at privatisation and structural adjustment, lead to a ‘state withdrawal’ from
direct economic responsibility. Gluskin-Braun (2020) posits that the state progressively entrusted social welfare to market forces, transferring the responsibility for social risks such as poverty and unemployment to people.
The Islamic movement has also had a considerable influ- ence on Egypt’s governance. Al-Anani (2020) asserts that the Muslim Brotherhood in particular has played a signif- icant role in Egyptian politics, pursuing an Islamic agen- da while criticising the regime’s secular philosophy. Selim (2022) maintains that the Brotherhood’s ascension to power following the 2011 upheavals constituted a dramatic shift in Egypt’s governance, as the country transitioned from a secular authoritarian state to an Islamic authoritarian one. However, globalisation influences and shapes Egypt’s gov- ernmentality in addition to the state and civil society. Neo- liberal economic policies have transformed the country’s political economy by privatising public assets, liberalising trade, and deregulating markets (Adly 2017).
Governmentality in Rwanda
Rwanda’s governmentality has evolved in distinctive ways, shaped by the country’s complicated history, political economy, and cultural factors. Musengimana (2020) points out that Rwanda has imposed a highly centralised style of governance with a focus on economic development and ethnic harmony. The Rwandan government has shaped public opinion and promoted national unity using a variety of strategies, including media and education. Critics have countered that the government suppresses political opposition and has undue influence over the lives of its residents (Reyntjens 2011).
Grajeda (2021) posits that the authoritarian form of the Rwandan state is a significant feature of its governance. Grajeda (2021) further states that the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), led by President Paul Kagame, has ruled Rwanda since the 1994 genocide. The RPF has used a variety of methods to manage and discipline citizens, including coercion, patronage, and moral authority. Mullikin (2023) adds that the state’s use of power has been characterised by a combination of repression, manipulation, and coercion, to change citizens’ behaviour and loyalty. The Rwandan state’s monitoring and control techniques have been implemented by institutions such as the police, military, and court. Reyntjens (2011) asserts that the security apparatus has been employed to monitor and crush any type of dissent or resistance, to keep the dictatorship in power. This has resulted in the formation of a culture of fear and obedience, where citizens are discouraged from participating in political life and urged to concentrate on their personal lives (Burnet 2012). However, Rwandan governmentality is not limited to repression and control. Shelus et al. (2018) contend that the state has also used different techniques to influence residents’ behaviour and
220
| Proceedings of the conference on Public innovation, develoPment and sustainability