Different regimes, same leadership – on the logic of the local field of power in rural Mozambique. The article examines how traditional leaders in Mozambique have maintained their positions of power and under which circumstances they have been challenged throughout Portuguese colonialism, the first years of Independence with Marxist policies, and present day multiparty democracy and market society. The article, using ethnographic field material from northern Mozambique in combination with Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, concludes that the key symbolic capital of the traditional leaders is the defence of dignity (dignidade) of people, materialised in the land. This capital is the resource that defines challenges and continuity in the local fields of power, explaining their relative immunity towards legal and formal changes in macro level policy. Immunity towards social and political changes on the local level has created another, paralel, history of Mozambique that is influenced by, but not similar to, the grand, episodic Mozambiquian modern history.

This article examines the reasons why peasants living in poverty are unlikely to form or join an organization defending their rights and interests. The study is based on ethnographically inspired fieldwork in the Niassa province, northern Mozambique, and takes peasants accounts of their livelihoods as the point of departure. The livelihood analysis is placed within a historical and structural process. The article suggests that four dimensions of fragmentation of peasants' livelihoods hamper the conditions for collective organizations. Firstly, every peasant household is, at any given point in time, engaged in a number of different livelihood activities to ensure its production and reproduction. Secondly, the composition of these activities varies between households. Thirdly, the activities are constantly changing. Fourthly, there is socio-economic differentiation among peasant households. These four dimensions make it difficult to identify central and enduring interests and conflicts peasants are engaged in that could be the foundation for their collective organization.

Este artigo examina as razões pelas quais os camponeses que vivem em pobreza têm pouca probabilidade de formar ou integrar uma organização que defenda os seus direitos e interesses. O estudo é baseado em trabalho de campo, inspirado pela etnografia, na província de Niassa, no norte de Moçambique, e tem como ponto de partida os relatos dos camponeses sobre os seus meios de subsistência. A análise da subsistência é inserida num processo histórico e estrutural. O artigo sugere que quatro dimensões de fragmentação dos meios de subsistência dos camponeses dificultam as condições para as organizações coletivas. Em primeiro lugar, cada família camponesa está, em qualquer momento, envolvida em várias atividades de subsistência diferentes para garantir a sua produção e reprodução. Em segundo lugar, a composição dessas atividades varia entre as famílias. Em terceiro lugar, as atividades mudam constantemente. Em quarto lugar, há diferenciação socioeconómica entre as famílias camponesas. Estas quatro dimensões tornam difícil a identificação dos interesses e conflitos centrais e duradouros em que os camponeses estão engajados e que poderiam constituir a base da sua organização coletiva.