xx AFRICAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS
two communities stand in a permanent relation such that war between them is always a possibility and does from time to time occur, though neither seeks to conquer the other and absorb it as a conquered people in a larger political unity. In a political system of which this is true, the occurrence or the possibility of war gives us the readiest means of defining the political structure.
But it is very difficult to draw an exact dividing line, valid for all societies, between war and feud. In a single society, as in some parts of Australia, different kinds of armed conflict are recognized, from duels between two groups by appointment as to time and place, in which each side avoids, if possible, killing any of the enemy, but seek to inflict non-mortal wounds, to 'wars to end war' which only occur at relatively infrequent intervals and result in many deaths.
There is one kind of feud which needs to be recognized as being of importance in any attempt to define political structure in some simple societies, viz. the institution of regulated retaliation for homicide. Where that exists, when a man is killed, his relatives, or the members of his clan or group, are entitled, or in some societies obliged, by custom to take the life either of his killer or of a member of his clan or group. Public sentiment regards such vengeance as just and proper so long as the law of talion is observed—that is, that the injury inflicted is equivalent to the injury'suffered, but not greater.
Feuds, or collective actions using force or the threat of force, of the kind to which this example belongs cannot be regarded as the same thing as war. The action is limited to obtaining satisfaction for a particular injury and is controlled by the general public sentiment of the community in which it takes place. But, on the other hand, though the idea of justice is involved, such actions cannot be properly regarded as falling within the sphere of law.
Thus in simple societies the political structure in one of its aspects, viz. as grouping together individuals within a territorial framework, which implies, of course, the separation of group from group within the total system, has to be described in terms of war, feud, and the exercise of recognized authority in settling disputes, finding remedies for injuries, and repressing actions regarded as injuring not certain individuals, but the community as a whole.
Amongst some writers on comparative politics, there is a