Are you sure about your question? I have the strong feeling that you mean neo-patrimonialism. In this case no relation to neo(!)-colonislidm, but referring to some of Max Weber's (sociology) notions of different forms of dominance, i.e. patrimonialism, the "neo" adding a dose of legal-rational or bureaucratic norms and behaviour.

Indeed you are right, the management of power (state) relations between political leaders and the people, is best captured by the explanation I see online in reference to neopatrimonialism. That said, I still think there is a link between the current patron-client relations that characterize African political class with a colonial legacy. Someone must know the how all this links up?

"To begin with, neo-paternalism is not a singular entity: there are roughly

two distinguishable variants, which are respectively liberal and anti-liberal.

The liberal neo-paternalism, as discussed above, is extremely reticent

regarding paternalism in general. It stresses the autonomy of the individual,

and this autonomy forbids paternalism and ‘undemanded’ interventions

except in cases of damage to the self or to others. One person’s freedom can

only be limited by the freedom of another. Each must do what he feels he

must do, unless doing so will cause damage, or threaten to cause damage,

to others. Unfortunately, that happens from time to time. Therefore, from

the liberal perspective there is a great necessity for neo-paternalism. Much

outreach assistance finds its legitimacy in the possibility of damage, in this

case nuisance. Community workers must intervene, even if they haven’t

been asked by the people involved, when those people cause trouble. This

neo-paternalism is a perfect match for the old anti-paternalism. It claims,

after all, that paternalism isn’t allowed, unless . . . (cf. Berghmans, 1992).

Neo-liberal paternalism creates a group of people who are considered to

be hopeless. And because damage is the only reason for intervention, this

intervention becomes predominantly negative, focusing on penalties and

punishment. Alongside this, however, develops an anti-liberal, more

concerned and caring neo-paternalism. This approach claims that liberalism,

with its emphasis on autonomy and its limitation of involvement to

damaging or dangerous situations, leads to neglect, isolation and decline,

in short, to drama which falls outside of the liberal perspective. These neopaternalists

propose that professional intervention in cases of decline,

neglect and remiss is a sign of compassion, humanity and, finally, of respect

for those who can no longer help themselves. Paternalism is not a disgrace

but a professional virtue. The liberal notion that only the principle of

damage is enough of a cause for professional action in their view much is

too narrow a basis for community work. It legitimates other citizens looking

the other way. It creates a new multitude of people who are denied help, not

because these people cannot be helped, but because they simply are not

capable of articulating that they want to be helped and therefore do not get

considered in ‘demand oriented’ care. In their oh-so-autonomous wisdom,

they may decide to waste away.

In recent forms of this caring neo-paternalism and outreaching community

work, the biggest theme is no longer societal criticism but criticism

of the profession(al). Many initiators of outreach assistance claim that community workers cannot just stand there and watch when people are

neglected, isolated, grow filthy and when children are not well cared for,

even though there may be no evidence of nuisance or other forms of damage.

Community workers shouldn’t wait for their clients to come to their office

hours with a lucid question but should go out and find neglected individuals

to whom they can offer help. Caring neo-paternalism obviously has an

entirely different view on community work than liberal neo-paternalism. In

this ‘caring’ school of thought, everyone can be helped in one way or another."

Tonkens, E. and Duyvendak, J.W., 2003. Paternalism-caught between rejection and acceptance: taking care and taking control in community work. Community Development Journal, 38(1), pp.6-15.