Repression, Counterbalancing, and Pro-Government Militias Clionadh Raleigh† Roudabeh Kishi† † Department of Geography, University of Sussex
Leadership Survival and Hired Guns: Repression, Counterbalancing, and Pro-Government Militias Clionadh Raleigh† Roudabeh Kishi† † Department of Geography, University of Sussex (Rough draft. Please do not cite without permission.) Abstract. This article presents a ‘violence management’ framework through which to understand why, where, and when states employ pro-government militias (PGMs). Regimes in developing states engage in practices of ‘violence management’ that involve both offensive and defensive strategies to contain, repress and curtail various domestic threats. Some of these strategies include public repression, counterbalancing, the creation of paramilitary forces, and supporting PGMs to combat opponents within and outside the regime. The most ‘effective’ strategy for a leader to ensure his/her survival is to establish counterbalancing forces, implement PGMs, and initiate state repression strategies. These different organizations and responses are specifically designed to deal with various types and scales of threat. PGMs coexist with counterbalancing efforts, suggesting that PGMs and paramilitaries are specifically designed to deal with different scales of threat. A new pro- government militia dataset – PGM-Set – is introduced and is used to test the impact of PGM activity, repression, and counterbalancing on leadership survival. Introduction Increasing attention is being paid to the variation and multiplicity of armed, organized groups operating across developing states, and their role in control, repression, and dominance (Raleigh, 2014, 2016; Choi and Raleigh, 2015). Much of the recent literature has concentrated on civil war environments, and the rate of splintering (Bakke, Cunningham, Seymour, 2012; Cunningham, 2013); alliance (Christia, 2012); supplemental forces for both rebels and governments (Raleigh, 2016); local ‘predators’ taking advantage of conflict environments and ‘protectors’ operating as local security providers (Abbink, 1998, 2000; Hagmann and Mulugeta, 2008; Guichaoua, 2010).
[Show full text]