• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Varieties of Sub-National Authority Adnan Naseemullah King’s College London Clionadh Raleigh University of Sussex Title Page Varieties of Sub-National Authority Word Count: 11077 Abstract: This article examines the differences in subnational authorities that populate the developing world. It then categorizes the different forms of authority according to their relationship to the central regime, and the nature of ‘power-resources’ available to them. To that end, four types of authority emerge: agents, who act a local representations of central state power; rivals, who operate in direct defiance and opposition to that same central power; bosses are individuals who have a close relationship to the central regime-- often through party links, but also wield independent local leverage and authority; and chiefs, or customary/traditional authorities, with weak, and largely dependent ties to the central regime. The variation in these forms, but the commonality of these types, transgress the often regionally based literature that seeks to distinguish and isolate forms as an in-situ phenomena. The co-occurrence of subnational authorities across the developing world has striking implications for the risk and modality of political violence, democratic suppression, and ultimately, the emergence of hybrid regimes characterized by both direct and indirect control of territories, populations, and governance practices. Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript Sub-National Authority_blinded.docx In 2017, the Catalan separatist referendum met an aggressive response from the Spanish government; violence by security forces against civilian protesters continued in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir; tensions between the Iraqi government and the Kurdish autonomous region escalated into the Battle of Kirkuk; regional conflicts between supporters and opponents of the incumbent government in Kenya erupted in two stunted elections; and there were humanitarian crises associated with both the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar’s western Rakhine province and ongoing conflict in northern Kachin. These disparate events, and dozens more around the world every year, represent specific instances of a common dissonance between the desires, policies and practices of governments and regimes in national capitals on one hand and those of social groups, violent forces or political actors in provinces, states and regions on the other. A consistently important theme in the politics of developing countries is the extent to which political structures and processes at the subnational level do not always accord with the institutions, policies and practices of the national state. But what constitutes the nature of national authority and subnational governance in developing states, when the presence and power of the central regime is uneven and often contested? The actual practices of this governance in these contexts are varied, and yet their distinct dynamics are not easily reducible to perverse federalism, failed decentralization or fraught center-periphery relations. Consequently, we do not have a theoretical framework through which we might understand common patterns in the nature of subnational authority and governance across Asia, Africa and Latin America. In this article, we aim to provide such a framework, by focusing on the character, power-resources and legitimacy of political actors at the subnational level and the nature of their relationship to the central government within national boundaries. 1 We do this in two stages. First, we establish a typology of four different forms of sub- national authority – agents, bosses, chieftains and rivals – based on their distinct relationships to the center and the sources of their power and legitimacy. Agents carry out the will of the central government in sub-national regions based on the latter’s authority and using its resources, while rivals mobilize against the center using resources and authority mobilized among those opposed to the center. Bosses and chieftains occupy a middle ground of actors allied to, but with interests and resources distinct from, the center. Bosses act with relative autonomy from the center but occupy formal roles in the state, regime or ruling party. Chiefs represent customary leadership and traditional power that is affirmed and sometimes supported by the modern state; their objectives are to simultaneously maintain their own legitimacy and regime authority and stability at the local level. Second, we consider the political implications of the presence of multiple forms of subnational authority on important political and social outcomes. Multiple instances of these common forms of subnational authority often co-occur in “hybrid” regimes, where democratic regimes are not consolidated, formal and informal institutions coexist and leaders are beholden to powerful subnational authorities for regime stability. By understanding the geographical unevenness of hybrid regimes, this framework allows us to traverse levels of development and regime type at the center to explicate the horizontal dynamics of the many developing country regimes that stand in between consolidated democracy and considated authoritarianism, as well as the sources of persistence and the possibilities of political change. Subnational authority can also be usefully deployed to understand dynamics of civil conflict and political violence within national borders by focusing on the interests and identities of particular coercive actors, and how they interact with each other and with the central state. Thus, the multiple types of subnational 2 authority in developing countries alter our perspective of regime dynamics and political disorder, highlighting how subnational authorities are often drivers of important political and social outcomes in developing countries. This article proceeds as follows. First, we survey the existing literature on subnational authority; much of this scholarship is strongly situated in particular regional contexts and displays a significant amount of under-emphasized internal variation and cross-regional similarity. Second, we specify a typology of four distinct forms of sub-national authority, based on resources and relationships to the central government. We then discuss how the presence of multiple subnational authority forms within states might impact on the nature of political order and democratic representation over national territory. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of political geography perspectives in understanding sub-national politics. Studying Subnational Authority The study of national politics has traditionally dominated comparative analysis, yet a more recent focus on subnational politics recognizes how regions within large, multiethnic or federal states might react differently to national-level stimuli, which produce divergent social or political outcomes.1 This variation in outcomes emerges from both checkered authority of central regimes at the subnational level, and relatedly, the multiple, distinct forms of subnational authority that occupy spaces of power within states. Both the value and the inherent limitations of extant research into sub-national governance is its focus on understanding specific, regionally focused problems of mismatch 1 Kohli 1990; Gibson 2004; Tsai 2005; Sinha 2006; Hurst 2009; Singh 2016. In recognition of the analytical importance of differences within national states, Snyder (2001) has advocated subnational comparative analysis as a means to increase the number of cases and thus receive additional causal leverage on social and political outcomes. 3 between national level policies and regional or local interests. That developing states have uneven authority and governance practices is one of the most important concepts in social science and is supported by research spanning regions and institutional forms. Multiple concepts have been employed to describe the general state of political and institutional inconsistencies between national and subnational power structures: “territorial politics,” “political topographies,” and “regime juxtaposition” are concepts have been used somewhat interchangeably to explain governance strategies and subnational particularities.2 There is broad agreement on the base assumption of the disparate approaches: all concede that developing country governance and state capacity are territorially uneven and the rules and norms that define the national regime are not often equally applied or even applicable throughout the state’s territory. While the resulting patterns of authority and relationships to the state are often quite similar across country cases and world regions, investigations on specific outcomes, very often in particular world regions, limit the extent to which common patterns can be discerned. Over time, three major traditions of studying subnational authority have emerged, each largely in isolation. First, scholars of federalism in developing countries have studied the causes, consequences and normative impact of particular instances of ‘asymmetry’ in peace and stability. Second, scholars of comparative democratization have explored exceptions to national processes of democratic consolidation, principally in Latin America and Southeast Asia. Third, scholars in African and South Asian politics have interrogated the concept of “ungoverned spaces” by emphasizing the roles of sub-national authorities in contexts in which national states have limited reach. These three research programs may

Load more

  45

Copy Link