Reframing Violence As a Condition for Rebel Governance Panthea
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Rebel Iron Fist: Reframing Violence as a Condition for Rebel Governance Panthea Pourmalek POLI 492 – Undergraduate Thesis The University of British Columbia April 2021 Co-Supervisors: Dr. Allen Sens and Dr. Gyung-Ho Jeong 1 Abstract Conventional and tired characterizations of civil wars invoke images of endless chaos and relentless violence perpetuated by armed groups. In reality, civil wars are defined by unique forms of wartime social and political order, and are anything but chaotic. This study focuses on ‘rebel governance’ as a specific rebel-civilian sociopolitical relationship in which rebel groups participate in the administration of civilian affairs. Using disaggregated data on rebel governance in 122 civil wars, I examine the relationship between the character of rebel governance used by rebel groups and the use of violence against civilians. Contrary to existing characterizations of rebel governance, the results of the large-N analysis show rebel governance, particularly the provision of social services, to be positively related to conflict violence. Through further qualitative analysis of governance provided by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), I point to the necessary role of violence in the administration of rebel governance and rebel group capacity as two preliminary explanations for the observed relationship. 2 Acknowledgements My most sincere appreciation goes out to my co-supervisors Professor Allen Sens and Professor Gyung-Ho Jeong for their continuous support and enthusiasm for this project. I would also like to thank my parents for passing down to me their love for learning, and Professor Yves Tiberghien for fostering this love throughout my final years at UBC. 3 1. INTRODUCTION “I myself sat in my medical exams at the time in Jaffna. I could do the government or the parallel LTTE exam. That was all there in the early 1990s.” This is a description of the medical education infrastructure of Jaffna, the capital of the Northern Province of Sri Lanka, at the peak of control by a notoriously violent rebel group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Frerks and Terpstra 2018, 1024). How was it that a rebel group known for extreme and destructive violence against civilians, was mandating standardized examinations for medical students? Conventional and tired characterizations of civil wars invoke images of endless chaos and relentless violence perpetuated by armed groups such as the LTTE. In reality, civil wars are defined by unique forms of wartime social and political order, and are anything but chaotic. This study examines ‘rebel governance’ as a particular wartime socio-political order in which rebel groups fulfill various functions of governance, such as the provision of social services, as well as the creation of judicial, political, and electoral institutions for civilians that reside in rebel-held territories. Rebel governance is an immensely valuable conceptual tool for expanding understandings of the relationship between civilians and rebels beyond the perpetrator-victim dichotomy. This study aims to add greater depth to existing conceptions of this relationship by considering variety within rebel governance, creating potential for capturing meaningful differences in the character of governance across conflicts, and the impact it may have on the reality of armed conflict in civil war. As rebel groups provide governance, they challenge the legitimacy that governments draw from being the sole provider of governance within a set territory. When rebel control is legitimized through governance, they may find violence a less necessary mechanism of asserting 4 authority and control over civilians. Existing conflict literature points to rebel groups who provide rebel governance as less likely to employ extreme forms of violence against civilians.1 This study will build on this stream of rebel governance literature by considering (1) whether restraint in using extreme violence necessarily translates to less violent conflicts, and (2) whether particular functions of governance are especially effective at reducing conflict violence, asking: How does the character of rebel governance used by rebel groups impact their use of violence against civilians? The findings of this study were three-fold. First, quantitative analysis using disaggregated data on rebel governance found rebel governance to be positively related to conflict violence. The character of rebel governance did in fact matter - rebel groups who provided social services, including healthcare, education, and humanitarian relief, were most strongly associated with higher conflict violence. The total number of governance functions provided by rebels was also found to be to positively related to conflict violence. These primary findings indicate that rebel governance does not make conflicts less violent, even if existing literature indicates that rebel groups providing governance employ less extreme forms of violence. Second, qualitative analysis of the case of the LTTE found violence and coercion to be a necessary condition for rebel governance. More violent groups can more easily push civilians to accept rebel rule and service provision, allowing for longer-lasting and more expansive rebel governance. Finally, and most importantly, qualitative evidence suggested that rebel groups that do not have to choose between rebel governance and military advancement due to resource or capacity limitations, can partake in widespread governance and intense armed warfare simultaneously. Ultimately, the findings indicate that, contrary to existing understandings of rebel governance, rebel violence 1 Extreme violence defined as massacres, scorched earth policies, deliberating bombing or shelling of civilian targets, and forced expulsions as per Stanton (2016). 5 and rebel governance are not zero-sum. Governance can exist alongside violence, be reinforced by it, serve as a conduit for it, or fulfil a strategic role within broader military aims or objectives. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Social order in civil war Civil war is commonly defined in conflict literature as “armed combat within the boundaries of a recognized sovereign entity, between parties subject to a common authority at the outset of the hostilities” (Kalyvas 2006, 5). In civil war, parties are in fundamental political disagreement (Arjona, Kasfir, and Mampilly 2015, 2), and engage in protracted violence with the goal of obtaining or maintaining political and territorial control (Kasfir 2015, 24). Rebel groups ranging from former military, to guerillas, and other combatants violently oppose the state government and its armed forces. Conventional understandings of conflict often inaccurately characterize rebel warfare as unbridled violence taking place in the foreground of a disorderly conflict. In reality, violence and order can, and do, coexist in civil war. Easier access to civilian resources, support, and recruits serves as an incentive for rebel groups to provide some semblance of wartime social order (Arjona 2016, 50). In doing so, they gain an advantage in competing against the state government in a process of state-building (Kalyvas 2006, 218; Stewart 2018). To understand the role of rebels in relation to wartime social order, it is necessary to first uncover how they interact with civilian societies. 2.2 Rebel governance Rebel governance is a specific rebel-civilian sociopolitical relationship in which rebel groups participate in the administration of civilian affairs. Rebel governance is a historically present and common phenomenon, with most rebel groups dedicating a portion of their resources to some form of governance (Kasfir 2015, 26; Mampilly 2015, 2). Rebel governance can range from 6 “creating minimal regulations and informal taxation to forming popular assemblies, elaborate bureaucracies, schools, courts, and health clinics” (Arjona, Kasfir, and Mampilly 2015, 1). In a seminal work on the phenomenon, Kasfir outlines three necessary conditions for rebel governance: (1) control of territory, (2) a civilian population residing within said territory, and (3) violence or the ongoing threat of violence (Kasfir 2015, 21). Naturally, there is great diversity and creativity in rebel governance, both across groups, and within the same group over time (Arjona, Kasfir, and Mampilly 2015, 18; Mampilly and Stewart 2021, 8). For rebel groups, rebel governance serves two key purposes. First, it creates potential for garnering civilian compliance and cooperation in a way that reconciles domination with consent (Loyle 2021, 108; Mampilly 2015, 13). Many scholars present rebel governance as a particular type of social contract specific to the context of civil war (Arjona 2016; Grynkewich 2008; Wickham-Crowley 2015). On one hand, rebel groups may rely exclusively on violence as means of obtaining what they need from civilians. On the other, civilians may voluntarily provide support or resources to rebels in exchange for a service of value. Rebel governance occupies a place between these two extremes, where voluntary civilian obedience is present alongside some level of rebel coercion and violence. Civilians can participate in rebel governance to serve personal interests such as financial gain, because they have been convinced by rebel revolutionary rhetoric, or to ensure their own safety (Kasfir 2015, 32). Second, rebel governance allows rebels to delegitimize state authority over civilians. Successful governance can persuade civilians to cease or reduce collaboration with the state government