UNISCI Discussion Papers ISSN: 1696-2206 [email protected] Universidad Complutense de Madrid España de Simone, Sara POST-CONFLICT DECENTRALIZATION: DYNAMICS OF LAND AND POWER IN UNITY STATE - SOUTH SUDAN UNISCI Discussion Papers, núm. 33, octubre-, 2013, pp. 35-55 Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=76728723004 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 33 (Octubre / October 2013) ISSN 1696-2206 POST-CONFLICT DECENTRALIZATION: DYNAMICS OF LAND AND POWER IN UNITY STATE – SOUTH SUDAN Sara de Simone 1 University of Naples L’Orientale Abstract: Decentralized state-building in post-conflict settings is believed to bring about a number of positive outcomes that range from increased government accountability and local participation, to internal stability thanks to higher opportunity of political engagement. South Sudan is currently undertaking a decentralization process supported by international organizations through the institutionalization of the local administration system shaped during the war in SPLM controlled areas. Through the analysis of Unity State case study, this article shows how, despite being at a very initial phase, local government reforms in South Sudan are producing new localized disputes over access to resources that articulate themselves as border disputes. These disputes ultimately revolve around the access to resources, but also keep a tribal characteristic due to the overlapping of customary and administrative domains that entrenches local perceptions of access to land and services being granted based on tribal affiliation. Keywords: South Sudan, Decentralization, Internal Borders, Resources Access. Resumen: Se cree que la construcción estatal descentralizada en escenarios post-conflicto trae consigo, gracias a la mayor oportunidad de participación política, una serie de resultados positivos que van desde un aumento de los mecanismos gubernamentales de rendición de cuentas y de la participación local hasta la estabilidad interna. Sudán del Sur está llevando a cabo actualmente, con el apoyo de organizaciones internacionales, un proceso de descentralización a través de la institucionalización del sistema de administración local configurado durante la guerra en las zonas controladas por el MLPS. Mediante el análisis del Estado de Unidad como estudio de caso este artículo muestra cómo, a pesar de estar en una fase muy inicial, las reformas del gobierno local en Sudán del Sur están produciendo nuevos conflictos localizados por el acceso a los recursos que se articulan como disputas fronterizas. Estas disputas giran en última instancia en torno al acceso a los recursos, pero también mantienen características tribales debido a la superposición de los ámbitos consuetudinarios y administrativos, lo cual afianza la percepción local de que el acceso a la tierra y a los servicios se otorga en función de la afiliación tribal. Palabras clave: Sudán del Sur, descentralización, fronteras interiores, acceso a los recursos. Copyright © UNISCI, 2013. Las opiniones expresadas en estos artículos son propias de sus autores, y no reflejan necesariamente la opinión de UNISCI. The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of UNISCI 1 Sara de Simone is a PhD candidate in African Studies at University of Naples L’Orientale, Department of Asia, Africa and Mediterranean. She holds a Master Degree in Development Studies and started to work on local conflict management in South Sudan in 2010. Her main research areas are: local governance, decentralization, local conflict management. She can be reached at [email protected]. Department of Asia, Africa e Mediterranean, University of Naples L’Orientale, Palazzo Corigliano, Piazza S. Domenico Maggiore 12, 5th floor -80134 Napoli. 35 UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 33 (Octubre / October 2013) ISSN 1696-2206 1. Introduction After the end of the Cold War, peace-building has increasingly been understood as a “multifaceted” liberal project, whose aim is not only to promote a “negative peace”, 2 but also to address root causes of conflicts seen as stemming from poverty, underdevelopment and the states’ lack of capacity of keeping security under control. 3 This convergence of the peace, security and development agendas 4 gained even more strength after 11/09/2001, with US pivotal role in emphasizing the importance of democracy and good governance. Literature on state failure usually assumes that a functioning state should be able to monopolize the means of violence, control its territory and population, keep diplomatic relations with other states, deliver services to its citizens and promote economic growth. 5 However, critical literature opposing what is considered to be an ethnocentric top-down approach to statehood in the developing world has emerged both in the domain of Peace Studies, with a wide number of contributions on the “local” agency and hybridization processes, 6 and in African Studies, where many scholars have claimed that this perspective fails to capture real local dynamics of organization in African States and societies whose outcome can sometimes seem at odds with western standards.7 This notwithstanding, the policy-making domain is still widely dominated by a technical approach to state-building, focusing on institution-building. During the ’90s and early 2000s, increasing awareness of the failures of central government institution-building pushed international actors to reformulate the discourse on state-building through the democracy – good governance lens. Democratic decentralization, in opposition to deconcentration brought about by structural adjustment programs (SAPs) in the 80s, gained prominence as a tool for promoting effective local governance, development and peace. 8 Notwithstanding international discourses on local participation and ownership, as well as on the importance of context-specific approaches, the focus remains on local institution- building and legal frameworks 9, again often failing to consider the socio-political realities on 2 Negative peace is generally understood as “absence of collective violence”. For an analysis of negative and positive forms of peace see Galtung, Johan (1967): Theories of Peace: A Synthetic Approach to Peace Thinking, unpublished, p.12, available at http://www.transcend.org/files/Galtung_Book_unpub_Theories_of_Peace_- _A_Synthetic_Approach_to_Peace_Thinking_1967.pdf. 3 Newman, Edward; Paris, Roland; Richmond, Oliver P. (eds.) (2009): New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding, Tokyo/New York, United Nations University Press. 4 Duffield, Mark (2001): Global Governance and the new Wars: The Merging of Development and Security, London/New York, Zed Books. 5 Helman, Gerald B. and Ratner, Steven R.: “Saving Failed States”, Foreign Policy, nº89 (December 1992), pp. 3-20; Rotberg, Robert I.: “Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators” in Rotberg, Robert I. (ed.) (2003): State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror , Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press; Eizenstat, Stuart E.; Porter, John E. and Weinstein, Jeremy M.: “Rebuilding Weak States”, Foreign Affairs , vol. 84, nº1 (January 2005), pp. 134-147. 6 Richmond, Oliver P. (2011): A Post-Liberal Peace , Oxon/New York, Routledge; Newman E. et al., op. cit . 7 Bayart, Jean-François: “L’historicité de l’Etat importé”, Les Cahiers du CERI, nº15 (1996), available at http://www.sciencespo.fr/ceri/sites/sciencespo.fr.ceri/files/cahier15.pdf; Chabal, Patrick and Daloz, Jean-Pascal (1999): Africa Works: Disorder as a Political Instrument , Oxford, James Currey. 8 Olowu, Dele and Wunsch, James S. (eds.) (2004): Local Governance in Africa : The Challenges of Democratic Decentralization , Boulder, Lynne Rienner. 9 UNDP: “Decentralised Governance for Development: A Combined Practice Note on Decentralisation, Local Governance and Urban/Rural Development” (April 2004), available at http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/democratic-governance/dg-publications- for-website/decentralised-governance-for-development-a-combined-practice-note-on-decentralisation-local- governance-and-urban-rural-development/DLGUD_PN_English.pdf;USAID: “Democratic Decentralization 36 UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 33 (Octubre / October 2013) ISSN 1696-2206 the ground, the modes of interaction between political elites and their constituencies and the areas of tension that may (and almost surely do) exist in post-conflict contexts. South Sudan has entered the post-conflict phase with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 after a decade long peace process strongly supported by the international community. International partners still have a huge presence and an important role in supporting the country’s peace-building and state-building effort in a number of sectors that range from security sector reform to the rule of law and from fiscal arrangements to local government empowerment. This paper will show that a form of decentralized state-building in a context where formal state structures at a local level did not previously exist needs to start from the delimitation of territorial units. The specific history of an area, together with legal provisions