Reconceptualizing Governing Authority in Civil War: The Syrian Case

• In Event: State-Armed Group Relations: Cooperation, Conflict, and Cooptation

Abstract

In this paper, we expose the conceptual limits and empirical improbabilities of the Weberian ideal of rational legitimacy (i.e. capable, law-abiding bureaucracy and service delivery) as an object for rebel rulers. Based on our analysis of data collected in four contested communities in 2014-2016 Syria, we point, instead, to the possibilities offered by a different outcome: institutional closeness. Given the struggle and strife of life during war, a governor’s capacity to connect to citizens is paramount in the production of credible governing authority. Inspired by Tilly’s work on war-making and state-making and Ibn Khaldun’s on dynastic politics, we argue that this kind of authoritative intimacy is not about control nor capacity but, rather, a set of connective commonalities that can bind people to their governors amidst profound change and uncertainty. This outcome reflects the distinct texture and telos of counter-state-building and reveals the limits of foreign intervention, which so often preferences a logic of rationalized service delivery.

Authors

• Dipali Mukhopadhyay, Columbia University

• Kimberly Howe, Tufts University