Legitimizing Power: Anarchy vs. Hierarchy

• In Event: Advances in the Study of Rebel Governance

Abstract

Recent scholarship has studied rebel-to-civilian interactions related to the concept of “rebel of governance”. This study expands the literature on rebel governance by looking at the interactions between armed group(s) and their target state(s). In this paper, we analyze the effects of wartime interactions between insurgents and their target states on rebel governance. The minimum condition of rebel governance is territorial control and it is expected that states would fight hard with rebels, which have or try to obtain territorial control. We argue that the interaction is not always conflictual; but occasionally involve bargaining. Whether a rebel group has leverage over government in bargaining is a function of its ability to legitimize its power over the domestic audience. We argue that in a democratic or semi-democratic setting, rebels are better able to legitimate their power if they develop a hierarchical relationship with their target states. On the other hand, they are more likely to do so in authoritarian settings if they manage to develop such relations characterized by anarchy. Considering that rebels with territorial claims are competing their target state for the provision of basic collective good; i.e. security, anarchy refers to parallel existence of rebels as security providers whereas hierarchy means that rebels exist in cooperation with the central government and does not necessarily compete against it. We use large-N and case study analysis to test these propositions.

Author

• Belgin San-Akca, Koç University