Wartime Rebel Service Provision and State Legitimacy

• In Event: Explaining the Causes and Consequences of Rebel Governance

Abstract

A postconflict state often lacks a popular base of national unity because of the wartime fragmentation of sociopolitical groups. In a civil conflict, the state and rebels fight over not only military issues but also support from civilians. This weakens the state’s ability to execute reconstruction and development. To successfully rebuild the state after civil conflict, the state needs to convince the civilians that it alone has the right to rule the population and, therefore, is legitimate. State legitimacy is also important in postconflict political stability because it would prevent people from rebeling again (Gurr 1970; Idler and Forest 2015).

During a civil conflict, state legitimacy is often challenged by rebel governance that maintains order, facilitates shadow economies, and provides public goods to civilians (Arjona 2016; Arjona, Kasfir, and Mampilly 2015; Huang 2016; Kasfir 2005; Mampilly 2011; Weinstein 2007). Rebel governance tends to be legitimized when local residents are well taken care of by the rebels; consequently, the legitimacy of the state is called into question. Such a context poses the following questions: “Which political entity is viewed as correct and appropriate?” (Brinkerhoff 2010) and “Who holds real legitimacy of governance?” (Podder 2014). Because statehood is “imagined” (Kubota 2017) and “negotiated” (Hagmann and Péclard 2010) throughout the process of internal conflict, there is fluctuation in state legitimacy and the institutionalization of political authority. Given that internal conflict fragments popular support and local identity, political actors tend to expend tremendous effort to attract local populations during the civil conflict. The provision of public services is one way by which these political actors can represent themselves as part of the population and consequently expand their base of popular support. Civilians’ experience of service reception would not only influence their self-perception as stakeholders in welfare and economic development projects (Böhnke and Zürcher 2013) but also encourage them to take a stand about the current political situation (Kubota and Khan 2019). The interference of the state and rebels in local affairs helps civilians to recognize each of the actors as a sovereign ruler to whom demands and petitions should be directed and so to critique each actor’s performance. Such a scenario is especially important during wartime when livelihood resources often fall short of the usual minimum standard. It follows that the political actors who satisfactorily provide public services during hard times would be retained by civilians as legitimate rulers.

Focusing on the wartime governance of rebel actors—in particular, on service provision to civilians—this paper seeks to answer the question of why civilians’ perception of state legitimacy is impaired after civil conflict. Using novel survey data collected from the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Pakistan, the current study presents a causal relationship between the rebels’ provision of public services and state legitimacy. It argues that rebel provision of public services weakens civilians’ attitude toward state legitimacy after civil conflict. In particular, if civilians receive a wider variety of wartime services from the rebels than from the state, state legitimacy is still weakened.

Authors

• Yuichi Kubota, Nihon University

• Hidayat Ullah Khan, Abbottabad University of Science & Technology, Havelian, Abbottabad

• Takashi Kurosaki, Hitotsubashi University

• Kazuhiro Obayashi, Hitotsubashi University

• Hirotaka Ohmura