How to build a State in a non State environment?

[davidbfpo]

Slightly adapted from a post by M-A Lagrange, after a Santa Claus discussion:

When you try to build a state from scratch, like in Afghanistan or Sudan (different setting, context, history... all agreed in advance), is dictatorship a necessary path or just the wall we all end up hitting?

The point was that despite using the democratic tool box, what ever the example you look at closely, you always end in a fake state (most of the time with a military like dictatorship or, at the best, a kleptocracy).

[Bob's World]

Regardless of how one slices the problem, or names the slices, "job one" for any government is to establish and maintain the perception in the populace they seek to govern of their right, their legitimacy, to govern.
Tactics, capabilities and capacities for the "establish" mission are going to be significantly different than those required for the "maintain" mission.

Any time a government rides to power on the back of some greater, intervening power, it is highly unlikely to be perceived as legitimate in the eyes of the populace or the vanquished pre-existing power, either one. We ignore that messy little fact and go straight to the "maintain" mission with pop-centric COIN.

This is the core problem with pop-centric COIN (Galula) vs threat-centric COIN (Tranquier), is that both are efforts to manage the symptoms of natural resistance to illegitimate government, coupled with little effort and no intent to ever address that base problem of illegitimacy. In fact, the primary purpose for such intervention is to create an illegitimate government that will prioritize the interests of the intervening power over those of their own people and nation.

It like asking the populace if they would like to be punched in the balls with an Iron Fist, or a Velvet one? Would you like to live in an Iron Cage, or a Golden one? Just because one is preferred to the other, does not mean that either is going to be welcomed as an acceptable solution to the challenge of governance.

Pop-Centric COIN is no more, and no less, than just one more chapter on tactics in how to implement Colonial COIN. How to create and sustain illegitimate government over others to serve one's own interests there.

It is time to evolve away from Colonial COIN, and maybe we had to go through this phase to get to true change, but know that we are not there yet.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Bob,

I think we try to project our concepts of governance onto societies that do have the same needs and desire. In many places and throughout much of history the Right to govern simply meant that you were more powerful than the other competitors. I don't mean power to subdue the populace but the power to provide for the populace. The description of the Khan in Jon W. Anderson's "There Are No Khāns Anymore: Economic Development and Social Change in Tribal Afghanistan" indicates a level of pre-state and even pre-monarchical society that are looking for something completely different from what we are trying to force down there throats. More of a patron-client relationship and more on a local level. We keep trying to establish a State where the concept of a State is a relatively recent development.

Besides the problem of the level of needs of the society there is major problem we have in Afghanistan is that there is no economic base. What you really have there now is a rentier society living not off the "rents" from a natural resource like oil but from external aid. It is not sustainable. A State requires a certain level of economic development. I don't see that in Afghanistan. Unless we decide to suddenly legalize heroin.

Without trying to go through the entire process of governance I want to propose a completely different alternative - why don't we simply establish a protectorate. We will provide protection from outside invasion; we will reserve the right to go in and attack any element that we determine is a threat to our security interests, but other than that we let the populace develop their own governance.

[Stan]

Besides the problem of the level of needs of the society there is major problem we have in Afghanistan is that there is no economic base. What you really have there now is a rentier society living not off the "rents" from a natural resource like oil but from external aid. It is not sustainable. A State requires a certain level of economic development. I don't see that in Afghanistan. Unless we decide to suddenly legalize heroin.

Probably of minor debate herein, but didn't some USG entity or US Company consider buying-up their poppy to create bio fuel? It was in the local German newspaper for September together with a story about the Taliban destroying saffron plants and shipments, thus forcing the farmers to grow more poppy.

The same article indicating that Afghan security is being partially funded (squandered) by aid budgets?

Without trying to go through the entire process of governance I want to propose a completely different alternative - why don't we simply establish a protectorate. We will provide protection from outside invasion; we will reserve the right to go in and attack any element that we determine is a threat to our security interests, but other than that we let the populace develop their own governance.

Intriguing idea ! The arms and diamond dealers in Sub-Sahara came to the same conclusions and hired the very people out to rob them blind. On the surface it worked very well for several years, but how quickly things went Tango Uniform when there was a salary cut and further local currency devaluations.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Intriguing idea ! The arms and diamond dealers in Sub-Sahara came to the same conclusions and hired the very people out to rob them blind. On the surface it worked very well for several years, but how quickly things went Tango Uniform when there was a salary cut and further local currency devaluations.

I am not as certain that the protectorate idea works as well where there is an economic resource available. If an economic base is available its development has to be part of solution, but each situation is different.

I don't necessarily have a problem of paying people not to attack you. It worked for me while building a road in Afghanistan. The problem is exactly what you described - what happens when you take that money away. As long as you are paying them, pay them for something that builds the infrastructure or the economic base. I know that sounds simplistic but it is what I think needs to happen.

[TheCurmudgeon]

First, I want to reiterate that creating a state may not be what is really what we need to do. That being said, I will now try to work through what it might take to create a government where none exists.

The foundation of governance, in my mind, is loyalty of the people in exchange for goods and services provided by the leadership. When stripped down to the basics, that is what I believe you will find. If you start there I think you can build up. Starting at the local level, building a system of patronage, you can create a federation. The federation then is the nucleolus of the government.

I also feel you need to separate the idea of governance and rule of law. They are not the same thing. Many kings have ruled without the rule of law. That is a concept that underlies democratic governments not governments in general.

First, you have to establish what is there. Is it an ungoverned territory, a tribal society with limited or no history of central government, an area with some history of central government (maybe a monarchy) but is currently unstable, an area with an established state government but that has failed, an area with an established and functioning central government but is involved in a civil war, or an established government that has an active insurgency. What exists that we can start with.

Then determine what systems still exist - what is the economic base of the society; what is the level of the infrastructure; what government exists or has existed in the past; what loyalty systems exist, what patronage systems exists; what are the current threats to the society (or to our security), what is their goal and who is supporting them? All this should be determined as best as possible before the operation even starts.

Usually security will be the first order of business when we hit the ground but this may not always be the case. Ungoverned or tribal areas may not really need security, A failed state probably will.

With the base concept that governance is based on loyalty in exchange for goods and services provided, the next step is to determine what the people want and need. Do they need security from the threat of death. Do they need a place to live. Do they need food. Do they need a job and economic security. Do they need to feel like they are part of something bigger and pride in who they are. Do they need a say in their government. Do they need freedom. Everyone in the society may not need the same thing and giving someone the right to vote may not mean much if they have no job. I remember a quote once that was something like "Freedom of the press means nothing when your belly is empty."

Everything beyond security is beyond what the military is historically trained to do. What is will take to go down this road will be an organization that does not exist with a doctrine that has not been developed.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World,

This is the core problem with pop-centric COIN (Galula) vs threat-centric COIN (Tranquier), is that both are efforts to manage the symptoms of natural resistance to illegitimate government, coupled with little effort and no intent to ever address that base problem of illegitimacy. In fact, the primary purpose for such intervention is to create an illegitimate government that will prioritize the interests of the intervening power over those of their own people and nation.

Bob's post provoked some rather old thoughts. First we're terribly concerned about legitimacy and related ideas, as though there existed somewhere in history a legitimate government that was never opposed by its people or neighbors. We tend to imply in our remarks that all illegitimacy is imposed by the modern West on the developing world. Yet history tells us that in all these lands (even before they were states) people were in nearly continuous states of conflict. We didn't introduce violence and conflict into these lands, it already existed, why? It wasn't to oust an occupier. It wasn't to oust a form of illegitimate government. They were conflicts about power, greed and identity (fear).

Democracy as practiced today is an advanced form of governance that attempts to mitigate the forces of power, greed and identity, but it only appears to work in countries where the masses are educated and share what can probably be called Judeo-Christian values.

Getting back to the topic of the post, there may well be times when it is appropriate to be cruel to be kind by establishing a dictatorship to bring some level of order (predictability) to society so it can begin to develop. In my view our attempts to force our form of government on other nations has generally backfired and resulted in several needless deaths to no discernable end. Germany was a democracy before we occupied it, so we just returned it to its previous state after eradicating the Nazi influence.

I really don't know if a dictatorship is required as a first step to develop a state from a non-state, but the evidence is pretty clear that imposing democracy on developing nations or non-states doesn't tend to work out too well.

[Stan]

First, you have to establish what is there. Is it an ungoverned territory, a tribal society with limited or no history of central government, an area with some history of central government (maybe a monarchy) but is currently unstable, an area with an established state government but that has failed, an area with an established and functioning central government but is involved in a civil war, or an established government that has an active insurgency. What exists that we can start with.

Then determine what systems still exist - what is the economic base of the society; what is the level of the infrastructure; what government exists or has existed in the past; what loyalty systems exist, what patronage systems exists; what are the current threats to the society (or to our security), what is their goal and who is supporting them? All this should be determined as best as possible before the operation even starts.

Very well written. I think you'll find that very same guidance has been around for quite a while. Suffices to say, that with proper resources and the expertise in that area most categories will be easy to ascertain. However and on to your last, probably better to bet on the fact you (the US Military) will be at it alone for a lot longer than estimated, and better to count on no help in the interim.

Everything beyond security is beyond what the military is historically trained to do. What is will take to go down this road will be an organization that does not exist with a doctrine that has not been developed.

Concur. But, historically speaking (my time) we were always first to arrive and normally without support from DART and AID agencies that tend to deal with disaster-size problems. Don't sell us short just yet. We have plenty of talented soldiers from every walk of life with a wealth of backgrounds and experience. Doctrine sadly ends up being developed and fielded based on failures. At the very least, doctrine ends up being developed from lessons learned in the field... Not a bad start and certainly better that some politician's dream of what the military should now be responsible for !

[Bob's World]

I was doodling some thoughts this morning on this dynamic, and this is an effort to organize them visually. The idea being that there is a zone of "purgatory" that occurs between the time that old forms of governance are "defeated" (that could be a Genghis-like effort to consolidate governance over a state-less region of tribal centers of governance or it could be an intervention such as the US most recently in Iraq or Afghanistan) and such time as the new government comes to be accepted by their own populace (and similarly by neighboring governments and populaces as well). This acceptance being broadly described as "Legitimacy."

I think one major handicap to current US operations is that we don't fully recognize or appreciate this zone of Purgatory, or how the very fact of our intervention makes such a purgatory even stronger and more difficult to overcome.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Concur. But, historically speaking (my time) we were always first to arrive and normally without support from DART and AID agencies that tend to deal with disaster-size problems. Don't sell us short just yet. We have plenty of talented soldiers from every walk of life with a wealth of backgrounds and experience. Doctrine sadly ends up being developed and fielded based on failures. At the very least, doctrine ends up being developed from lessons learned in the field... Not a bad start and certainly better that some politician's dream of what the military should now be responsible for !

I realize that we are capable of this. We (the military) may be the ONLY organization capable of this, but not with the current mindset. I remember seeing a piece on TED by Thomas Barnett about forming a Department of Everything Else. I have come to agree with that assessment. But even with that force you need a doctrine that understands how to build a functioning government out of what exists on the ground - not try to create little western democracies everywhere. (I have always found it fascinating that the organization called upon to export democracy is non-democratic).

A large part of the current military seems torn between embracing the idea of Establishing Stable States as a mission and those that feel that fighting and winning the nation's high intensity conflicts is where our mission ends. Even those who embrace the idea are hamstrung by limited doctrine beyond COIN.

I am not an old SF soldier, but my understanding of the old SF mission was to help insurgencies and train fledgling foreign paramilitaries. I did not think it included the more recent addition of Civil Affairs. I could be wrong. In any case, even current Civil Affairs seems to have no clear doctrine beyond an attempt to replicate the governance systems and infrastructure of a western democracy. Again, I could be wrong.