How to build a State in a non State environment?

[TheCurmudgeon]

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."

Is this part of a larger presentation or a stand alone document?

[Bob's World]

Is this part of a larger presentation or a stand alone document?

It's a snapshot of a concept that fits into much of my work. I will continue to flesh this out and integrate it.

But this covers major conflicts, such as the defeat of the Confederacy and reintegration into the Union; the defeat of Germany and Japan getting those countries back up and running as sovereigns once again. We are still in purgatory in Iraq, but seem to be close to moving into stability; it will be understanding what lends itself most to that stability and enforcing those things that will be key to continued progress. In Afghanistan we are stuck fast in Purgatory, and little of the Coalition approach to date has focused on those things that move the country forward into stability (IMO).

Every situation is unique, but this framework is intended to be generally universal. Recognizing the current operations as peacetime combat rather than wartime combat is one significant difference offered here. The other is recognizing that resistance and revolutionary push-back is natural and that focusing on addressing the issues of governance and foreign presence that feed those natural conditions are the essential tasks in getting to stability.

Instead we enabled and protect an unsustainable model of governance that codifies illegitimacy; and then work to help defeat those who actively resist; or buy off those who merely provide support or stand neutral. Such approaches may achieve a calm period of suppressed violence, but are unlikely to produce true stability, as they pointedly ignore the essential tasks.

[slapout9]

But this covers major conflicts, such as the defeat of the Confederacy

Shouldn't be spreading enemy propaganda

[TheCurmudgeon]

M-A

I checked out the site and it was pretty good. A lot of information here. I have not had a chance to work through it but it does appear to have a little more flexibility than other things I have seen. I liked "Building Peaceful States and Societies: A DFID Practice Paper" http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/CON75.pdf.

Still based off the idea of a state built on rules rather than social ties - something I would consider a more recent historical development that requires a fairly substantial economic base to achieve. It still had an "if you build it they will come" feel to it, but it spent more time trying to understand the issues that matter to the people.

I have to keep telling myself that "how to build a state in a non-state environment" is the name of the thread but it seems that we (the successful states) are forcing the lessor developed territories into a mold that requires more than they can sustain. It is expensive to keep the huge bureaucracy associated with a state (particularly its external relationships and defenses). It requires the development of a cadre of experts and bureaucrats - years of training. It requires an education system to train those experts and bureaucrats. How do you do that when you have no economic base?

It seems to me that the first mission after establishing security is establishing a functioning economic system. The government could be a caretaker system at this point working "by, with, and through" the local leadership (most likely tribal leaders at this point). Once the economic system is in place (or concurrent with its establishment) you can start to build within the limits of the capabilities of that economic system. Don't try to build a Rolls Royce when all you can afford to maintain is a Hugo.

[Bob's World]

Curmudgeon,

Instead of "how" to build a state in a non-state environment, an equally important, if not more so, question is "WHY" build a state in a non-state environment??

Many of the same regions the west agonizes over as being "non-state" or "failed state" or "ungoverned" are also the same regions that skipped generations of technology, such as landline telephones, and went straight to satellite and cellular.

As many important voices are recognizing, the world is changing, and that concepts such as "sovereignty" are evolving as well. Why would these regions, these populaces, not skip a generation of governance as well?? Perhaps, in fact, they already are and it is freaking us out.

This is one more case where making minor adaptations within ourselves is probably far more proper and effective than setting out to force major adaptations onto others.

Just a thought.

Bob

[TheCurmudgeon]

Many of the same regions the west agonizes over as being "non-state" or "failed state" or "ungoverned" are also the same regions that skipped generations of technology, such as landline telephones, and went straight to satellite and cellular.

Reminds me of the advantage of backwardness:

From time to time during the last seventy years, students of societal development have proposed some version of what has come to be known as the "advantage of backwardness" hypothesis (e.g., Service; Spencer; Trotsky; Veblen). Reduced to barest essentials, this hypothesis asserts that less developed societies sometimes enjoy advantages that allow them to overtake more developed societies at a later date. Proponents of this hypothesis have noted that societies that pioneer in the development of new technoeconomic systems have to pay the sometimes heavy costs of innovation (i.e., the costs of "research and development"). More important still, they become committed by heavy capital investments to early forms of the new technology that may soon be surpassed. In contrast, their more backward competitors avoid the costs of research and development and are freer to adopt later and more advanced forms of the technology when they appear.

(Patrick D. Nolan and Gerhard Lenski, Technoeconomic Heritage, Patterns of Development, and the Advantage of Backwardness Social Forces, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Dec., 1985), pp. 341-358, p. 341)

I understand the idea in theory, but still think it requires an economic base. It also seems to be more closely associate with technology than with political organizations. Maybe I have been reading too much Materialism theory trying to get to the basics of what governments have to provide to be seen as legitimate. In any case, there must be another model that can be developed. Something less than a state but more than chaos.

[Bob's World]

Well, when one maps out "failed states" they typically occur where some colonial western power has sought to impose a foreign concept of governance onto a populace with no historical or cultural foundation for the same. Then we accuse these same disrupted people of being "failed" once that colonial influence withdraws and leaves them to their own devices.

By focusing less on creating "states" and more on empowering the development of workable solutions to governance, tailored by region, populace, culture (I believe this is called "Self-determination" and was once highly regarded as a noble concept in America), we get to better results.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Instead of "how" to build a state in a non-state environment, an equally important, if not more so, question is "WHY" build a state in a non-state environment??

I actually think that is the what we ourselves don't understand. Why are we doing this. Is it for our own security? Is it to promote a political agenda like exporting democracy? Is it to extend human rights to places where they have not existed before? Is it to gain access to natural resources or preclude a potential adversary from the same? Is it all of the above?

Back to the problem of mission creep. What is the FINAL objective or do we even know what it is?

Again, off topic - so I will cease and desist my rant.