Truly excellent post, Dayuhan.
Truly excellent post, Dayuhan.
Steve,
As Ken has noted your preceding post is indeed an excellent one and there is much wisdom in it, however, let's examine it further (And Ken, to echo one of your earlier posts today…what you think is of interest... metrics! That should do it )
The term sets up a number of expectations on all sides of the process and does not fully help, as much as we might like, to bridge the gap between the on the ground realities we find and the desired outcomes-oftentimes developed in places far away. Nonetheless, I do not yet have a better term (the term nation cultivation will not survive the testosterone laden DoD marketplace of terms and acronyms); perhaps we can find something better if we get a chance to read works from all of the development authors/theorists/contributors mentioned by M.A. Lagrange in his posts - or if he chimes in and helps out
Walt Whitman Rostow - Rostovian Take-off Model
Immanuel Wallerstein-The Modern World System
Samir Amin-Theory of Centre and Periphery
Giovanni Arrighi-World Systems
Hans Singer-Raul Prebisch-Dependency Theory
Alexander Gerschenkron-Backwardness Model
There are many truths here, and I like the tree analogy because it helps one to think about the types of consistent conditions, which are needed for growth, as well as why one must pair realistic time-spans/schedules with achievable results. The disconnect between wishing for/planning for/advertising a cash crop before an orchard can physically produce it is something that does not require a grounding in nation building, state building, or development work to understand.
Following our tree analogy, there are some places that will most certainly require additional water and soil additives in order to grow a ‘democracy tree’ and even with additional long-term care there are some environments that may not be able to support that particular type of tree. IMHO economics, in particular some form of capitalism, help to set the conditions for sustainable growth and are a more realistic place to focus efforts upon before planting a 'democracy tree'.
A too literal application of the engineering method/attitude is certainly something to be guarded against. One could argue that favoring an interdisciplinary approach, perhaps having/seeking a grounding in biology, business, and engineering, or engaging in kayaking or surfing are potential pathways to develop/increase/reinforce one’s awareness of the need to seek balance in all things.
Having spent some time studying Germanic and Roman history & culture I would tend to agree with many of your points. As an observational aside, have you been following the current political machinations with respect to the IHEC decision in Iraq? I wonder how these events are/will impact the Sunni component of the military and militias; Dr. Charles Tripp’s descriptions of the influence the military had upon the political landscape in Iraq during July 1958 and February 1963 make for interesting reading and comparison.
A successful balanced approach might indeed include an engineering approach/methodology and business approach/methodology component in the response. (apparently I am outta my allotment of wry smiles, nonetheless one has been placed here due to the one dimensional commo method we use)
Although I agree with your much of your concept, it will need a stronger term or acronym in order to both survive and generate interest in the testosterone laden DoD marketplace of ideas. The myriad aspects of the commonly heard phrase ‘carnivore vs. herbivore thinking’ both make me smile and think about how to find needed balance.
Omnivore thinking?
Last edited by Surferbeetle; 01-19-2010 at 07:44 AM.
Sapere Aude
This is true, and is one more reason why expecting DoD to effectively promote the development of states, nations, or economies makes about as much sense as expecting development professionals to fight a war.
Perhaps indeed, though it's a fair haul from development theory to effective practice.
I like the analogy because most of us understand viscerally and intellectually, that you have to have a sapling before you have a tree. We're too often inclined to think of building national institutions before we have a nation, or building democracy before we have a government, or of trying to put a fully functioning government in place all at once instead of trying to plant a seed and give irt space to grow.
The economic side is certainly important, but very difficult to bring beyond a rudimentary level without some basic framework of at least local governance. Even on the most minimal level it's hard to justify investing capital or sweat when it's only going to make you a target for people who want a piece of whatever you've got.
Kayaking and surfing are not a bad place to start: you learn the importance of balance and you learn to work with the prevailing forces of nature instead of trying to control them... aside from being just cooler than everybody else.
To me we need to choose our battles better and choose our entry points better. There are environments and times when all the art and science, craft and resources we can apply are not going to achieve the desired goal... sometimes the only available response to a request for directions is on the order of "Caint git thar from here, best go back where y'all started from and try agin".
On a large scale, yes, omnivore thinking. Also it pays to send your carnivores when there's hunting to be done, to send in your herbivores when there's crops to be nuruered, and to remember which is which. Above all, whether it's meat or veg, don't bite off what you can't chew, because if you do you can choke on it. Of course now that's exactly the position we're in: we took way too big a bite, we can't chew it, we can't swallow it, and we can't spit it out. I wish I had something to suggest beyond pointing out that we might have thought twice before biting it off in the first place, but I'm afraid I don't.
I fully agree with Dayuhan, building a Nation is a myth. But building a State apparatus is possible. This does not mean it would be a success according to Western standards.
This being said, let’s look at the roots of the tree before commenting how the tree grows:
Let’s drop the Fukuyama and other Marxist theories on what are State and their capitalistic predatory ambitions.
We need here first to agree on what we are talking about: State apparatus.
What is a State, what are the basements and what are the role of administrations into it.
First, I will take the Clausewitz trinity of our beloved brother Wilf:
People, Leadership and Armed Force
A group of people, with a leader and the capacity to be organised to use violence to defend their land: a Cite (in Greek in the text).
Here lay the roots of a country, a state, a nation….
On this, I would recommend Aristotle, Hobbes and Locke… To end up with Rousseau.
Now, this leads us to what are the various kind of civil societies (knowing the fact that by this term we include military dictatorship, kingdoms… All kinds of societies which are not lead by civilians).
1) the societies without State (Stateless societies, Non State societies):
The most well known example are the Nuer from Sudan. Cf: E. E. Evans-Pritchard
In those kinds of societies, social hierarchy is low, power is not centralized and not structured through a centralized administration or proto administration. Authority is hold by family chiefs or elders or religious leaders.
Moral and religion are used as law or legal referent to sanction deviances, non respects of Tabou…
Such societies are centered on survival of the group.
Actual good example is Somalia. It is also the type of organization to which de regulated, and dismantled societies tend to go back in failed states during civil wars or more generally when the State (as an administration) is absent.
Such societies are seen by Hobbes as the Human Nature: the war of all against all. It’s the western imaginary “savage society”. (by the way, to me it’s much closer to Locke than Hobbes).
What in western politic has long been assimilated to anarchy (See Anarchy ) but is not, especially in traditional societies (See all theanthropoly in Africa, Oceania, South America…).
2) the societies with State:
The societies with Sate, at least the modern ones are based on Max Weber definition of the State.
Weber unveils the definition of the state that has become so pivotal to Western social thought: that the state is that entity which possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force
Weber distinguished three pure types of political leadership, domination and authority:
1. charismatic domination (familial and religious),
2. traditional domination (patriarchs, patrimonalism, feudalism), and
3. legal domination (modern law and state, bureaucracy).[56]
In his view, every historical relation between rulers and ruled contained such elements and they can be analysed on the basis of this tripartite distinction.[57] He also notes that the instability of charismatic authority inevitably forces it to "routinize" into a more structured form of authority. Likewise he notes that in a pure type of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a master can lead to a "traditional revolution". Thus he alludes to an inevitable move towards a rational-legal structure of authority, utilising a bureaucratic structure.[58] Thus this theory can be sometimes viewed as part of the social evolutionism theory. This ties to his broader concept of rationalisation by suggesting the inevitability of a move in this direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
So State building is building legal domination according to Weber classification.
This is the base of JMM99 three areas schema you can access here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7610).
The actual model of this are the USA, all European countries, Asian, South American countries… All modern states. But there is sometimes a difference between those Nations. The “orthodox” Rule of Law State build Nation being USA. Mainy European countries are based on a social contract that is declined into rule of law… (slice difference but makes all the difference in fact).
This is entirely based on western societies, by the way. And this is what State Building is willing to achieve. But may be this should be called Administration Building. But this is also where the bias is.
Several challenges are to be faced. The following list is not exhaustive, far from it.
For this, I will use first a Kilcullen article published in SWJ (New Paradigms for 21st Century Conflicts http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...-21st-century/).
Similarly, we traditionally conduct state-based diplomacy through engagement with elites of other societies: governments, intelligentsia, and business leaders, among others. The theory is that problems can be resolved when elites agree, cooler heads prevail, and governments negotiate and then enforce agreements. Notions of sovereignty, the nation-state, treaty regimes, and international institutions all build on this paradigm.
What he points out is the fact that to build a new partner, we need to have an Elite to discuss with. We need to replace an Elite by another. So State building is not just administration building but it’s also elite capacity building.
The problematic often face is then that you have a competition on legitimacy, at field level, between Non State Elites and formal State Elites. Especially when State building aim is to build a “Nation” ex nihilo.
Secondly, I will use the very recent work of Atlani-Duault on former USSR countries and culture. Basically, her work is based on the idea that to counter USSR authoritarian regime, West has been developing the concept of civil society and culture. The main idea is that during Cold war culture has been used to build civil society and a new Elite that would fight the communists. Now days, this has become an habit in State Building to look for civil society and create, even sometimes ex nihilo, a civilian Elite that would challenge the military/political power in failed States. The UN came even with the concept of non educated intellectuals….
The bias it creates is that we are looking to create spontaneous generation of Elites. In many Stabilization or State building manuals this has became: empowering local authorities. Hopefully, several of those manual are pointing the limits of the exercise.
So State building is creating a body we can talk with because it looks like us.
Nation Building is creating an Administration body that can think by herself. That does take time, especially as we do not always this to happen.
What Sufferedbeetle is referring to in previous post is the end or the aim of the administration and more precisely Governance. We tend too much to mix Governance and State building.
The role of democracy in modern State Building is central as several attempts of non democratic States have been made in the past, with various results.
The 70th werethe golden years of enlightened dictatorships. This had a very good result in Asia in the 80th. Unfortunately, as the democratic transition was too quick, brutal or simply too late, this is the roots causes of the radicalisation of religious opposition in many of those countries.
I Africa, this was a complete disaster since the beginning.
Nowadays, we try to dress it with the apparence of democracy in conducting elections giving choice to the people only to a panel of Elites coming from the civil society we (the West) have created or supported. We will see the result in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan… The previous results in DRC are not so much encouraging, I would say.
Then comes the problematic of integrating armed groups into a civilian structure… South America has been an interesting laboratory on this. The main tool being amnesty laws and elections…. With various results once again.
And finally how to fund a State admnistration or how countries do fund they develpment.
As JMM pointed out, for practical reasons, we tend to prefer to have a week dictatorship that would resist to insurgencies than a strong democracy that is too difficult to build, too time costly and weak against armed opposition.
But this just means that Nation Building needs to be rethought not that Nation Building has to be thrown away. (by the way, I have probably 8 to 12 hours difference with you guys. So do not expect me to be too much at the page immediatly ) )
I fully agree with Dayuhan, building a Nation is a myth. But building a State apparatus is possible. This does not mean it would be a success according to Western standards.
This being said, let’s look at the roots of the tree before commenting how the tree grows:
Let’s drop the Fukuyama and other Marxist theories on what are State and their capitalistic predatory ambitions.
We need here first to agree on what we are talking about: State apparatus.
What is a State, what are the basements and what are the role of administrations into it.
First, I will take the Clausewitz trinity of our beloved brother Wilf:
People, Leadership and Armed Force
A group of people, with a leader and the capacity to be organised to use violence to defend their land: a Cite (in Greek in the text).
Here lay the roots of a country, a state, a nation….
On this, I would recommend Aristotle, Hobbes and Locke… To end up with Rousseau.
Now, this leads us to what are the various kind of civil societies (knowing the fact that by this term we include military dictatorship, kingdoms… All kinds of societies which are not lead by civilians).
1) the societies without State (Stateless societies, Non State societies):
The most well known example are the Nuer from Sudan. Cf: E. E. Evans-Pritchard
In those kinds of societies, social hierarchy is low, power is not centralized and not structured through a centralized administration or proto administration. Authority is hold by family chiefs or elders or religious leaders.
Moral and religion are used as law or legal referent to sanction deviances, non respects of Tabou…
Such societies are centered on survival of the group.
Actual good example is Somalia. It is also the type of organization to which de regulated, and dismantled societies tend to go back in failed states during civil wars or more generally when the State (as an administration) is absent.
Such societies are seen by Hobbes as the Human Nature: the war of all against all. It’s the western imaginary “savage society”. (by the way, to me it’s much closer to Locke than Hobbes).
What in western politic has long been assimilated to anarchy (See Anarchy ) but is not, especially in traditional societies (See all theanthropoly in Africa, Oceania, South America…).
2) the societies with State:
The societies with Sate, at least the modern ones are based on Max Weber definition of the State.
Weber unveils the definition of the state that has become so pivotal to Western social thought: that the state is that entity which possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force
Weber distinguished three pure types of political leadership, domination and authority:
1. charismatic domination (familial and religious),
2. traditional domination (patriarchs, patrimonalism, feudalism), and
3. legal domination (modern law and state, bureaucracy).[56]
In his view, every historical relation between rulers and ruled contained such elements and they can be analysed on the basis of this tripartite distinction.[57] He also notes that the instability of charismatic authority inevitably forces it to "routinize" into a more structured form of authority. Likewise he notes that in a pure type of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a master can lead to a "traditional revolution". Thus he alludes to an inevitable move towards a rational-legal structure of authority, utilising a bureaucratic structure.[58] Thus this theory can be sometimes viewed as part of the social evolutionism theory. This ties to his broader concept of rationalisation by suggesting the inevitability of a move in this direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
So State building is building legal domination according to Weber classification.
This is the base of JMM99 three areas schema you can access here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7610).
The actual model of this are the USA, all European countries, Asian, South American countries… All modern states. But there is sometimes a difference between those Nations. The “orthodox” Rule of Law State build Nation being USA. Mainy European countries are based on a social contract that is declined into rule of law… (slice difference but makes all the difference in fact).
This is entirely based on western societies, by the way. And this is what State Building is willing to achieve. But may be this should be called Administration Building. But this is also where the bias is.
Several challenges are to be faced. The following list is not exhaustive, far from it.
For this, I will use first a Kilcullen article published in SWJ (New Paradigms for 21st Century Conflicts http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...-21st-century/).
Similarly, we traditionally conduct state-based diplomacy through engagement with elites of other societies: governments, intelligentsia, and business leaders, among others. The theory is that problems can be resolved when elites agree, cooler heads prevail, and governments negotiate and then enforce agreements. Notions of sovereignty, the nation-state, treaty regimes, and international institutions all build on this paradigm.
What he points out is the fact that to build a new partner, we need to have an Elite to discuss with. We need to replace an Elite by another. So State building is not just administration building but it’s also elite capacity building.
The problematic often face is then that you have a competition on legitimacy, at field level, between Non State Elites and formal State Elites. Especially when State building aim is to build a “Nation” ex nihilo.
Secondly, I will use the very recent work of Atlani-Duault on former USSR countries and culture. Basically, her work is based on the idea that to counter USSR authoritarian regime, West has been developing the concept of civil society and culture. The main idea is that during Cold war culture has been used to build civil society and a new Elite that would fight the communists. Now days, this has become an habit in State Building to look for civil society and create, even sometimes ex nihilo, a civilian Elite that would challenge the military/political power in failed States. The UN came even with the concept of non educated intellectuals….
The bias it creates is that we are looking to create spontaneous generation of Elites. In many Stabilization or State building manuals this has became: empowering local authorities. Hopefully, several of those manual are pointing the limits of the exercise.
So State building is creating a body we can talk with because it looks like us.
Nation Building is creating an Administration body that can think by herself. That does take time, especially as we do not always this to happen.
What Sufferedbeetle is referring to in previous post is the end or the aim of the administration and more precisely Governance. We tend too much to mix Governance and State building.
The role of democracy in modern State Building is central as several attempts of non democratic States have been made in the past, with various results.
The 70th werethe golden years of enlightened dictatorships. This had a very good result in Asia in the 80th. Unfortunately, as the democratic transition was too quick, brutal or simply too late, this is the roots causes of the radicalisation of religious opposition in many of those countries.
I Africa, this was a complete disaster since the beginning.
Nowadays, we try to dress it with the apparence of democracy in conducting elections giving choice to the people only to a panel of Elites coming from the civil society we (the West) have created or supported. We will see the result in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan… The previous results in DRC are not so much encouraging, I would say.
Then comes the problematic of integrating armed groups into a civilian structure… South America has been an interesting laboratory on this. The main tool being amnesty laws and elections…. With various results once again.
And finally how to fund a State admnistration or how countries do fund they develpment.
As JMM pointed out, for practical reasons, we tend to prefer to have a week dictatorship that would resist to insurgencies than a strong democracy that is too difficult to build, too time costly and weak against armed opposition.
But this just means that Nation Building needs to be rethought not that Nation Building has to be thrown away. (by the way, I have probably 8 to 12 hours difference with you guys. So do not expect me to be too much at the page immediatly ) )
Under some circumstances, I agree. I'm not convinced that those circumstances are universally present.
Ok, stop right there and ask about these roots. Is the capacity to organize present, or is it obstructed by internal conflict? When we talk about "their land", who are "they". Already we are assuming a perception of unity, a consensus that the people of whatever territory we're discussing perceive themselves themselves as a discrete entity. This condition is in many cases simply not present.
Look at it from the other direction. What if the state we want to build contains multiple societies? What if these multiple societies are traditional rivals? What if they distrust each other, or loathe each other? These conditions are going to have a very real impact on the capacity to build a state, a nation, or an economy.
This is the key obstacle to... ok, call it what you will, nation building, state building, development, whatever in much of the post-colonial world. We're left with abstract lines drawn on maps by retreating colonists. We're inclined to assume that the people who live within these lines constitute a nation and possess the perception of unity that is required before building or growth can begin.
If we're talking about growing a nation, that perception of "us" is the seed, if we're talking about building a nation that's the raw material. Without it there are going to be pretty serious problems. Before we talk about a nation we have to ask whether the people in the territory in question see themselves as a nation. Is there an "us" there? Do the people who live within this arbitrary set of lines on a map see themselves as a discrete entity? Do they want to be a single nation? If the answer to those questions is "no", it's going to be pretty difficult to build a functional nation there.
Ultimately this question has to be sorted out by the people in question, and unfortunately human beings have generally gone through a fair bit of violence before coming up with an answer.
I also wouldn't suggest throwing the whole concept away, but I would certainly suggest that we need to ask in any given case whether the prerequisites for statehood exist before trying to apply our theories.
I'm also in a minority time zone; it all sorts out, not necessarily in any coherent fashion!
From the 20 Jan 2010 Wired, Could a ‘Virtual Surge’ Fix Afghanistan? By Nathan Hodge
Afghanistan, like Haiti, is a country in need of a major reboot. Yet despite billions in reconstruction dollars — and an influx of civilian development experts — it remains at the bottom of every development and transparency index.
But according to Ashraf Ghani, the country’s former finance minister and a onetime presidential contender, Afghanistan doesn’t need an army of consultants and contractors. It needs you, and your laptop.
Ghani is promoting the idea of a “virtual surge” as a development alternative in Afghanistan. The idea is simple: In order to help Afghanistan, you don’t need to be in Afghanistan. You can use distance learning and social networking tools to provide the information and expertise the country needs, and save money, time and lives in the process.
“The United States is a society where voluntary activity is ingrained in the culture — and where online community has become very, very real community,” Ghani said. “My idea is to harness the power of online community as the other side of America.”
Call it an alternative — or perhaps an adjunct to — the current troop surge. “The sense of sacrifice by the American soldiers is extremely well appreciated,” Ghani said. “But they don’t have counterpart civilians. There are very few really qualified civilians who can come and take the conditions of hardship. But that doesn’t mean that they cannot contribute.”
Sapere Aude
To me, the biggest factor in all of this is time. You can't really make a tree grow faster than it naturally does and I think the same goes for nations. We're always trying to engineer things to be faster, but it doesn't really work b/c it is against the nature of the thing.
Ukraine just had another election and the same old characters are there. Having Hilary as a pen pal didn't help Yulia. Nothing much will change. Over time, these people will move on (shuffle on quickly please) and a new generation will take control and they will be a bit more evolved than the last (we hope) and so on....eventually, there will be a critical mass of political evolution and things will change. But it takes time to dig out from the soviet legacy.
Now let’s look at the economical theories of development and how they link up with politic development.
First of all Nation Building has for aim not to bring development but to build the mechanisms that fund a State and its administration.
Secondly because I am lazy, I will just take the two main theories of economical development:
- Rostow and linear development (Capitalist theory)
- Samir Hamin and centre and periphery (Socialist theory)
Rostow theory is based on a Western centred historical approach of development.
You start with the prehistoric period to end up in a 7/11 like mall. The basic idea is being that with several stages of economical development (and technological development) comes political development.
1) Stone Age: No technology, no economy: no State
2) Antiquity: basic technology, basic trade economy self centred: the concept of Cite (in Greek in the text).
3) Middle age: limited technology, proto capitalist economy: kingdoms
4) Renaissance: birth of modern technology, birth of capitalism: kingdoms with centred administration.
5) Modern times: limited modern technology, take off period: birth of democracy
6) Contemporaneous times: full modern technology, full capitalist economy: democracy.
(It’s a resume)
The main idea of Rostow is that economy and governance are linked. His approach and assumption is that if a country becomes rich then it will become a democracy.
Rostow basically putted on paper the general gut feeling of what is development in West.
Unfortunately, China has proven he was partially wrong: having a capitalist economy does not imply that you get a democracy. China has even proven the inverse: a strong capitalist economy can lead to a strong dictatorial regime.
But were Rostow is right is on take off period. You need a healthy economy to support a strong State apparatus. That’s the move Chinese made in the early 80 when they started to drop communist economy for capitalist economy. (And what led USSR to its end). Unfortunately, State apparatus and State economy nature are not linked.
Samir Amin theory is the critic of Rostow and is middle East centred (He wanted it third world centred but took Egypt as model…).
It is also an historical based theory of development.
1) Self centred development: you exploit your own resources to build your economy.
2) Predatory development: you exploit neighbours resources to build you economy. Actual example is Rwanda development strategy.
3) Mercantile: you impose to your neighbours to trade with you to develop your economy. Basic example is the colonisation.
4) Centre and periphery: you have economical centres which are in advance and which pull up peripheral areas. Capitalism.
To make it simple: it’s the base of the drop oil theory.
The good thing in Samir Amin is that he completely separates political evolution from economical development.
Personally, I have a tendency to prefer Samir Amin to Rostow. In fact, Rwanda and Uganda are applying Samir Amin theory and it works well.
But the 4 dragons of Asia did apply Rostow (Germany and Japan also in some extends) and it worked out also. But in fact, the 4 Dragons had a mix between Samir Amin and Rostow.
Politically, economic wealth did lead to democracy. But economically, those countries had to 2 policies:
- auto centred heavy industry development (pure Rostow: initiate take off through internal employment and sector 1 development)
- center and periphery industry development for export: they developed economical niches to generate strong external trade to attract hard currencies. (A little like Colbert)
On that, I would recommend Arghiri Emmanuel, David Ricardo and the economic theory of underdevelopment. (basically to know what to not do! Like Haliburton in Iraq...)
Now, let’s look at what we are talking about: Nation Building.
Nation Building is aimed to build a State apparatus in order to create an interlocutor for Weberian modern Nations (China included).
The economical component of it is aimed to:
- fund the State apparatus
- stabilize a country by establishing a strong economy that will reduce the use of violence to survive by ordinary people.
Funding the State apparatus is simple (?): you impose taxes. That requires a strong administration that can collect transparently taxes and a strong legal base to legitimate taxations.
Already we do have a problem:
- Strong administration means qualified and dedicated people.
- Strong legal base means that the State does not act predatorily but on legal base.
In most of failed States and post conflicts context, you are missing both.
Secondly you need to have something to tax! In most failed states, you have a predominance of the informal economy. So there is no legally formal body to tax. And then you have a majority of the population living with such low revenues that you just cannot tax them.
So you need to have development programs to build an economy that will support the State apparatus that you are building.
But as the economy is weak, the State remains weak and then it is an open door to corruption, black economy and so on… Also, the new Elite you have promoted are making much more money in a failed State than in a fully installed modern State ran by Rule of Law (Cf Iraq and Afghanistan). So they do not work hard to establish a formal State. As the State is weak and corrupted, it looses its legitimacy in the eyes of everyday people. So you promote insurgencies which weaken the State… And so on and so on.
Fortunately, there is a solution. (to be found if you listen to me)
The actual model of development used is Canada and the natural resources based development to build a strong Democratic State.
Just 2 critics (not really elaborated):
- Natural resources centred development is basically neo colonialism with a new clown costume. Samir Amin theory.
- Canada as a model is just believing that because you have a democratic model all other countries following that model will be democratic. Rostow theory.
Result: nothing new since 1970!
It’s time for a change!
By the way, Fukuyama is a nice guy who use complex words to reinvent the wheel and explain with capitalist vocabulary what the Marxist economical theorist of development have already said.
M.A.,
Greatly appreciate your tour de force posts on nation and state building; your explanations are very instructive and have shed some light on things for me.
In support of the digital SWC library I ran down some Google Books links for some of the authors you cite. One doesn’t need to cart around a desktop/laptop/netbook to read these or take notes anymore…an iTouch will get it done…. I used to use a library card and a typewriter back in the day…just amazing....well it looks like my reading list has grown
Aristotle - Politics
Thomas Hobbes – Leviathan
John Locke - Two Treatises of Government
Jean Jacques Rousseau – The Social Contract
Walt Whitman Rostow - Politics and the stages of growth
Samir Amin – Google Books appears to be light on complete digtal copies of his works
My 0.5 cent formal philosophical education for what its worth, included:
Voltaire – Candide
Niccolò Machiavelli –The Prince
Hermann Hesse – Siddhartha
During OIF1 in Iraq it was my observation that the dying limbs of the Iraqi state tree were triaged and kept viable with external IV’s and tech support. As a result of necessity a local shadow economy grew, flourished, and appeared to come to dominate much of the state’s economic system. Mass privatization via shock therapy methods combined with the simultaneous disintegration and attempted reformation of the political system (formal institutions and informal network structures) resulted in a Hobbesonian environment which made me question what I know about Locke’s thesis regarding the orderliness of man’s nature. Rostow’s construct (more familiar to me as engineering/business approaches), although reminiscent of the underpants gnome's business model in some respects, was in my opinion the way to go for the public works and utilities area in which I worked. My unit, lead by an amazing general, was able to provide security while using a balanced approach and as a result our oil spot/province experienced some level of stability during our time there….overall it was an invaluable on-the-job-training (OJT) experience.
Sapere Aude
Steve,
Thanks and sorry for the bad English and spelling… (Have a ####ty computer at work. Luckily, I also suffer from insomnia and a recent computer at "home").
Now let's make the last move: the link between State building and war: COIN.
There again, I'll come back to CvC. What is the aim of war? To impose a political dictate to an opponent disagreeing with you (Sorry Wilf, I do not have the book with me).
How do you achieve it? By imposing either a policy to an enemy or by imposing a government favorable to your views.
This drives us back to the article at the beginning of the threat: "winning peace".
Basically the new paradigm of war is that for modern armies, the technological, the firepower, manpower and training difference is so huge that the conventional confrontation phase (Shock) is no more a problem. Cf Iraq, Afghanistan…
What are the new strategic phases are the "hold" phase and the "build" phase.
Hold should be the imposition of a monopole of violence by a new actor creating the condition to build a Weberian State. That's basically what nobody is good at. Especially when you face two main oppositions:
- First, one or several bodies not willing to let you be the new owner of the monopoly of violence. Cf Iraq and the "insurgency" led by Sadam Husen in a first time then the civil war that followed when there were no traces of the former State apparatus. All the Shia/Sunny conflict in Iraq is based on that competition between the US and each communities/cite (in Greek in the text) to have the monopoly of violence on a limited piece of land. In addition to that, you had the Al Quada threat which was willing to challenge the US on its capacity to be the external owner of the monopole of violence. (It's a resume).
- Secondly a context/cultural opposition (mainly Afghanistan) based on the opposition of Stateless societies to State society. Basically the tribes/warlords/druglords being opposed to any kind of centralized State.
In some extend Radical religious ideology can be more or less assimilated to Stateless actors (that's what they what to make us believe). But as JMM demonstrated in fact, the Caliphate or what ever else form of Religious Government is a Sate based society.
This is where State and Nation building enter in the game.
The confrontation is no more based on military legitimacy but on people legitimacy. War among the people is not only a war taking place among the people as a theatre of operation but the battle for the domination of the people as define in CvC trinity.
Some simplistic minds take it as reversing CvC: the use of force to establish/legitimate leadership on people.
The problem is unfortunately more complex as the CvC trinity is not dissociable, works in both senses (there is always a looser) and is the root of the cite.
So you have to challenge the previous cite by a new cite model.
This is where my personal obsession for Foucault comes from. (The critic of elections as a technical tool to build democracy like Weberian State).
State Building/Nation Building and COIN:
COIN, as the Surge, is based on State building: build a State apparatus that will have the characteristics we want (Elite, copycat administration, rule of law as primary policy…)
Population centric COIN is based on COIN + the new end of Modern State: the responsibility to protect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/20...m11701.doc.htm, http://www.operationspaix.net/IMG/pd...e-16-Final.pdf...).
The main challenge of Nation building is to build this responsibility to protect while State building is to build the State Apparatus that will allow to develop/impose (pick up the one you like) an economy that will support it.
PS: you also made me touch the very limits of my underground culture. I love South Park but was much unaware of the underpants gnomes business model. Too much time in field I believe and not enough in front of TV.
M-A
Last edited by M-A Lagrange; 01-20-2010 at 01:23 AM.
Very true. I was just saying this on another thread, but it fits as well here... one of the problems in the current American interventions is that American leaders are more concerned with legitimizing their actions to their own populaces and the international audience than they are with looking for a realistic solution to the problem. Of course the American people want to hear that we are going to be out of there in a few years and leave a nice functioning American-style democracy behind. It just ain't gonna happen... continuing the tree analogy, it's like announcing that you're gonna plant an acorn today and have a big ol' oak tree by Christmas.
Bookmarks