Motivation vs. causation

[Entropy]

Entropy,

Maybe not the best place to re-open how 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland started in 1969. That aside.

Agreed and I see that I made my point poorly. I'm only using it as a possible example of a case where "governance" was not the root problem. When you have two factions, or factions within factions, that have completely incompatible goals, are willing to use violence and unwilling to compromise, then I question whether there is any kind of governance that can contain that. BW's theory is that insurgency is caused by a lack of "good governance" but governance comes from people and sometimes people want violence.

M-A Lagrange brings up the social contract (or lack of), which related, IMO. When one group views another group in terms of the "other" as more than a mere enemy, then there is no social contract and therefore no basis for "good governance." At least that is something I've been thinking about lately.

[M-A Lagrange]

Entropy,

When one group views another group in terms of the "other" as more than a mere enemy, then there is no social contract and therefore no basis for "good governance." At least that is something I've been thinking about lately.

Can you make your point much clearer?
Excluding a group of people from the society or from the protection of the society (as slaves in antiquity) can be part of the social contract.
As I understand it, it is ennemies who are not part of the social contract as they want to destroy/change it.

[Dayuhan]

Entropy,



Can you make your point much clearer?
Excluding a group of people from the society or from the protection of the society (as slaves in antiquity) can be part of the social contract.
As I understand it, it is ennemies who are not part of the social contract as they want to destroy/change it.

I think the point was that it can be difficult or impossible to establish a social contract in an arbitrarily delineated "nation" that includes traditional enemies within its borders. An example might be the former Yugoslavia.

[Entropy]

I think the point was that it can be difficult or impossible to establish a social contract in an arbitrarily delineated "nation" that includes traditional enemies within its borders. An example might be the former Yugoslavia.

That's basically it yes.

[marct]

I think the point was that it can be difficult or impossible to establish a social contract in an arbitrarily delineated "nation" that includes traditional enemies within its borders. An example might be the former Yugoslavia.

That's basically it yes.

One of the rather odd things I've picked up over the years is a slightly different view of the concept of a social contract. The fact that X and Y are traditional enemies means that they have a specific, defined and accepted relationship already, which is part of a contract. This has some interesting implications since, I would argue, every nation state (barring possibly Andorra, Monaco and few others) are arbitrarily delineated "nations" that only bear a passing resemblance to an ethnoi.

As to whether or not such a contract can be established, sure it can and has been in a number of places: Canada, Belgium, and Switzerland all spring to mind as classic examples. The question, IMHO, should be more in line with how did such a multi-ethnoi social contract come into existence and why and how has it been maintained?

Cheers,

Marc

[Dayuhan]

One of the rather odd things I've picked up over the years is a slightly different view of the concept of a social contract. The fact that X and Y are traditional enemies means that they have a specific, defined and accepted relationship already, which is part of a contract. This has some interesting implications since, I would argue, every nation state (barring possibly Andorra, Monaco and few others) are arbitrarily delineated "nations" that only bear a passing resemblance to an ethnoi.

I suppose two groups agreeing to kill as many of one another as possible at every available opportunity could be said to constitute a social contract of sorts. Whether that contract would be a viable basis for nationhood is another question.

As to whether or not such a contract can be established, sure it can and has been in a number of places: Canada, Belgium, and Switzerland all spring to mind as classic examples. The question, IMHO, should be more in line with how did such a multi-ethnoi social contract come into existence and why and how has it been maintained?

It might be more accurate to say that these contracts evolved, rather than speaking of establishment. The process of evolution varies widely from case to case; sometimes it's peaceful, sometimes it's not, sometimes the groups involved end up separating and establishing different nations. I don't think it's something something that can be effectively imposed on a deus ex machina basis.

[Beelzebubalicious]

I'd like to throw in a little wrinkle on the social contract discussion that's evolving here as it's a term that's come up a lot for me recently in the international development business (when I'm not winning no bid contracts and fleecing american taxpayers...).

International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(4), "Decentralized local governance in fragile states: learning from Iraq" by Derick W. Brinkerhoff and Ronald W. Johnson, the authors use the word "covenant" in this sense:

The good governance agenda assumes a form of state—society relations that results from a covenant between citizens and their government, yet historically most states arose through conquest.

Page 5.

I though the use of word "covenant" curious since it seems such a religiously and racially charged term - a bit heavy-handed for what seems to be a kind of social contract or partnership.

The first time I saw the term used was in the USAID report titled, “Democratic Decentralization Strategic Assessment: Indonesia Final Report". In this report, the term is used in this context:

An innovative concept emerging from this assessment is that a feasible approach for future local governance programming in the near term may be the introduction of a more efficient approach to the accountability challenge that works through multi-party relationships (accountability covenants) that bind a large number of actors together in support of shared aims. Local politicians and CSOs in Indonesia might organize a participatory planning process that first yields a shared vision then leads to formulation of an action plan. By assigning specific tasks to multiple actors, a dense network of mutual accountability is created

. p. 28

Social contract theory (Putnam) has driven a lot of development programming, most explicitly the World Bank's Community Driven Development approach applied broadly (over 30,000 villages and $1 billion distributed) in Indonesia. For a good overview of that, see a paper by Scott Guggenheim.

Donors, especially USAID, have consistently focused on supporting civil society and building the social contract (largely in the absence of a strong or even functional government) and I've been wondering if the use of "covenant" is an attempt to strengthen and expand the concept/approach. I find the concept and approach appealing, but it does have a lot of issues when it comes to international development.