How to build a State in a non State environment?

[Stan]

I agree. I am not sure where this is taking us, but I like "self-determination" a lot better than state building.

This reminds me of the 11-plus years that the international community has been struggling with Kosovo.

International state-building in Kosovo – security, self-determination, and privatisation

If international state building represents a challenge to dominant conceptualisations of sovereignty, democracy and self-determination, this challenge is particularly pointed in the case of Kosovo. What is at stake with Kosovo’s international state building project goes to the heart of questions of what a state is, and who has the right to govern and define its legitimacy, scope and legal basis.

Entire report at the link...

[slapout9]

Curmudgeon, you just hit the nail on the head IMO. I have asked many times why do people join gangs. (gangs are miniature governments) they join for Protection and Prosperity. If there is no prosperity there is nothing to protect so they (people) begin to disintegrate the system. If there is prosperity they will have something worth protecting. It is about bringing home the bacon and making sure the wolf doesn't get the bacon. It doesn't really matter what political ideology controls it, my opinion anyway. Just watch this happening in America, DC keeps sending the bacon overseas and the wolfs are starting to form their packs.

[M-A Lagrange]

From Bob
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??

From The Curmudgeon
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.

I tend to agree with both of you that the problematic of building a modern State in a non-state context is bound to the need of external powers to have an interlocutor. We are definitively in the dictate of the norm as defined by Foucault. A dictate for us rather than for them, by the way.

But never the less, governance does exist in non-state environment, therefore it should be possible to establish a form of government that is acceptable for the populace.
Also, as you pointed very well, the main problem to establish a state is in the need of tax collection by the state.
One of the reasons why there is so much resistance to the establishment of a state in Somalia is the question of taxes (among many others). But even Al Shabab do collect taxes. They collect them through religious taxes or other protection revenues but they do collect taxes.
What they sell is not security or protection; it’s a simple form a basic racket: if you do not pay, then I will harm you.
Do not forget that in a non-state environment; almost 90% of the population is economically not in capacity to pay any taxes. Therefore, the one who will pay taxes are the one who do already control the economy. In such perspective, they want to have a benefit from their “tax investment”. This basically what DFID defines as patronage and leads straight to kleptocracy.

In South Sudan, there is an interesting experiment that is being done: the central state wants to empower the traditional chiefs to distribute justice and police. I personally have nothing against but I cannot avoid seeing it as a redo of what was done in the 70th by most of the African governments. Mobutu was extremely good at it.
The main problem being that by empowering local traditional leaders, the central state skip its responsibility to administrate its territory. It builds artificially a distance between the modern administration and the people, allows the modern administration to be only a tax collector tool which actually does not deliver anything except sanctions if the taxes are not paid. Basically sets all the bases for any insurgency or reject of modern state and discredit all efforts do have good/responsible governance.
I must say that I do not know were the response is but at least, I see many of the walls…

The Curmudgeon:
I agree. I am not sure where this is taking us, but I like "self-determination" a lot better than state building.

Curmudgeon,

Could you please define self determination? I am in one of those exercise at the moment and it’s quite creepy actually.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Curmudgeon,

Could you please define self determination? I am in one of those exercise at the moment and it’s quite creepy actually.

It is a whole society concept, although I have only been working on the governance side. Right now I take into consideration four factors:
1) Human needs - what are the needs that the population are trying to satisfy (for convenience, I use Maslow's hierarchy [physiological, security, belongingness, self-expression, self-actualization).
2) Biophysical environment - what resources are available to the people living in the region. This includes what food and other crops can be grown as well as other natural resources like oil that can be used to form a tax base for the government. It should also consider what barriers there are to trade (no way to move goods) and who the neighbors are (are there a number of other societies waiting to pounce and steal the resources this society has).

From these first two you get:
3) economic state - this includes primarily the primary mode of food production (agriculture, herding, industrial), The level of that mode of production (sustenance [all people must work primarily on food production], work specialization [people ONLY doing things that are not food production], the state of the infrastructure (irrigation, housing, roads), the state of property ownership (corporate [the tribe owns the land], chiefdom [the chief owns everything], feudal [a series of chiefs underlings act as owners], or individual), and the trade system and distribution system (is it controlled by the chief or is there a merchant class).

and

4) cultural institutions - religion, governance, education, economy,as well as the ideology (history of the society is built into this variable).

1 and 2 combine to create 3. 3 limits but does not dictate the level of governance in 4.

Levels of governance are:

Egalitarian - no one rules, everyone is pretty much equal (except for age and sex diferences)
Big Man - a unenforced patron-client relationship where one person coordinates the efforts of voluntary followers. He must keep the followers happy or they will find someone else to follow.
Chiefdom - enforced patron-client relationship. Ownership and distribution of resources becomes centralized.
Kingdom - essentially a larger chiefdom with a feudal system. The early beginnings of both bureaucracy and the state.
Republic - Kingdom with certain key players having rights of their own not necessarily based on lineage. Akin to an early constitutional monarchy. Ownership and distribution fo resources becomes decentralized.
Democracy - Similar to democracies you know but not the same. A number of variations based on the suffrage rights (landed men only, only men of certain lineage or religion, all men, men and women).

The economic base allows for higher level governance but does not require it. Each level of governance is satisfying a higher level need.

Still a work in progress.

the trick is to determine which level of governance the society would be at if there was no externally imposed government. Most tribal systems fall somewhere in the Big-man to Chiefdom range. The need being satisfied is belonging and a place in society.

[slapout9]

Crumudgeon,
What about money? Who is going to control the issuance of money? IMO that is one of the main problems that has to be solved, perhaps the main one.

[TheCurmudgeon]

In certain societies money is not necessary or it consists of a natural resource or food item. In a more complex society that can support the infrastructure money is very important. I guess the protectorate would have to assume that responsibility.

[slapout9]

In certain societies money is not necessary or it consists of a natural resource or food item. In a more complex society that can support the infrastructure money is very important. I guess the protectorate would have to assume that responsibility.

Yes, barter can be prevalent but even that is a form of money because you keep accounts, checkbook money which is all it really is. But here is idea for you. I grew up in Florida while Disney World was being built and EPCOT. EPCOT stands for Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. Disney solved the problem you are talking about, of course it was butchered by the shareholders and with Disney's death the original concept was lost. But the idea was to build a totally self sufficient city. It was designed to be totally self sufficient and evolving (constant process improvement through engineering) largely based upon the ideas of Buckminster Fuller, might want to try and Google that and see what you come up with. There were some fantastic stories published in the local paper at the time about what it would be like. Bur greed squashed it.

[M-A Lagrange]

In certain societies money is not necessary or it consists of a natural resource or food item. In a more complex society that can support the infrastructure money is very important. I guess the protectorate would have to assume that responsibility.

For the best or the worst, such societies do not exist anymore. What ever you say, even in the most remote places everything is valued on a money base. It can even become silly but the concept of money is everywhere.
It's for example on of the biggest problematic of youth integration into post conflict South Sudan.

Also, the function of central state to edit money is tricky. In many places, populations will use a foreign currency to trade. You actually can govern without using national currency.