Join Date: Oct 2005
Behavioral Patterns among (Violent) Non-State Actors: A Study of Complementary Governance
The various Libyan militias and other indigenous non-state actors did initially ‘work collaboratively or have tacit non-interference agreements to provide public goods’ as the authors describe their characterization of ‘complementary governance’, but that situation did not hold. Yet the Libyan situation does apply in the context of the article: the case study describes governing actions of non-state actors in ungoverned, or weakly governed, sub-state spaces and since the fall of Qaddafi, Libya has been a weakly governed state; or more accurately a collection of ungoverned and poorly governed regions.
The authors state, “…some forms of complementary governance among non-state actors – even violent ones – can result in higher levels of security than a government can provide.” An SAS paper published last October, “Politics by Other Means: Conflicting Interests in Libya’s Security Sector”, not only describes in detail how that situation of ‘complementary governance’ evolved, but also how it set the stage for the political splintering of the country. Adding depth, the NOREF paper “Stealing the Revolution: Violence and Predation in Libya” is focused more on the exploitation of ‘complementary governance’ by those non-state actors and the cascading negative effects of emerging Libyan formal governing structures failing to effectively integrate those informal structures.
So, perhaps the lesson to be taken is that ‘complementary governance’ among non-state actors is an effect that can only come about if there is no competition or conflict – socio-cultural, political, or economic – in that ungoverned space. The Libya case illustrates a situation where 'complementary governance' simply provided the non-state actors with space and opportunity to build up their strength for further conflict. Given that we rarely see such a lack of competition or conflict between or among non-state actors in the same ungoverned space, then the concept describes, at best, a transient occurrence in the development of control within an ungoverned space by non-state actors. If that is case, then the concept possesses limited analytic value beyond providing a useful concise term for describing that transient situation. Thoughts?
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Winning the War in Afghanistan||William F. Owen||OEF - Afghanistan||1119||01-20-2012 12:53 AM|
|Defining Insurgency||SteveMetz||Futurists & Theorists||148||10-16-2010 01:43 AM|
|Deterrence of Irregular Threats||Bob's World||Global Issues & Threats||310||02-22-2010 06:03 AM|
|The Meaning of Governance: Ranking Africa||Jedburgh||Africa||1||10-07-2008 03:26 PM|