This paper argues that the emergence of stabilisation as a concept out of peace-building, state-building and counter-insurgency theories has carried with it some of the key weaknesses of international intervention, in particular the idea that imposing western liberal systems on non-western societies will contribute towards stability.
With reference to two case studies, the Wheat Seed project in Afghanistan and a gas cylinder distribution project in Iraq, the paper argues that stabilisation activities do not engage fully with the underlying premise that stabilisation must support and engender local political legitimacy. The paper concludes by arguing that greater use should be made of the knowledge and histories of non-western state formation, characterised as being non-Weberian, as a counter to the overuse by interveners of the desire to support rational Weberian state structures in other countries.
Key Findings:
- Non-state actors can play an important role in supporting stability and creating their own legitimacy. The development of legitimacy simultaneous to efforts to ‘stabilise’ appears to promote more effective and sustainable stabilisation efforts. It also recognises the importance of developing a political architecture to support stabilisation that extends from the more sophisticated capitals of state institutions to the less sophisticated district societies. This is important because these district societies often represent the lynchpin for society-wide stabilisation in a country that is emerging from conflict.
- Based on the overall analysis of the research data, two major issues appear to emerge. The first issue concerns the existence of non-state groups and of a non-state ‘system of governance’ which is very prominent in regions with nomadic and pastoral groups, and where cultural groupings transcend borders. This phenomenon accounts for the border characteristics of many of today’s failed states and states emerging from conflict. Due to the limited reach of central state institutions to peripheral areas of a country (particularly in larger states), the relationship between the state and society is weak, and social bonds with non-state systems of governance will almost always be underestimated.
- Secondly, when developing approaches to stabilisation interventions in ‘non-Weberian states’, there is merit in starting ‘small’. This will result not only in realistic levels of achievement, but also in achievements which can be maintained by what is often a low level of human and institutional capacity in peripheral regions.
Recommendations:
- Given the fluidity of many situations, many outcomes of stabilisation efforts, both positive and negative, are ‘unintended’. The introduction of small and incremental measures to support security-based project activity is important in order to manage the effects of unintended outcomes. Equally, the confidence required to support local state institutions cannot be developed overnight, but must be based on clear and tangible results.
- For stabilisation operations to focus simultaneously on creating stability and developing legitimacy, a project-driven approach to donor-funded stabilisation interventions must consider the relationship between the ‘peripheral’ state and society. This will indicate not only the degree to which non-state actors – and associate ‘systems’ – become central to project planning, but also the types and pace of projects which can be considered in seeking to penetrate this relationship.
