How are state services governed even when the state administration has retreated from the public domain? Failed states are often described as a vacuum of authority, yet although there is often no overall regulatory authority, this does not mean that sectors are ungoverned. This article describes the organisation of the educational system in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as the result of negotiation processes between state and non-state actors. It argues that instead of producing uniform results, this form of regulation depends on power configurations in particular localities at particular times.
An empirical understanding of ‘real governance’ involves defining governance as an emergent pattern of a social system. This pattern arises out of negotiations between social actors in which state organisations are only one of many.
By the end of the twentieth century, the DRC’s education sector could be called ‘privatised’ because most schools were run by non-state actors, and financed mostly by parents. However, it can still be considered a public service because the idea of the state as the responsible actor is not being challenged, giving the state considerable symbolic power. This symbolic power and the combination of individual assets worked out in practice in a number of ways:
- In one subdivision, the state was unable to organise a new buildings programme without the support of the Catholic schools network. This demonstrates that the state was not automatically established as a central authority and had to negotiate with other actors.
- However, the failure of the introduction of free education demonstrates that the situation in the education sector is only converging towards a negotiated ‘order’. Although all actors referred to the same image of the state, in practice they did quite contradictory things.
- A failed unilateral attempt by a Catholic network to introduce a solidarity fund for poorer pupils illustrates that it is difficult for any single actor to create order.
The case of the education system in the DRC documents both the retreat of the state, and the expansion of statehood to include an increasing array of actors. In this situation, regulation happens through negotiation among this broader coalition of actors. Further:
- In these negotiations, relationships are not equal, as certain actors have more leverage than others. This power is not a manifestation of formal rules and authority, but a reflection of the actual organisation of the education sector at a given time.
- The state alone is unable to construct a normative framework, and ‘stateness’ is not something fixed. Rather, it fluctuates, and is in a constant process of formation.
- The recognition of the state as the provider of the ultimate regulatory framework does not imply a consensus on what can be considered legitimate practices. Rather, in the ‘negotiation arena’ there is a set of multiple, but partly overlapping ‘legitimate practices’.
