How can the international community help national reformers to build effective, legitimate and resilient states in post-conflict settings? This chapter discusses the complex intangible dimensions of state-building – state-society relations and negotiation processes. It argues that building the capacity of formal institutions needs to be complemented by actions that take into account the roles of perceptions and expectations, of bottom-up consultations and of the degree to which populations feel represented by public institutions. It recommends a gradual, long-term and socio-culturally engaged approach to state-building, which external actors may support but not lead.
State-building requires the creation of a sense of citizenship, and it involves collective values, expectations and perceptions attached to the state by individuals, civil society and communities. In addition, the formation of responsive, capable and accountable state institutions requires the promotion of tax collection capacity and mechanisms for bottom-up consultation. Redrawing the understanding and arrangements that underpin the polity and bind state and society together is likely to be extremely difficult and sensitive, however, particularly in post-conflict settings where compromise is necessary; it involves fundamentally altering embedded power structures.
The emphasis of international engagement in state-building is shifting from a top-down focus on state actors and national elites, to more of a bottom-up approach linking state and society through civil society. It needs to shift further towards fostering a more inclusive and locally-based political process, and to avoid overemphasis on the technical.
International engagement in state-building cannot overlook the social and cultural elements that support state institutions, and shape their public perception. The study finds that:
- Legitimacy must be (re-)established along with institutional strength. Non-state institutions may have retained legitimacy, and can be a powerful tool to support civil society in holding the state accountable.
- Support for the state requires complementary support for civil society, but building non-state capacity must seek to avoid undermining the state or creating competition.
- Moving too fast from humanitarian assistance towards state budget support can deprive civil society actors of resources before the state is able to take over the performance of basic functions.
- States should look inwards for their resources and institutional models, adopting structures and processes reflecting the history and complexity of their people and environment.
- Women face a particularly large gap between their formal and substantive citizenship, as well as greater economic, social and cultural barriers in exercising their rights and participating in decision-making. Further, issues such as family law, inheritance, land access and security) are often delegated to customary institutions or non-state actors, making women unable to hold the state accountable in these areas.
Experiences of state-building interventions show that neither a minimal approach that focuses only on peace-keeping nor an overarching attempt at institutional engineering can be effective. A gradual approach based on realistic expectations about what international engagement can achieve is most appropriate. As state-building is deeply political, knowledge of the local context and a bottom-up and incentive-compatible approach are also crucial. Donors and aid agencies should:
- Invest more in understanding local societies. This involves increasing dialogue between specialists and knowledge-sharing across regions and sectors.
- Ensure a space where both humanitarian assistance and development cooperation are used at the same time with equal importance.
- Create participatory spaces for civil society groups to circulate information and drive socio-political transformation while also finding points of contact within state institutions.
- Promote incremental reforms that maintain a society’s fragile social bonds and affect society and the state on many levels over time.
- Consider measures that both unify disparate people in fragile states at the national level and that take advantage of pockets of sub-state cohesion.
- Focus on building up local governments and tying them as closely as possible to their communities.
- Recognise the need for institutional diversity – even multiplicity that integrates different historical traditions – and for building governments around the capacity and institutions that already exist.
- Use the opportunities provided by post-conflict settings to address long-standing exclusion and inequalities. This involves fully engaging with customary governance structures.
- Focus on institutionalising co-operation across groups and reducing horizontal inequalities, particularly where social fragmentation is manipulated.
