• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Governance in Tribal Environments

Governance in Tribal Environments

Helpdesk Report
  • Seema Khan
December 2007

Question

Please conduct a review of the literature on examples of alternative localised governance systems in relatively tribal environments that have delivered effective, consent-based rule of law.

Summary

This query has been able to identify very few resources that focus specifically on governance systems within tribal societies. However there is a wider body of literature which discusses traditional structures of authority and leadership. Even this, however, focusses mainly on democratisation and decentralisation processes. These sources agree that in many countries, the legitimacy of these structures has endured amongst communities and in some cases, they have provided superior governance and conflict resolution than the state. Unlike modern structures, the legitimacy of traditional leaders is not rooted in constitutions and electoral processes, but in inheritance or other historical mechanisms of leadership selection. The functions of these traditional structures can include security; dispute resolution; justice; regulation of social life and norms; small-scale community development projects; natural resource management; and social protection of the most vulnerable. Some of the mechanisms include tribal chieftains or leaders, customary courts, and participatory decision-making bodies. A key area of debate in relation to traditional and informal justice systems is whether justice can be made more accessible by encouraging such systems, by adopting or transforming some of their processes, or by facilitating a more collaborative approach between such systems and formal justice systems.

The research for this query has been unable to identify many examples of successful alternative governance systems – one commentator characterises current efforts as ‘experiments’, the success of which remains to be evaluated through greater scholarly attention to various important issues relating to traditional governance, such as people’s perceptions of traditional leadership and their motivations for these views, and the relations between local political systems.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID South Asia Division

Related Content

Social protection
Topic Guide
2019
Social protection and child labour in Asia
Helpdesk Report
2017
Community-based social protection
Helpdesk Report
2013
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more