A Plague of Initials: Fragmentation, Cohesion, and Infighting in Civil Wars

Abstract

How do we conceptualize the fragmentation of internally divided movements? And how does variation in fragmentation affect the probability and patterns of infighting? The internal politics of non-state groups have received increasing attention, with recent research demonstrating the importance of cohesion and fragmentation for understanding conflict dynamics. Yet there is little consensus on how to conceptualize fragmentation, the concept at the center of this agenda, with authors using different definitions and measures. In this paper we conceptualize fragmentation along three constitutive dimensions: the number of organizations in the movement; the degree of institutionalization across these organizations; and the distribution of power among them. We then show how variation across these dimensions can explain variation in important conflict processes, focusing on infighting.

Civilianizing Civil Conflict: Civilian Defense Militias and the Logic of Violence in Intrastate Conflict

“…In doing so, we also develop further insight into different types of pro-government militias and why and how states make use of these differences. More generally, our arguments matter for understanding insurgent group fragmentation (Bakke, Cunningham and Seymour 2012;Driscoll 2012;Staniland 2014). While previous research stresses ethnic divisions (Lyall 2010;Staniland 2012), we highlight the importance of civilian support-both passive and activeto insurgents in explaining insurgent in-fighting.…”

“…Bakke, Cunningham, and Seymour 2012;Cunningham 2013Cunningham , 2014Staniland 2012Staniland , 2014. By highlighting the role of civilian collaborators in the maintenance of political order, we also speak to ongoing debates concerning the use of social networks in imperial conquest (e.g.…”

Auxiliary Armed Forces and Innovations in Security Governance in Mozambique’s Civil War

“…Despite their crucial function in the internal organisation of rebel groups and systems of rebel governance, rebels' auxiliary armed forces have so far received little attention in scholarly research. Most recent work on armed group fragmentation focuses on competition between different armed groups or units on the rebel side (Bakke et al 2012, Christia 2012, Sinno 2008. In contrast, this article analyses how different units within the same organisation complement each other.…”

“…Research on fragile statehood and civil war has explored the fragmentation of armed groups (Sinno 2008, Bakke et al 2012, the emergence of alliances between armed actors to influence war outcomes (Christia 2012, Seymour 2014, 'wartime institutions' that govern civilians (Arjona 2014) or 'armed politics' that shape how states and armed groups interact (Staniland 2017). I build on this research to analyse change in alliances and their implication for security governance.…”

Threats to Peace: Threat Perception and the Persistence or Desistance of Violent Conflict

“…Much of the prior work on conflict resolution has looked at higher-level sociological factors, such as intra-group cohesion [20], third-party intervention [21], and culture [22]. Several studies in autonomous agents have developed heuristics for the psychological and bargaining aspects of negotiation [23], [24], [25].…”