Armed Groups and the Politics of Legitimacy

Abstract

This article serves as an introduction to a special section on the question of the legitimacy of non-state armed groups. Starting with a short discussion of the literature on armed groups as political actors, the authors emphasize the importance of the often-underestimated dimension of legitimacy. After having conceptualized legitimacy in more detail, the article addresses three key chal-lenges armed groups usually face regarding the politics of legitimacy: first, they need to legitimize the use of violent means; second, for moral and ma-terial support, they depend on beliefs of legitimacy; and third, they need to simultaneously address various domestic and international audiences. Finally, the authors highlight a number of pending questions for further research on armed groups.

Concepts of Legitimacy: Congruence and Divergence in the Afghan Conflict

“…First, it illustrates the importance of an analytical framework of legitimacy that goes beyond social contract theory, to grasp how local norms influence the legitimation of power. Contrary to the currently dominant approach in the literature (Kasfir 2015, Schlichte and Schneckener 2015, Duyvesteyn 2017, we demonstrate that for a thorough understanding of legitimation processes, both material and immaterial sources of legitimacy have to be considered. Second, by illustrating the diverging notions of legitimacy, the case of the US counterinsurgency in Afghanistan contributes to explaining the difficulties of the United States in establishing stable governance and the relative success of the Taliban insurgency.…”

“…However, others have challenged the unidirectional view of legitimacy implicit in the concept of the social contract, emphasising instead the relational character of legitimacy, where every legitimation process is understood as an interdependent bargain between ruler and ruled (Malthaner 2015, Bruijn and Both 2017, Podder 2017, Schoon 2017, Worrall 2017. Again others have highlighted the importance of ideology within rebel governance and the role of ideational elements of legitimacy next to utilitarian considerations (Mampilly 2015, Schlichte and Schneckener 2015, Suykens 2015, Kalyvas 2015. Last, scholars have argued that most utilitarian explanations of legitimacy are derived from a historically distinct, state-related, European context, making it questionable to what extent these lessons apply to modern civil wars, non-European settings and non-state actors (Duyvesteyn 2017, p. 679, Lake 2010.…”

Governance Practices and Symbolism: De facto sovereignty and public authority in ‘Tigerland’

“…In terms of performance, Schlichte and Schneckener state that the 'respect and credibility that leaders and fighters might earn for their readiness to sacrifice their lives for a common cause might eventually lead to latent forms of legitimacy, at least within the targeted constituency'. 171 As elaborated by Hellmann-Rajanayagam, the death of a martyr may function to reaffirm the cohesion of a…”

All Counterinsurgency is Local: Counterinsurgency and Rebel Legitimacy

“…This article follows in the descriptive tradition, seeing legitimacy as 'a descriptive concept about normative judgements, but … not itself a normative concept' . 14 Research in this tradition has been replete with insights which open up the black box of legitimacy and the process of legitimation. In turn, this allows us to explore in more detail the difficulties faced by counterinsurgents who attempt to degrade the legitimacy of rebel groups and legitimate their own.…”