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

Abstract

This article focuses on how the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) insurgency performed de facto sovereignty and public authority in Northeastern Sri Lanka. It is situated within the wider academic debate on governance by state and non-state actors. We venture to unravel the complex linkages between the LTTE's governance practices and legitimation strategies by looking at narratives, performances, and inscriptions. While monopolizing the justice and policing sectors, in other sectors the LTTE operated pragmatically in conjunction with the state. The organization tried to generate and sustain public authority and legitimacy through a variety of violent and non-violent practices and symbols. It ‘mimicked’ statehood by deploying, among others, policing, uniforms, ceremonies, nationalist songs, commemorations of combatants, and the media. This not only consolidated its grip on the Northeast, but also engineered a level of support and compliance. We conclude that the LTTE's governance included practices that were created and carried out independently from the Sri Lankan state, while others took shape within a pre-existing political order and service provision by the state. The article elucidates the LTTE's mimicry of the state, as well as the operation of parallel structures and hybrid forms of state-LTTE collaboration. This facilitates a nuanced understanding of rebel governance beyond a simple state versus non-state binary.

New Directions in Rebel Governance Research

“…Research finds that such performative acts do have effects on governance. The Tamil Tigers’ use of symbols of legitimation during its war against Sri Lanka, for example, “not only consolidated its grip on the Northeast, but also engineered a level of support and compliance” from the local populace (Terpstra and Frerks 2018, 1001–1002).…”

Introduction: Armed Groups and Multi-layered Governance

“…The latter were implemented under LTTE regulations and control, leading to a type of hybrid governance in areas of LTTE territory (Mampilly 2011, pp. 112-113;Terpstra and Frerks forthcoming). For the Sri Lankan government this served its strategic goal of showing the outside world some capacity of sovereignty in the Northeast, while for the LTTE it was a way to keep the services provided without having to spend financial resources on them.…”

Rebel Governance and Legitimacy: Understanding the Impact of Rebel Legitimation on Civilian Compliance with the LTTE Rule

“…2 This approach is well-suited, because a study on legitimacy requires an investigation into the effect of legitimation strategies on a specific target audience. We therefore focus on the perceptions and behaviour of those living inside territory under full or partial LTTE control from 1983 until 2009, although we recognise that the LTTE invested in its portrayal among an international audience too (Bhatia 2005, Nadarajah andSriskandarajah 2005, Terpstra andFrerks forthcoming). Within a target audience legitimation strategies may resonate differently, for example, if we consider differences between elderly and youngsters, or different castes.…”