Guerrillas and civilian participation: the National Resistance Army in Uganda, 1981–86

Abstract

Guerrilla organisations vary greatly in their relations with civilians living in territories that they control. The NRA presents a rare, though not unique, case of a guerrilla group whose commitment to popular support deepened into democratic village management during the course of its civil war. The significant causal factors in deepening this commitment were its ideological conviction, relative military strength, dependence on civilian material assistance, and need for accommodation with civilian preferences in its operational area. It withdrew this commitment when it was under severe military pressure. Military survival was central to NRA calculations, but insufficient to determine its relations to civilians. In those phases of the war when the NRA soldiers were relatively secure, these other factors determined the type of civilian participation it supported. It organised clandestine civilian committees for assistance when it was dependent on civilians. During those periods when it held territory, it held elections for committees which managed their villages without NRA supervision.

Wartime Institutions

“…conceptualizes as wartime political orders-bringing to the fore the different ways in which power can be allocated between incumbents and insurgents. An emerging field on rebel governance identifies and theorizes variation in rebels' ruling strategies (Arjona et al, 2014;Kasfir, 2005;Mampilly, 2011;Metelits, 2010;Weinstein, 2007).…”

“…The Tigray's People's Liberation Front (TPLF) in Ethiopia is also known for its provision of services and implementation of land reform (Young 1997a(Young , 1998. The National Resistance Army (NRA) and the Rwenzururu Kingdom Government in Uganda have also been described as insurgencies engaged with ruling civilians comprehensively (Kasfir 2005;Weinstein 2007). …”

Resources, conflict and governance: A critical review

“…For other authors, rebel governance mainly concerns the rebels' extraction of resources from the population. As is argued in these papers, governance arrangements mainly aim at streamlining this extraction (Kasfir, 2005;Mampilly, 2007;Weinstein, 2007). Only a few studies deal directly with the subject explicitly, and are mainly limited to African cases (the exception being Sri Lanka).…”

Pious Plans and Porous Borders: Rebel Governance and Cross-Border Sanctuary in the Syrian Civil War

“…The National Resistance Army (NRA) in Uganda established local authority councils and held democratic elections for such councils in areas under its control; these councils also served as local judicial authorities (Kasfir 2005;Weinstein 2007, 175-180). In Afghanistan, the Taliban established their own religious-based political authority structures and dispute resolution mechanisms during their rise to power in the 1990's (Coll 2004, 332-334;Sinno 2008, 227;Braithwaite and Wardak 2013).…”

“…Rebel groups that govern in civil wars exhibit marked differences in the nature of political and institutional development and service provision they undertake at the local level, practices which in turn shape the relative extent of armed group intervention in local affairs upon interaction with civilian preferences and local conditions (Wickham-Crowley 1987, Bakonyi and Stuvoy 2005, Weinstein 2007, Kasfir 2008, Mampilly 2011, Staniland 2012b, Huang 2013, Kalyvas 2014, Sukyens 2014, Barter 2014. Within the existing literature, the general assumption is that rebels employ governance practices and design local-level institutions in an effort to extract resources for the fight against the incumbent regime, and seek to do so in the most cost-efficient manner given local circumstances, preferences, and the demands of fighting (Kasfir 2005, Kalyvas 2006, Metelits 2010, Keister 2011, Arjona 2013. The general theoretical implication underlying this assumption is that armed groups should employ governance practices that allow them to most efficiently extract resources for fighting, keeping in mind both local civilian preferences and the costly, resource-intense nature of waging war against the state (Sinno 2008, Staniland 2012a, Hazen 2013.…”