Revolt and Rule: Learning about Governance from Rebel Groups

Abstract

Recent work in international relations has problematized state-centric assumptions of governance to explore variations in authority by a range of nonstate actors (e.g., nongovernmental organizations, criminal syndicates, gangs). This forum centers on the phenomenon of rebel group governance during civil wars and leverages the concept to advance our understanding of current theories and conceptualizations of governance. The nature of rebel organizations provides a unique opportunity for researchers to expand the state-centric focus on governance because rebel actors differ from states in their comparative position within the global state system, the contexts in which they operate, and their lack of legitimizing principles that permit consistent membership as a class of political actors. These differences allow for meaningful extensions of how we theorize and conceptualize governance beyond the state. Furthermore, variation across these differences allows our findings in the study rebel governance to speak directly to the broader literature in international relations on governance by state actors. In our introduction to this forum, we detail the ways in which rebel groups have chosen to address the central components of governance through a variety of governance strategies. We then devote three essays in the forum to the concepts of legitimacy, capacity, and territorial control. In each of the three essays, authors discuss the ways in which rebel governance problematizes and advances these concepts for the broader study of governance. In the conclusion, this forum synthesizes extant and emerging work in the field of rebel governance in order to raise new questions of the governance and state building literatures. In this way, we show how investigating governance by rebel groups in particular advances our understanding of governance more broadly.

NGOs' least‐played role: Bridging between a divided public administration: The case of Yemen

“…In such circumstances, the government may lose control over its territories, resulting in its weakening or loss of legitimacy (Cunningham, 2016). This vacuum might be filled by armed factions with conflicting interests and ideologies, further exacerbating destabilization and fragmenting government and public institutions (Nyadera et al., 2023) as opposed authorities vie for control (Loyle et al., 2022). Re‐establishing a stable and legitimate political order becomes an immense challenge for divided public institutions, compounded by each authority's jurisdictional reforms that remain confined within their domains (Menkhaus, 2006; Pearlman & Cunningham, 2012).…”

“…In such circumstances, the government may lose control over its territories, resulting in its weakening or loss of legitimacy (Cunningham, 2016). This vacuum might be filled by armed factions with conflicting interests and ideologies, further exacerbating destabilization and fragmenting government and public institutions (Nyadera et al, 2023) as opposed authorities vie for control (Loyle et al, 2022).…”

Rebel group legitimacy, ideology and durable peace

“…Yet, the relationship between electoral performance, regarded as the demand side of legitimacy, and service provision as a supply side feature remains largely unexplored (Florea and Malejacq, 2018;Loyle et al, 2022;Teiner, 2022). This question is prompted by Shesterinina's (2022) argument about the way that legitimacy is shaped by service provision during conflict and manifested through electoral support enjoyed in the postagreement phase.…”

The political consequences of corporate donations for public service provision

“…Nelson-Nuñez (2019), for instance, uses evidence from Peru to demonstrate that NGOs can either strengthen or weaken relationships between individuals and the government, based on whether the NGOs appear to be replacing the need for government interaction or not, and how much information the NGO provides. Work on rebel groups by Loyle et al (2022) and Loyle et al (2023) questions whether our focus on the state as the default provider may be misguided. In the context of firms specifically, Dawkins (2021) finds that government contracting-companies delivering a service that is funded by governments-can reduce citizen buy-in, creating a situation where people blame governments for failures and do not believe the government to be accountable.…”