State Reform and Transition Process
Topic for discussion
Post-conflict reconstruction of the State: what post-nationalState?
Friday, 14 December, 2007
At the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Mankind
Rue Saint Sabin, 75010 Paris
The issue
The way States operate in the contexts of transition processes, be it the end of the Soviet era or various post-conflict situations as well as its vocation pose problems. The demands for State reform in post-Soviet systems as well as in different cases of post-war reconstruction projects illustrate the obstacles against which these reforms may come: inadequate democracy, absence of the Rule of Law, ruling class’ lack of legitimacy, corruption, economic crisis and poverty, resurgence of conflict.
Within the international system, the State has changed little as a basic structuring element, but States themselves, in terms of their specificities, functions, diversity, have undergone considerable changes since the end of the Cold War. The appearance of new States, shifting borders, regime changes and alteration in the political system all contribute to this phenomenon. These transformations have also been the result of threats from certain stakeholders, be they old or new. Over and above the assaults of those driving globalisation, there are also “centrifugal” forces operating within States: these include, notably, private stakeholders such as local civil society organisations, which fulfil the State’s role of providing social support, thus reinforcing infra-State identities, which undermine the national identity (if indeed one existed). This redeployment sometimes leads to the formation and development of militias or mafias whose income derives from corruption and the pillaging of resources, and who condone large-scale tax fraud. When these infra-national identities spread across borders, trans-national networks (terrorist networks) are a result. The final factor in these processes are the more classic forms of privatisation of the State.
The State no longer inspires confidence, neither internally nor externally. Its authority is thrown into doubt and loyalty toward the State crumbles. Faced with these rivals to its supremacy, it is difficult for the State to hold firm and some even fail altogether (weak /failing or failed States). From the outside, international partners, who mistrust corrupt States, devise strategies to “bypass” the State, for example by cooperating with NGOs, which thus further undermines the formers very base. Stripped of its traditional functions, the State loses all legitimacy and authority.
What opportunities for reconstruction are to be found, between the State’s new functions and its dysfunctions?
The search for political legitimacy cannot escape integration of (1) sociological realities and (2) anthropological realities within the institutionalised political system:
(1)The first looks at more traditional forms of authority which, in fact, very often function and perform the central State’s lost functions;
(2)The second focuses on infra-national, or even trans-boundary identities, which structure the loyalty system that causes the de-legitimisation of the State.
Institutionalised power needs to be able to adjust its relationship with these stakeholders and with the new behaviours and objectives, as well as with these new segments of society, with a sense of openness and integration.
This observation leads us to reflect, in a parallel manner, on civil society and the structures that enable them to function. An anthropological approach must help create better understanding of the way in which they operate if it is to render cooperation possible. Moreover, the way in which people relate to authority permits an understanding of how non-democratically derived forms of power may nevertheless also be legitimate. Underlying this is the question of the State’s origins and its historical roots.
Our approach is to research historical experience as well as examples found in the contemporary world, so as to list, describe and analyse the dynamics of construction, breakdown and re-construction of the State. European experiences of the formation of nation-States (particularly France and the United Kingdom), which were long processes undertaken in the context of obtaining central power over /with changes forced upon the feudal economy, enrich this work. To what extent can this historical experience help us comprehend the dynamics of contemporary (the) State’s construction and its operations? Is the nation-State, as it emerged in Europe, a unique historical experience? Is the advent of the European nation-State due to a cluster of specific historical circumstances, unique to this part of the world, and that particular time? Or can it be transposed elsewhere? Is this possible in the contemporary context? (delete?)
Finally, how to view the nation-State model when the sovereignty of States is being challenged by the international community’s actions? Interposition, enforcement, interference and international administration are but some examples. What kind of post-national State do these developments point to?
This research is multi-disciplinary in nature (sociology, anthropology, political science, economics) so as to address reconstruction through an approach that incorporates all the interdependent areas that reconstruction affects.