Document Library

Key Text With the State against the State? The Formation of Armed Groups

Author: Klaus Schlichte
Date: 2009
Size: 20 pages (176 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How do armed groups develop? This article from Contemporary Security Policy investigates the formation of armed groups using the concept of figuration, which emphasises the interdependence of individuals. There are three main ways by which armed groups come into being: in response to violent repression, through exclusion from the ruling class and when government-created informal armed forces become free from state control. These mechanisms provide insights into the conditions under which armed groups are likely to form and whether they become institutionalised.

The concept of figuration, first introduced in political sociology, shows how single actors are linked by asymmetric power balances. This way of conceiving armed groups goes beyond individualism and does not predetermine relations between members.

There are at least three mechanisms by which armed groups come into being: the mechanism of repression, the ad hoc mechanism and the spin-off mechanism. These are linked and can overlap.

Violent repression exerted by government forces causes political opposition to evolve into armed action. Leaders of these groups, which tend to have a strong legitimacy base, are usually politicians.
Under the ad hoc mechanism, individuals who feel excluded from the clientelist networks of a political class organise violent actions against state agencies. Groups formed this way are new creations that can have difficulty becoming stable during war and are prone to fragmentation. They can institutionalise and defeat government forces if strongly supported by other states.
In times of war, governments employ informal forces for objectives that regular forces are unwilling or unable to achieve. These spin-off groups of informal troops later develop a life of their own but have difficulty overcoming the deligitimising effects of the violence they have inflicted. Their fate depends on the abilities of post-war states to reintegrate them into armed forces.

The mechanisms by which armed groups come into being are relevant to security policy and other efforts to control violence.

All three processes are internationalised to some degree. Other states are often involved. Members of armed groups acquire skills in remote institutions. The political ideas around which groups are centred have a long-standing international history.
These formations often occur in critical situations of post-colonial states; in either a crisis of distribution due to shortage of resources or a crisis in which exclusion and political violence already play a role.
The formation of armed groups is genuine social action by individuals who act intentionally. Resorting to arms, as legitimate as it may seem to those involved, is always based on a decision.
The development of violent expertise and the capacity to use arms and organise forces is almost always learned within state institutions.
Oppositional milieus, universities and armies, prisons and schools appear to be the institutional settings which facilitate the formation of armed groups. The social ties of shared experiences help an organisation to emerge out of shared interest.
Deeper investigation is needed into the distinction between state armed forces and non-state armed groups. This might reveal that violent challenges to incumbent regimes are related to the failure of regimes to provide enough space for political change.
The dilemma of how to control violence without producing even more remains unresolved. But these insight raise scepticism about attempts to make the world more secure by creating greater expertise in the exertion of violence.

Access full text: available online

Source: Schlichte, K., 2009, 'With the State against the State? The Formation of Armed Groups', Contemporary Security Policy, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 246 - 264