• Home
• About us
• Document Library
• Research Helpdesk
• Professional Development Directory
• Emerging Issues
• Email Bulletin
• Topic Guides
  • Civil service reform
  • Climate change adaptation
  • Communication and governance
  • Conflict
  • Empowerment and accountability
  • Fragile states
  • Gender
  • Human rights
  • Institutional development
  • International legal frameworks for humanitarian action
  • Justice
  • Measuring results
  • Political economy analysis
  • Political systems
  • Security sector reform
  • Service delivery
  • Social exclusion
  • Social protection
  • Statebuilding and peacebuilding
  • State-society relations and citizenship
• Gateway Guides
  • Anti-corruption
  • Decentralisation and local governance
  • Inclusive growth
  • Public financial management and accountability
• Consultancy Services
• Newsfeeds
• Contact us

This chapter investigates repeated violence and why some countries are more vulnerable to it than others. It finds that organised violence is likely to occur when internal and external stresses are not countered by capable, legitimate institutions. Societies that rely on elite pacts, coercion and patronage to control violence risk perpetuating a vicious cycle: where agreements among elites to end fighting do not result in transformed state-society institutions and better governance outcomes, societies remain vulnerable to the same stresses that precipitated fighting in the first place.

Historically, large-scale episodes of violence have been a feature of all human societies. Agreement between powerful leaders has been the most common prevention strategy. This type of agreement, which is called an elite pact, creates security for certain periods, but violence generally recurs. The immediate cause of the violence varies greatly by country, with many countries experiencing a combination of security, economic and political stresses. These stresses may be internal, such as low income or high inequality between groups, or external, including global economic shocks, international drug trafficking or the infiltration of foreign forces.

When elite pacts do not transform institutions, any stresses that shift the balance of power such as the death of a leader, external security threats or economic and demographic pressures can trigger further violence. In addition:

• This vicious cycle can become more difficult to escape over time, as each successive bout of violence further weakens institutions and destroys social capital.
• If a person or a family member is tortured or arbitrarily imprisoned or preyed upon by corrupt officials, that person may have little to lose by risking injury or further imprisonment by taking up a life of crime or rebellion.
• In countries where children have been brutalised, the lasting trauma and lost human and social capital become an impediment to future social progress.

Increasing the capacity of the state can be risky, particularly when leaders perceive a threat to their own interests from well-organised security forces and economic institutions, and where citizens are unable to insist that economic, justice, and security services be provided fairly to all citizens. Nevertheless, legitimate institutions are the surest safeguard against repeated violence:

• Strong policing and defence capacities give states the power to overcome armed threats from rebel or organised criminal groups.
• Social and family cohesion can also be a critical national capacity: if the family and community place no value on national laws, for example, there is less to constrain a person from engaging in criminal activities.
• Accountable and inclusive political, social and economic institutions can mediate contests between different classes or groups, ensuring that they are represented in decision-making, that their demands are heard and their rights protected.
• Accountable security forces and government agencies avoid the human rights abuses and corruption that can fuel grievances and create incentives for violent opposition.