Document Library

Key Text What Happens to the State in Conflict?: Political Analysis as a Tool for Planning Humanitarian Assistance

Author: L Cliffe and R Luckham
Date: 2000
Size: 22 pages

Access full text: via document delivery

Summary

Peacemaking and humanitarian assistance in complex political emergencies (CPEs) based on a lack of understanding of their political dimensions often result in unintended and even counter-productive outcomes. What is required is analysis grounded in humanitarian principles but based on political realities. This article uses information derived from the COPE programme to illustrate how policy and practice benefit from an awareness of political context. It does so by considering how the problematisation of the state generates violent conflict; how this reshapes or destroys society; the legacies of these conflicts; and suggests a strategic approach is required to peace-building.

The crucial factor in the genesis of CPEs is the point at which the legitimacy of the state and its monopoly on violence begin to come into question. The legacy of conflict can include destroyed infrastructure, displaced persons, victimisation, but also in a “governance voids”, “accountability dilemmas”, replacement of rule of law with a society of fear, disempowerment and militarism.

CPEs are symptoms of profound authority crises within the state, but the causes exist at global, regional, national and local level. CPEs result from failures of government, international agencies and donors.
In addition to development policy failure, democratic deficits and bad conflict management, CPEs are caused by a failure to ensure the basic need of the population – both in welfare and human and political rights.
Conflicts transform the political, economic and social realities which gave rise to them, but this does not negate the importance of studying causes and context.
Significant factors in the success of a peace include whether the conclusion was imposed, whether it resulted from outright victory or by agreement and whether all forces were included and the regime legitimate.

A narrow focus on rebuilding the state can be highly problematic, especially if led from outside and not from within. If peacebuilding is to succeed, it must not only restore the state’s ability to provide welfare and security for its population, but also ensure that the new government remains legitimate and consensual.

Policy choices are never made in a vacuum. Power and interests must be accounted for if proposed reforms are not to founder.
The international community's ability to react to looming emergencies needs to be addressed.
The transformative effects of conflicts often result in polarisation, which means that solutions which may have been applicable prior to or early in the violent period may no longer be acceptable after years or decades of war.
Difficult political choices have to be made, especially where those responsible for violence and human rights abuses either emerge in a position of power within the state, or can potentially disrupt a settlement.
The patterns of the earlier conflict and the circumstances of the transition to peace affect both the nature and the survivability of that peace. Choices should be informed by a strategic analysis of that context.

Access full text: via document delivery

Source: Cliffe, L. and Luckham, R. 2000 'What Happens to the State in Conflict?: Political Analysis as a Tool for Planning Humanitarian Assistance,' Disasters, vol. 24 (4), pp291-313, Overseas Development Institute, 2000.
Author: Robin Luckham , r.luckham@ids.ac.uk
Institute of Development Studies , http://www.ids.ac.uk