What have we learned on authoritarianism?

What have we learned on authoritarianism?

SDC Policy Note: Governance in Authoritarian Contexts

Issue Papers (Synthesis): ● Examining Authoritarian Developmental States

(Webinar March 2021)● Do Autocracy and Fragility connect? (Webinar

Governance Week)● Gender Narratives & Authoritarianism

Regional Webinars● Westen Balkans, Mekong (first semester)● Eastern Southern Africa, MENA, West Africa tbc

(second semester)

Program

Reflections from Ursula Keller, Gov Network

Discussion with all participants

Introduction

Goodbye

Reflections from Laura Bott, FCHR

Presentation by Dr Robin Luckham

Impromptu in pairs

Key Arguments

Recent events have upended received wisdom about fragility, exposing vast inequalities

Autocracy is complexly linked to fragility; and fragility loops back to autocracy

Not all autocracies are the same; and democracies too can be fragile

States are not born authoritarian; nor are they born fragile. They are made so by historical processes

One should disaggregate from the fragilities of states to fragilities within and across states

It is not states per se that are fragile, but their social contracts with citizens that are fragile

Donors working in and on authoritarian and fragile situations face uncomfortable political choices

Changing Definitions: From State Fragility to Multiple Fragilities

“States are fragile when state structures lack political will and/or capacity to provide

for the basic functions needed for poverty reduction, development and to safeguard

the security and human rights of their populations” (OECD/DAC 2007)

“Fragility is the combination of exposure to risks and insufficient coping capacity of the

state, systems and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks. Fragility

can lead to negative outcomes including violence, poverty, inequality, displacement,

and environmental and political degradation.” (OECD States of Fragility 2020)

OECD’s five dimensions: political fragility; security fragility; social fragility; economic

fragility; environmental fragility

Drifts away from the problems of power. What is gained in breadth is lost in analytical

rigour.

Whose fragility,

what fragility?

Who says a state or system is fragile? Or is it just the relationship with donors that is fragile?

The early warning paradox. We often don’t know a state is fragile until it begins to fall apart

Not enough precision about causal relationships over time, including those with authoritarianism

Roots of national fragilities in global and regional shocks and insecurities have mostly escaped attention.

Not enough attention to major inequalities in the burdens of risk: between and within countries, across communities, rich and poor

Whose fragility? How do the various forms of fragility impact on vulnerable people and groups?

Addressing the question of power.

How does Authoritarianism

fit in?

1. Yemen

2. South Sudan3. Somalia

4. Central African Republic

18. Libya

5. DRC

6. Syria

7. Chad

8. Afghanistan

10. Burundi

11. Iraq12. Sudan

13. Congo Rep.

15. Venezuela

16. Zimbabwe

17. Eq. Guinea

19. Cameroon

9. Haiti

14. Mali

21. N. Korea

22. Pakistan

23. Eritrea

31. Bangladesh

37. Nicaragua

36. West Bank and Gaza

20. Uganda

28. Ethiopia

33. Mauritania

24. Nigeria

25. Mozambique

26. Madagascar

27. Kenya

29. Guinea-Bissau

30. Guinea

32. Papua New Guinea

35. Liberia

38. Guatemala

40. Comoros

42. Tajikistan44. Laos

47. Eswatini

54. Iran

56. Cambodia

39. Zambia

45. Angola

46. Burkina Faso

49. Togo

55. Djibouti

41. Niger

43. Sierra Leone

48. Lesotho

50. Tanzania

51. Myanmar

52. Côte d’Ivoire

53. Solomon Islands

57. Gambia

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Lib

eral

isat

ion

Democratisation

Fractured/Regimeless states

Severe Fragility

High Fragility

Moderate Fragility

Red circle – Autocracies Blue circle – Liberalised autocracies Green circle – Limited democracies

Mapping authoritarianism on fragility

Fragility and the shape of power: a typology

Socially Embedded Power

(Power to: institutions, laws, social capital, governmentality)

Low Medium High

Despotic

Power

(Power over:

hierarchy,

coercion,

surveillance)

Low

Fractured or ‘regimeless’

E.g., Yemen, Somalia, Libya,

South Sudan

Fragile democracy

E.g., Mali, Liberia, Sierra

Leone, Nepal, Lebanon

Plural democracy

E.g., India, Colombia, Sri

Lanka, Tunisia

Medium

Fragile or brittle autocracy

E.g., Syria, Venezuela, DRC,

Burundi

Limited democracy

E.g., Turkey, Philippines,

Uganda, Tanzania

Developmental democracy

E.g., South Korea, Taiwan,

Botswana

High

Repressive autocracy

E.g. North Korea, Eritrea,

Iran, Saudi Arabia

Liberalised autocracy

E.g., Egypt, Rwanda,

Morocco, Ethiopia,

Myanmar

Developmental autocracy

E.g., China, Vietnam,

Singapore

Some notes of political realism:- how do fragile and authoritarian states work?- for whom do they work?- whom do they fail?

Fractured or “regimeless” states are not political black holes, nor necessarily autocracies. They have multiple violently competing centres of power

Fragile autocracies are simultaneously weak (capacity to get things done) and powerful (capacity to repress)

Not all autocracies are fragile; some may be better at delivering development and ensuring order than defective democracies

Democracies (like autocracies) can be unequal, venal, corrupt and fragile

Democratization itself can tip countries into cycles of violence and long-term disorder (limited knowledge how to reverse these cycles)

Even well-consolidated democracies sometimes govern marginalized peripheries in comparably violent and exclusionary ways to autocracies

Fragility is a process, not just an end state

History and change matter enormously

Is fragility the price sometimes paid for progress?

Cycles of state-making and state-breaking

Cycles of democratisation and of authoritarian reversal

Historical trajectories into and out of fragility vary; just as transitions to and from authoritarianism vary

Catching the moment: making sure that transitions are not captured or reversed by authoritarian elites

Varying Historical Trajectories of FragilityStates contested from below:

challenged by subaltern uprisings (e.g. Arab Springs, Nicaragua, Nepal, Zimbabwe) thrown off course during democratization (e.g. ex-Yugoslavia, Côte d’Ivoire)

States fractured by violent intra-elite competition: endemic militarism and coups (e.g. West Africa, Central America, Myanmar) unravelling authoritarian governance (e.g. Syria, Libya, Yemen)

States torn by political mobilisation of horizontal (ethnic, religious, sectarian) inequalities: imposed by exclusionary majorities (e.g. Myanmar, Sudan, Zimbabwe) challenged by insurgent and/or secessionist minorities (e.g. Bosnia, Sri Lanka) stemming from multiple rival nationalities and groups (e.g. DRC, Nigeria, Lebanon, Philippines)

States destabilized by transnational insecurities: by cross-border conflicts and interventions (e.g. Afghanistan-Pakistan, Sahel, Horn of Africa) by terrorism, global crime, wars on terror/drugs (e.g. Central America, Afghanistan) by foreign interventions (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine)

States unable to break free from durable disorder: (e.g. Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, Libya)

It is not so much states, but the social contract

between states and citizens, that is fragile

Disaggregating from state fragility…

…to fragilities within states

Huge spatial and social inequalities tend to divide states from citizens and citizens from each other

Often these inequalities traverse national boundaries (e.g., in the Sahel)

Subnational pockets of fragility and of authoritarian governance can exist in otherwise stable and democratic countries (e.g., India)

Conversely subnational pockets of peace and accountable governance can exist in otherwise violent contexts (e.g., Somalia)

Alternative paradigms to fragility:

- governance without government- negotiated states- hybrid political orders- rebel governance- criminal governance

• These recognize the diverse forms of political authority that exist, especially in marginalized localities

• Decenter analysis and policy from state to local-level political authorities

• Call attention to multiple governance actors beyond the state such as local justice bodies; traditional authorities; warlords; paramilitaries; criminal gangs; rebel groups

• Emphasize the agency and capacity for collective action of citizens and marginalized groups, both in resisting state authority and in cooperating with it

In development-land, as well as in peace-land, there is little room for

political innocence

How to work in, around and on fragile and authoritarian contexts? Dilemmas to be navigated, rather than ready-made solutions

‘Work with the grain’ of defective governments and local authorities - or insist on minimum governance and human rights standards?

How to cope with intransigent or self-interested policy makers when negotiating humanitarian access or supporting development programs?

How to identify reliable interlocutors within national governments without rendering them vulnerable to regime intimidation?

How to re-channel assistance from government institutions to NGOs and civic organizations without undermining the former and endangering the latter?

What to do if national security agencies infiltrate or subvert civic organizations? And how to protect the latter?

What if cooperation is required with dissidents or armed insurgents, as well as with the regime? And how to chart a course between them?

When are Faustian bargains with repressive and corrupt elites or violent insurgents permissible, for instance to protect vulnerable people or to resolve conflicts?What to do when the security imperatives of governments and of powerful external actors pull in one direction; and the need to build trust and work with local communities pulls in another?

The dilemmas are many, and there are few if any general answers










Reflections from Laura Bott Focal Point Fragility, Conflict and Human

Rights










Reflections from Ursula KellerFocal Point on Governance










Discussion with all participants

Please share some of your take-aways

Write in chat

Documents

What have we learned on authoritarianism?