convergence

Lawlessness and Disorder
often local in scope and criminal in character, to emerge as challengers to the state. Sometimes
the inadequacies and inequities of the state provoke insurgent movements; in other cases they
encourage the rise of warlords, militias, and gangs; in yet other cases they offer incubating
spaces for criminal organizations that extend patronage and even some forms of philanthropy
out of self-interest rather than altruism. Whatever, the precise nature of these groups or the
circumstances of their emergence, they typically fill at least some of the gaps left by the state.
This trend is likely to continue so long as governments focus on debt reduction rather than
the effective provision of a wide range of public goods.
Another major problem for states stems from alternative loyalties of significant portions
of the population. During much of the 20 th century this problem seemed a thing of the past
as nation and state became increasingly synonymous and wartime cohesion solidified relationships
between states and their societies. Since the end of the Cold War, however, divisions
and fissures within states have become increasingly apparent. Indeed, in some countries the
lack of primary affiliation with the state and the resurgence of primordial loyalties—to family,
clan, tribe, ethnic group, religion, or sect—has created a crisis of loyalty among significant and
often growing segments of “national” populations. As David Ronfeldt has argued, “Even for
modern societies that have advanced far beyond a tribal stage, the tribe remains not only the
founding form but also the forever form and the ultimate fallback form.” 67 Indeed, “many of
the world’s current trouble spots—in the Middle East, South Asia, the Balkans, the Caucasus,
and Africa—are in societies so riven by embedded tribal and clan dynamics that the outlook
remains terribly uncertain for them to build professional states and competitive businesses that
are unencumbered by tribal and clan dynamics.” 68 In Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan,
clans and tribes, to say the least, have complicated efforts to engage in state-making. Similarly,
in some African countries tribal loyalties have a significant impact on both patronage networks
and distribution of state resources. Tribes and clans and the warlords who sometimes lead
them typically define both their interests and their identities in ways that implicitly or explicitly
challenge notions of public interest and collective identity as symbolized in state structures
and institutions. 69 In turn, these definitions significantly skew patterns of resource allocation.
The gap between favored beneficiaries and the rest of the population further undermines
the legitimacy of the state while strengthening the legitimacy of those who have succeeded
in tilting the playing field in favor of their tribe or clan. None of this should be surprising.
As Zonabend has observed, “The lineage or clan is more than a group of relatives united by
privileged ties; it is also a corporate group, whose members support each other, act together
in all circumstances, whether ritual or everyday, jointly own and exploit assets and carry out,
from generation to generation, the same political, religious or military functions.” 70 Few states
have this kind of unity except under conditions of total warfare. And the age of total warfare
appears to have passed.
Significantly, criminal organizations also exhibit some of these features of tribes and
clans. Many criminal organizations, although certainly not all, have an ethnic, family, tribal,
or even geographical basis. Even when that is not the case, bonding mechanisms—which can
include time spent together in prison or simply working together in risky conditions—play an
important role. This sense of affiliation to nonstate and often violent groups, while it sometimes
coexists easily with loyalty to the state, can also subvert or weaken the state. Moreover, in an
29