engaging fragile states - Woodrow Wilson International Center for ...

Societies function most efficiently when their populations are cohesive, which
arises from well-functioning, vibrant social networks, based in myriad associational
ties and dense interactions across the societal stratum. The ties have to be
cross-cutting, creating links between dominant and minority groups. Instead of
reinforcing the main cleavages in a society, they should dilute the exclusiveness of
a dominant group. Certain risk factors often make it difficult to create or maintain
cross-cutting networks, such as the extent of the state’s territory, a country’s poor
physical endowments, its population size and diversity, lack of technology, or deficient
skills in utilizing technologies.
The other factor in the equation that determines whether the system avoids
state breakdown is whether the state is resilient in addressing risk factors it faces.
In order to be resilient, the state needs to manage the society in a generally inclusive,
responsive, and accountable way. When stakes are provided to groups,
they are more likely to feel less marginalized and will operate within the system,
thus being less inclined to change it through coercive means. Unfortunately, however,
the state’s performance is often distorted by one group capturing it for their
own purposes and creating unequal distributions of resources, thus marginalizing
other groups.
Such exclusionary practices invite what Marshall called “polar factionalism”.
Factionalism emerges when groups differ on what they think needs to be done
and what the best course of action may be, but factionalism can rise to different
levels, depending on how it is handled. One level comes into play when normally
contentious politics escalate to issue factionalism, where the population is simply
divided over certain issues. If these issue disagreements widen and accumulate, the
divisions can morph into ideological divisions. Thus, polar factionalism can result,
in which intergroup differences intensify and the groups become less and less cooperative.
The polity then separates into rigid, contending factions that become
increasingly militant and may engage in open warfare. A good example of how a
society can escalate to polar factionalism is the US Civil War, when the disputes
between the North and the South led the system to break apart.
Because factionalism is often associated with the use of violence to settle political
disputes, the chief challenge for the state is effective management. The state
can approach factionalism in two ways, both of which are in play to some degree:
a) accommodative behavior that encourages cooperation and keeps politics
within accepted parameters, or b) instrumental actions based largely on coercion,
which drives all sides toward greater militancy. Both methods can work
to maintain political control, but the overall balance should lean toward more
accommodative strategies.
Understanding State Failure and Resilience: A Global Scan | 19