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

Instituting Political Leadership 15
An early imperative in post-conflict societies is placing the reins of authority in the
hands of leaders who are regarded as legitimate and who can responsibly undertake
consensus-building around effective policies, as well as executive oversight of
the state’s administrative bodies. Three instruments have been used for this purpose—official
mediation of peace agreements, international support for elections
and constitution formulation, and training for leaders in conflict transformation.
International efforts to engender a responsible leadership are often hampered
by certain conceptual ambiguities. An important distinction needs to be drawn
between a state and a regime. The former is the impersonal body of rules and institutions
that are expected to carry the burden on an ongoing basis of fulfilling
public needs. The latter is a particular group of individuals who hold the authority
to make public decisions during a particular period of time. In post-war situations,
the procedure for deciding who should comprise an interim regime often entails
negotiations that arrange for power-sharing among certain leaders who led factions
or forces during the war, and thus, who continue to be looked to for implementing
the peace agreement. The resulting ruling regimes are usually temporary
and expected to give way to more formal and rule-governed ways to select leaders
and make policy, such as through elections and constitutional provisions; thus,
the workings of a state.
However, the shift from power-sharing regimes to a rule-bound state is often
beset by divisive conflicts among those initial leaders and their respective constituencies,
even if some ultimately win a scheduled election. Alternatively, the leaders
may collude in ways that do not serve the wider public’s interest. Typically, the
links that power brokers in a fragile state have to anything like a general citizenry
are weak, and operate through faction-based networks. There is little separation
between the private and public domains. Thus, power-sharing agreements can act
as a fig leaf that obscures important issues, such as whether the leaders are accepted
as legitimate and act accountably, adequately represent and reconcile competing
interests, and thus can build a sustainable peace.
Responding to Fragile States: Lessons From Recent Experience | 51