Search

Contemporary conflicts produce vast territories outside the control of the recognized political authority. Instead of sinking into anarchy, non-state actors such as rebel organizations can establish political order within the territory they control. While many rebel groups remain predatory, providing little if anything for the populations under their control, many others will establish complex governance edifices that provide public goods such as a judicial system, a food distribution network, health care and education. The performance of governmental functions by rebel groups of both leftist and rightist inclinations has occurred throughout history. This contrasts with the dominant perception of rebel groups, which have often been caricatured as little more than warlords. While certainly valid when discussing certain parasitic insurgent groups, many others take over large territories for extended periods of time and establish impressive political authorities. Why do the leaderships of certain rebel groups establish complex governmental structures that provide extensive public services to civilians in their control, while others do little if anything for their population? How do groups design the structures they develop to provide governance? I argue that two factors, the degree of pre-conflict relations between state and society, and, second, whether the group is a secessionist struggle, will determine the effectiveness of the groups' civil administration. My study is based on a two-level comparative analysis of different rebel groups. The first level, based on extensive field research I conducted in rebel controlled areas provides detailed cases studies of three different contemporary rebel groups; the LTTE in Sri Lanka, The RCD-Goma in Congo, and the SPLM/A in Sudan. The arguments developed here are tested against a second level-- presented here-- an analysis of a sample of 15 cases randomly drawn to assess the generalizability of my conclusions ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]