Another data point for a state having no legitimacy unless it takes a social democratic approach. Nathanial Fink describes the counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan:
Consider, for example, the question of roads. When U.N. teams begin building new stretches of road in volatile Afghan provinces such as Zabul and Kandahar, insurgents inevitably attack the workers. But as the projects progress and villagers begin to see the benefits of having paved access to markets and health care, the Taliban attacks become less frequent.Non-state actors gain their political legitimacy in the same way. Hezbollah and Hamas both have social democratic and judicial components which not only replaces a weak state but helps keep it out of those areas. Hezbollah is the second largest employer in Lebanon. It runs hospitals, orphanages, discount pharmacies and garbage collection. All of those are services which governments in Australia provide.
Fink continues with the benefits that a social-democratic approach bring:
New highways then extend the reach of the Karzai administration into previously inaccessible areas, making a continuous Afghan police presence possible and helping lower the overall level of violence -- no mean feat in a country larger and more populous than Iraq, with a shaky central government.Basically it extends the reach of the state, and hence, its legitimacy. The state is essentially a technology for the reduction of organised and arbitrary violence. There appears to be an equilibria where the state must supply a certain level of services and infrastructure to maintain its popular legitimacy. Ironically market approaches to services are eroded the state to an extent and allowing non-state actors to rival the state in social approaches and hence challenging the legitimacy of weak states. It appears that the correct approach to a weak or failing state is spending on social democracy rather than an authoritarian, dictatorial or pure neo-liberal approach.
Comments