Insurgency Success Factors and Rebel Legitimacy slide image

Insurgency Success Factors and Rebel Legitimacy

institutions achieved higher levels of overall success, and were engaged in longer-lasting conflicts, as they had greater capacity to challenge states 24. Allen Buchanan (2002) conducted a study analyzing the effects of democratic elections and practices (respectively) within insurgent organizations as contributors to legitimacy. The study concluded that greater levels of democratic practice, exercised through elections and political institutions that on this argument by examining the role of democratic elections and institutions of insurgencies 25. Much has also been written to determine the legitimating effects of negotiations on rebel legitimacy. Negotiations can indicate acknowledgement from state or other actors that rebel groups are a legitimate force that can participate, dictate, and formulate discussions with legitimate actors. Negotiations may entail compromise, interaction, and developing relationships between states and insurgent groups 26. Two groups of thought dictate negotiation literature: 1) that negotiating with rebels provides legitimacy to illegitimate organizations and should be avoided at all costs 27; and 2) that negotiating with rebels has the potential to support conflict resolution and state-building initiatives and should be considered on a case by case basis 28. Bapat (2001) contributes to negotiation literature by perceiving terrorism as a form of communication, used only when all other forms of communication are cut off to the organization. He argues that when states end negotiations, incidences of terrorism often rise 29. Rebel literature also focuses on civilians as significant contributors of legitimacy to rebel groups. There are three key factors that most strongly influence civilian support: 1) the ability of a state or rebel group to provide goods and services³0; 2) violence enacted against civilians³1; and 3) aligned ideology³2. Bethany Lacina (2015) made several interesting conclusions regarding the role of violence in influencing civilian support. First, civilians favor actors they view as their protectors. This perception can be strongly influenced by propaganda and differences in 8
View entire presentation