A Typology of Rebel Political Institutional Arrangements

Abstract

<jats:p> What are the different political institutions rebels create to engage captive civilian populations, and how do they arrive at distinct political arrangements? Rebel-controlled territories host a diversity of political institutions ranging from structures designed to promote democratic decision-making to martial law. Although previous research has focused on rebel social service provision and other aspects of rebel governance, few have investigated variation in the institutional arrangements rebels adopt. In this article, we identify a set of four dimensions along which rebel political institutions vary leading to six ideal–typical forms of political arrangements. We argue that an iterative and dynamic stepwise process, determined by rebel group strategies and local conditions, produces one of these political institutional outcomes. Importantly, the type of rebel political institutions within one location can change throughout the war, and variation sometimes emerges across territories the same rebel group controls. We demonstrate the plausibility of our arguments through a series of illustrative case studies that correspond to the formation processes of our six ideal–typical political arrangements. We conclude with recommendations for future research. </jats:p>

Voting for Militants: Rebel Elections in Civil War

“…Our findings suggest rebel groups' political strategies, such as the holding of popular elections, are tightly connected to their overall governance behaviors and to their organizational capacity. Mampilly and Stewart (2021), in this feature, argue that the development of governance institutions is usefully understood as a sequence of decisions related to how rebels treat civilians. This article and Loyle's piece in this feature both highlight specific institutions that are used only by some rebel groups but neither emphasizes the direct interplay of these with sequential decision making, military strategy, or longer-term political outcomes.…”

“…Because popular elections require ordinary people participate in choosing rebel representatives, they reflect a rebel group’s pursuit of civilian inclusiveness (in form if not in substance) in their governance. The degree of civilian inclusiveness in its political processes, in turn, is a decision every rebel group must make in establishing a governance system (see Mampilly and Stewart 2021 in this feature). By choosing to deliver the franchise, no matter how local or rudimentary the process, rebels are granting civilians a political voice, in many cases for the participants’ first time.…”

Competitive Governance and Displacement Decisions Under Rebel Rule: Evidence from the Islamic State in Iraq

“…For example, in Colombia, civilian resistance to rebel governance was less likely in areas where pre-existing institutions were both legitimate and effective (Arjona 2016, 71). Additionally, new research in this special issue has found that rebel governance is shaped by the legacy of pre-existing political institutions (Mampilly and Stewart 2021), that some rebel groups have created parallel judicial systems in contexts where state legal systems are viewed as corrupt (Loyle 2021), and that some rebel groups conduct elections as a strategy to differentiate themselves from incumbent states (Cunningham, Huang, and Sawwyer 2021). I build upon these findings to argue that civilian perceptions of the quality of governance provided by an incumbent state affects the displacement decisions of civilians living in territory captured by a rebel group that offers them a competing political order.…”

Introduction to the Special Feature on Dynamic Processes of Rebel Governance

“…Mampilly and Stewart begin their typology with a rebel group “first coming into control of a territory” (Mampilly and Stewart 2021, 17) but lay out the governance decision tree with an explicit assumption that rebels are working to establish and retain control and that rebels may reverse specific decisions in the face of failure to do so. Revkin offers powerful new evidence that civilians within the same controlled territory have distinct experiences and perceptions with respect to local governance.…”

“…Mampilly and Stewart approach governance as an iterative process focused on the implementation of decisions related to governance arrangement from which rebel leaders can revert from or further change. Once rebels innovate upon local institutions (see Figure 1 action 3 in Mampilly and Stewart 2021), they have the opportunity to learn about the tenability of the changes and retract these changes if necessary. This model allows rebel leaders to develop rebel governance as an iterative process informed by success and failure (similar to many models of battlefield fortunes and conflict negotiations [cf.…”