The legacy of war: The effect of militias on postwar repression

Abstract

How do wartime legacies affect repression after the conflict ends? Irregular forces support the government in many civil wars. We argue that if this link continues after the war, respect for human rights declines. As ''tried and tested'' agents they are less likely to shirk when given the order to repress. Governments might also keep the militias as a ''fall-back option'', which results in more repression. Analyzing data from 1981 to 2014 shows that pro-government militias that were inherited from the previous conflict are consistently associated with worse repression, but newly created ones are not. Wartime pro-government militias target a broader spectrum of the population and are linked to worse state violence. New militias usually supplement wartime ones and use violence primarily against political opponents. This study highlights the detrimental impact of war legacies.

Security Consolidation in the Aftermath of Civil War: Explaining the Fates of Victorious Militias

“…Our analysis takes an important step forward by statistically evaluating when governments opt to disintegrate or integrate these groups. This is important because militias in many contexts are used for repressive purposes even after a civil war has ended, and a failure to effectively manage them (or dissolve them) can lead to continual human rights violations (Carey and González 2020) and significant threats to future domestic stability (Steinert, Steinert, and Carey 2019;Reno 2011). We argue that social and organizational constraints motivate states to refrain from terminating these groups despite the competitive politics that can emerge after a civil war even among allies (Zeigler 2016).…”

“…Second, the coercive capabilities of these strong militaries will induce governments to believe that they have enough of a military advantage to subdue their contemporary militia allies in the future if necessary. This does not mean that they will necessarily disintegrate these militias, however, because auxiliary forces can continue to serve other purposes after the war has ended (Carey, Colaresi, and Mitchell 2015;Carey and González 2020). Rather, militias in these states can be retained as unofficial auxiliaries because the ruling elites will have confidence that they can control or eliminate the militias in the future if need be.…”

Vicious Circles: Violence, Vulnerability, and Climate Change

“…The longer-term institutional implications of armed conflict are less clear-cut. Oftentimes, ongoing armed conflict inspires more stringent central rule, epitomized by implementation of an indefinite state of emergency and restrictions on, e.g., media freedom and civil liberties, as well as more covert aspects of repression, discrimination, and exclusion (143)(144)(145)(146). There is mixed evidence for civil conflict impacts on the stability and longevity of regimes, however.…”

Varieties of post-civil war violence

“…An exclusive focus on civil war occurrence also ignores another important source of post-conflict violence and insecurity: the state itself. Many post-war societies experience significant state repression, often perpetrated by a hybrid of state security forces and paramilitary groups (Carey and González, 2021). This may be directed against former rebels or perceived “counter-revolutionaries,” but may also involve state-aligned forces targeting the population for political, personal, or economic reasons.…”