ANÁLISIS DEL DISCURSO TELEVISIVO El discurso televisivo

I will argue that bureaucratic and administrative capacity constitute the most relevant aspect of state capacity when examining non-state conflicts. There are two mechanism related to this which jointly increased the risk of non-state conflicts. Firstly, state’s ability to govern and provide services hinge upon bureaucratic and administrative capacity. It is a pre-condition for governance, central to prevent disorder and restore order. Secondly, bureaucratic and administrative capacity is important determinants for groups’ security.

Bureaucratic and administrative capacity is usually defined as the government’s penetration into all its territory, its ability to provide goods and services, its insulation from political pressure and its regular and meritocracies recruitment. Within the broader conflict literature, several scholars have argued states with bureaucratic and administrative capacity are better prepared to deal with conflicts (Skocpol 1979; Goodwin and Skocpol 1989; Schock 1996; Knack 2001; Fearon and Laitin 2003).

Goodwin and Skocpol (1989, pg. 500) investigates quality of bureaucracy in their study of social revolutions. They argue that several factors linked to performing counter-revolutionary tasks are more easily accomplished with the existence of a functional bureaucracy. Territorial control, co-optation of elites, removal of an unpopular leader and transition to a more open regime are more easily done in state with bureaucratic and administrative capacity. For civil wars, scholars find the same relationship (Schock 1996; Fearon and Laitin 2003; DeRouen and Sobek 2004). Nearly identical arguments are offered. For instance, Fearon and Laitin (2003) put emphasis on how a functioning bureaucracy enables penetration into every corner of society. A functioning bureaucracy makes it easier to prevent disorder and restore order. Common for the scholars examining bureaucratic and administrative capacity is how they imply a relationship where execution of state policies depends upon bureaucratic and ad- ministrative capacity. It is somewhat a pre-condition for governance. Firstly, states with functioning bureaucratic and administrative capacity acquire information about their citi- zens. This is not only central for detection of rebel movements, but also to gives government information about problems and grievances within the broader population. Secondly, the execution of government policies hinge upon a functioning bureaucracy. Implementation of policies is much more easily executed through a functioning bureaucracy.

A central task for any government is to provide order for their citizens. While the incentives to reduce conflict and provide order hinged upon type of political regime, the actual execu- tion of order is dependent upon bureaucratic and administrative capacity. A state with a

3.2. STATE CAPACITY: CAPACITY TO GOVERN AND PROVIDE ORDER

malfunctioning bureaucracy will lead to situations where groups cannot rely on the state for security. Compared to functioning bureaucracies, malfunctioning bureaucracies are defined by their lack of political independence, the temporal stop of services during changes, lack of day-to day routines and patrimonial procedures. For groups, this means that state no longer constitute a trustworthy source as a provider of security.

A malfunctioning bureaucracy will often lead to perverted situations. Whereas state agents in functioning bureaucracy do not constitute a threat to people, they do so in the context of a malfunctioning bureaucracy. Bates (2008) argues that the key to understanding why violence become so prevalent in late century Africa lies within states and their ability to provide order. At this time most African states lacked revenues to fund their public services, which lead to a deterioration in states’ bureaucracy and administrative capacity. Within this context, violence became endemic. When state officers started seeking wealth by engaging in corruption and predation, the state became an enemy groups need protection from. It failed at its most crucial task, namely providing security. Groups took up arms to defend themselves. Consequently, it leads to a shift in the regulation of violence from state-based to privately based. With an increase in the number of armed groups came also an increase in non-state conflicts.

The mechanism which leads to non-state conflict in malfunctioning bureaucracy is through the security dilemma generated. When context resembles anarchy, which is the consequence of a perverted and malfunctioning bureaucracy, groups have to provide for their own security. While this theory origin from structural realism within international relations, the theory

have been applied to context lacking a Sovereign.4 _{According to Posen (1993), the condition}

that arise when similar groups of people suddenly find themselves responsible for their own

security resembles an emerging anarchy. To solve this situation, the will rely on group

security. With the absence of a sovereign, group cohesion becomes the basis of security. Consequently, a malfunctioning bureaucracy leads more armed groups, hence an increase in the risk of non-state conflicts.

To summarize, a state’s bureaucratic and administrative capacity affects (1) the state’s ability to govern and (2) groups’ interpretation of their security status. With a malfunctioning bureaucracy states no longer possess the capacity to govern their societies. Since even the most non-democratic state prefer order over disorder, the lack of the instrument needed to provide and restore order leads to an increase in non-state conflicts. For non-state actors, a malfunctioning bureaucracy leads to deterioration their security status. When groups do

no interpret the state as an actor they rely on protection from, protection have to privately supplied. Jointly, these two aspects of bureaucratic and administrative state capacity lead to the following expectation:

H2: Weak bureaucratic and administrative state capacity increases the risk of non-state conflicts.