The primacy of territorial control in theories of civil war has advanced our understanding of war dynamics, most notably lethal violence, but has hindered our understanding of the distinct ways in... Show moreThe primacy of territorial control in theories of civil war has advanced our understanding of war dynamics, most notably lethal violence, but has hindered our understanding of the distinct ways in which armed groups seek control over people. We propose to complement territorial control by separately conceptualising social control, which we define as the extent to which armed groups have access to people and their resources. Access to people requires different tactics compared to access to territory, because people are mobile. We develop a framework in which state and non-state armed groups choose whether to prioritise territorial or social control first in order to gain sovereignty, which requires both territorial and social control. Alternatively, armed groups choose to pursue territorial control or social control only, resulting in corridors or social networks, respectively. We illustrate the advantages of the framework by showing how it allows us to analyse armed groups’ tactics to control access to people, to connect research agendas on armed group violence, governance, and civilian displacement, and to better conceptualise armed group power and strength. Show less
Civilian self-protection is often associated with nonviolent means of protection. This chapter questions this view and argues that certain types of armed self-defence can be understood as... Show moreCivilian self-protection is often associated with nonviolent means of protection. This chapter questions this view and argues that certain types of armed self-defence can be understood as expressions of civilian protection agency. Specifically, it examines the consequences of the activities of community-initiated part-time militias during the war in Mozambique, drawing on a data set of violent events compiled from archival sources and interviews. Through this case study, it explores in what ways and under what conditions these more contentious and more risky forms of civilian self-protection help reduce violence against civilians during wartime and contribute to protection outcomes. The chapter shows how any effect in terms of protection was a temporary one, as the rebels quickly adapted and learned how to respond to the new armed challenge. Overall, the chapter emphasizes the dynamic character of war, shaped by learning processes on both the part of civilians and rebels. Show less
Why do some communities resist armed groups non-violently while others take up arms to do so? Recent research has advanced our knowledge of the causes and consequences of wartime civilian... Show moreWhy do some communities resist armed groups non-violently while others take up arms to do so? Recent research has advanced our knowledge of the causes and consequences of wartime civilian resistance. Yet, the factors explaining the emergence and outcomes of civilian resistance do not account for how people resist. Despite its important consequences for the politics and geography of war, the issue of why civilians engage in violent or non-violent forms of resistance remains poorly understood. We rely on extensive original fieldwork to examine within-case and cross-case variation in violent and non-violent resistance campaigns during the Mozambican and Colombian civil wars. We argue that forms of resistance are linked to prior experiences of collective action, normative commitments, and the role of local political entrepreneurs. Previous experiences make repertoires of resistance “empirically” available, while prevailing local social and cultural norms make them “normatively” available. Political entrepreneurs activate and adapt what is empirically and normatively available to mobilize support for some forms of action and against others. Our analysis advances emerging research on wartime civilian agency and has significant implications for theories of armed conflict, civil resistance, and contentious politics more broadly. Show less
Everyone wanted to be like Manuel [António], but he was the [only] one who knew about the genuine medicine.Naparama commander, Nicoadala 8 March 2012The war in Mozambique from the late 1970s until... Show moreEveryone wanted to be like Manuel [António], but he was the [only] one who knew about the genuine medicine.Naparama commander, Nicoadala 8 March 2012The war in Mozambique from the late 1970s until 1992 placed a heavy burden on the Mozambican population, resulting in an estimated one million deaths and almost five million displaced. Though much research on the war has focused on the origins and behaviour of the rebel group Renamo (see the Introduction to this volume), others, including civilians, also played an active role. The suffering caused by the war brought about several popular armed and unarmed self-defence movements to stop the violence. One such armed movement was the Naparama, a peasant militia created by a traditional healer, Manuel António, in 1988, based on the belief in a vaccine to make people invulnerable to bullets. Within a year, the movement grew from a couple of hundred to several thousand members and spread across the country's central and northern provinces. The people embraced this new force and, after being co-opted by the government, it played a strong part in fighting back the rebel group, Renamo. By 1991, the Naparama was present in two thirds of the northern territory and its success led to an until-then unknown stability during wartime, at least for a certain amount of time.The formation and diffusion of the Naparama goes against the common depiction of the war as a ‘dichotomous’ conflict between Frelimo, the party in power, and Renamo. It draws attention to a phenomenon common to many civil wars in which the population is actively involved in various local arrangements to curb violence and provide security. These security arrangements include militias, self-defence forces and paramilitaries, who all become significant actors as instruments for counterinsurgent operations and/or protectors of specific communities, thereby challenging neat distinctions between insurgents and the state. While many of these armed groups emerge as grassroots projects, they are often co-opted by the state as part of its counterinsurgency strategy. This also occurred in the case of the Naparama, as Frelimo soon realized the potential of the Naparama's power against Renamo and tolerated and at times even actively supported the Naparama's activities. Show less
Who rules during the civil war? This article argues that the concept of armed group governance must be expanded to include auxiliary armed forces linked to rebels or the government. Comparing the... Show moreWho rules during the civil war? This article argues that the concept of armed group governance must be expanded to include auxiliary armed forces linked to rebels or the government. Comparing the organization of rebel and government auxiliaries, the article demonstrates that security governance during war is never static, but evolves over time. Evidence from the civil war in Mozambique (1976–1992) shows that the auxiliary’s origin shapes its initial level of autonomy. Second, auxiliary contribution to battlefield success of one side may induce innovations adopted by auxiliaries on the other. Both have distinct consequences for the nature of governance. Show less
The chapter reflects on the unintended consequences of fieldwork in polarised societies, which may affect the autonomy of both the researcher and the researched. In a context of past violence and... Show moreThe chapter reflects on the unintended consequences of fieldwork in polarised societies, which may affect the autonomy of both the researcher and the researched. In a context of past violence and intractable conflict, research participants often have concerns about how the research impacts the autonomy of their daily life by potentially compromising their safety. On the other hand, research participants may try to make use of the researcher for their own political and economic objectives, compromising the autonomy of the project. In analysing the simultaneous empowerment and disempowerment of research participants, the chapter builds on fieldwork conducted in rural Mozambique on community mobilization against insurgent violence during the country’s civil war (1976-1992). The chapter discusses the methodological and ethical challenges of power and neutrality during fieldwork and joins others in showing that conflict research needs to be understood as a form of intervention in local affairs. Show less
Militias are an empirical phenomenon that has been overlooked by current research on civil war. Yet, it is a phenomenon that is crucial for understanding political violence, civil war, post... Show moreMilitias are an empirical phenomenon that has been overlooked by current research on civil war. Yet, it is a phenomenon that is crucial for understanding political violence, civil war, post-conflict politics, and authoritarianism. Militias or paramilitaries are armed groups that operate alongside regular security forces or work independently of the state to shield the local population from insurgents. We review existing uses of the term, explore the range of empirical manifestations of militias, and highlight recent findings, including those supplied by the articles in this special issue. We focus on areas where the recognition of the importance of militias challenges and complements current theories of civil war. We conclude by introducing a research agenda advocating the integrated study of militias and rebel groups. Show less
