Civil Conflict

895 Words2 Pages

With the elite stealing from the public, this was a way to ensure that they remain in power; even if this meant at the cost of their countries economy and political stability. We have to consider that during this time ethnic groups were also attempting to take part in having some portion of this power by contending against one another for scarce resources which in turn created rebellions to begin emerging in their nation. This is how civil conflict began taking place. When the people begin becoming greedy and attempting to take part in some of the wealth that was initially taken from them, then this lack of trust will most often create mayhem. But all was not lost, many states may have struggled during this time to create a stable and successful …show more content…

As mentioned, multiple factors played a part in state failure. But what we should also consider is whether these prior informal structures were a reason that certain actors were capable of gaining power and interest. Criminal economic wars that have occurred during times of peace can also be a deciding factor on whether a war prolonged or not. This applies to warlords or elites who provide security against taxation in a failed state. The elites interests would be to continue failing their citizens and making sure civil conflict was an issue rather than the citizens blaming the central power. Somalia can be made a strong example of this. On one hand we can see that when there is a climate of tension or battle amongst its people or its different clans, then the central state for power is seen as a tool for suppressing its people and financial extraction. On the other hand, we know that certain elites in power may be in fear of a new central government being created that may disturb their money-based greed and personal political gains. Its an obstacle that the elite attempt to make disappear. If such factors are not put into consideration, then these powerful actors may get in the way of state-building efforts and continuing to fail the …show more content…

Rather than creating growth and stability, the independence had an opposite effect. He argues throughout When Things Fall Apart that legitimate coercion is often used throughout Europe as a strategy to have a stable state. Africa, unfortunately, has not done the same but rather the people and the elite have used violence tendencies to create fear and as a way to control the means of production of wealth and the state. It is due to this violence and coercion that Africa has struggled to maintain any success. He also continues to point out that Africa has three main players who are all competing for the production of wealth and at times a mean for power; the elite in power, the citizens and the the customers of their natural resources. These three players are essential when attempting to create a stable state. There has to be an equal amount of legal coercion and production of wealth amongst the three players for a state to succeed and accomplish stability. Unfortunately this was not the case when it came to

More about Civil Conflict

Open Document