War Isn’t Anarchy

Political violence continues to aggravate poor nations in the African and Middle Eastern regions yet there is little understanding on the impact of political violence on poverty or those within war landscapes trying to escape poverty. Rather than analysing situations of political violence as situations of anarchy and a problem separate to the alleviation of global poverty, situations of political violence should be re – approached as a space in which systemic practices can either reinforce or resist political violence. This is imperative given that situations of political violence are one of the main causes of poverty’s persistence globally.

In the pluralistic arena of political violence,  power is a highly prized commodity.  Militias seeking prominence use violence as a bid for power to structure the war landscape within their favor. Yet these practices of violence occur in spaces that are composed of delicate social relationships in which the needs of both militias and civilians must be balanced. Civilians can respond to rebel control with complete support, coerced participation, public or private protest, complete disengagement, covert cooperation with the state, or active participation in the opposition. While war is often conceptualized via male soldiering, political violence can alternatively be viewed as a ‘set of interactions’ between civilians and militias. Societal patterns and inter – societal relationships foster different arenas of violence. Societal patterns between militia members, militias, civilians, different populations of civilians, and the state create a unique political regime which than can define and reinforce different political identities   within the public space of the war landscape.

Such ‘spaces’ are opportunities, moments, and channels through which civilians influence policies, discourses, and relationships to impose particular political aims .  Actions within the war landscape subsequently can create, expand, or diminish social relationships and impact the public space. The public spaces of war are subsequently not sites of anarchy bur sites of political construction in the arena of political violence that can be systematically and individually reinforced or resisted by militias or civilians.

Numerous militias and civilian volunteers during the Lebanese Civil War provided public services including medical services, free education, several radio stations, and the provision of welfare. Bands of volunteers maintained existing services ranging from the examination of goods in Beirut’s ports to pharmacies in the Chouf mountains. In the later war years, a band of volunteers also started a peace movement. And in the current conflict in Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State offers numerous public services including an alternative judicial and educational system while civilian truck drivers continue inter – militia trade within Syria and Iraq.
War landscapes are not anarchic but dynamic sites composed of different relationships. Situations of political violence should be re – approached as a space in which these relationships and the practices they produce can either reinforce or resist political violence. To combat the political violence that contributes to the persistence of global poverty, it is necessary to re – examine existing conflicts and look for existing systems that assist civilians and ultimately break political violence. Rather than examining what it is not there, it is sometimes necessary to examine what is there and what works.