Micro-level determinants and consequences of militia performance. Mixed-methods research into the organization of violence and security between the state and communities
Final Report Abstract
Local militias shape contexts of violence across the globe. However, their actual and perceived performance varies greatly: they may be (held) responsible for human rights abuses in some cases and may be (perceived as) effective security providers in others. This project sought to contribute to our understanding of how militias shape security: what explains objective and subjective (in the eyes of the population) militia performance? Previous research has focused primarily on militias’ use of violence against civilians and how this may be determined by militias’ relations with state institutions. However, it has paid less attention to militias’ effective security provision and how it may be determined by their relations with communal institutions. Moreover, most research has focused on objective measures of the main explanatory and outcome variables. However, subjective assessments of the affected population often differ strongly from objective data: for example, while some militias may appear as security threats from the outside, the local population may perceive them as providers of meaningful security – and vice versa. The project has aimed to address these inter-related gaps. It has developed and tested arguments on how militias’ associations with the state and with communal institutions affect objective and subjective measures of militia security provision. The empirical analyses relied on micro-level mixed-methods research in two diverse contexts of high insecurity: Afghanistan and Mexico. Three primary findings emerged from these analyses. First, in line with previous research we found that institutional contexts shape militias’ objective and subjective performance. Going beyond previous studies’ focus on formal state institutions, we show that (informal) local political orders and community-level institutions have a strong impact on how militias act and how their acts are being perceived by the local population. Second, parting with previous pessimistic views on the security implications of militias, we show how local communities can establish non-state armed groups that can effectively reduce external security threats and refrain from abusive behavior. Third, our research underscores the difference between the objective and subjective performance of militias. People’s perceptions do not only depend on militias’ protective or abusive behavior but also on people’s ability to rationalize, predict and also avoid violence at the hands of militias.
