Introduction
This paper is to deal with one of main issue of post-WW2 world, namely the phenomenon of civil war. The analysis of this paper is devoted to such questions as the reasons for certain civil wars as well as concrete instances of such internal conflicts. Also, the paper is to discuss the major theoretical contributions and controversies related to the civil war research program: firstly, civil wars are defined conceptually, and then, operationally.
Second, major theories relating to the issue of causes of civil wars and their results will be discussed, along with future directions and policy implications. The paper ends with a summary and a brief note on the current state of civil war research. While the discussions herein are by no means exhaustive, they tend to focus on the most notable civil war theories at this time.
Main Body
Definition of Civil War
In theory, civil war is analyzed as a complex social phenomenon with many interrelated and overlapping dimensions (Misra, 2008). Moreover, there are too many positions, interpretations, and approaches to this issue as well as empiric material so as clearly create a thesis concerning the reasons for war and its nature.
These different approaches lead to the appearance of the diversity of views on the issue of causation. For instance, Fearon and Laitin (cited in Krause and Suzuki, 2005) have create a so-called rural insurgency model the target of which is to analyze the reasons for certain internal conflicts in context of different socioeconomic factors: poor economy, a large population, and high oil export dependence increase the likelihood that a state will experience civil war.
Other political factors which can lead to civil war, according to rural insurgency model, are state’s experiences of political instability (p.162). If the principles on which the state is built are started being debated, certain conflict will, no doubt, arise.
However, if it takes place in the newly appeared state and in which there is great opposition of the government towards the needs of the society, the risk of civil war is high. They add that the other risk factors which can be combined with the others are weak government, which cannot resolve utilitarian issues, and the fact that a state has rough terrain as well as noncontiguous territory conducive to rural guerrilla insurgency (p.162).
Causes of Civil War
Krause and Suzuki (2005) have come to the conclusion that there are four main predictors of civil war which are based on the empirical material they analyzed. These are economic development, social fractionalization, domestic governance, and trade openness (p.162). This represents so-called grievance theory which is contrasted by the theory of opportunity.
Economic development factor as a cause of civil war has not its generally accepted meaning. One can say that rapid social-economic change associated with economic modernization may mobilize social groups for conflict by enhancing group competition for scarce resources (p.162).
The other findings which are modern than the previous position ground the civil war on the consequences of economic development, namely that due to such transformation in the society social inequalities arise as well as political instability appears (p.162). These two factors taken together lead to the appearance of civil war.
The poor may rebel to induce redistribution and rich regions may mount secessionist rebellions to preempt redistribution (Collier, 2005). For these purposes the so-called Gini coefficient is used as well as the ratio of top-to-bottom income (p.8).
Misra (2008, p.14) says that while poverty per se might not have led to more conflicts between communities, it is certainly has social consequences that cause destabilization, displacement, evacuation, and tensions between communities in a deeply divided and economically backward country.
Further and Hibbs (cited in Krause and Suzuki, 2005) have stated that ‘economically affluent societies experience reduced internal violence because all groups in these societies have access to negotiated outcomes and conciliation; however, certain social conflicts are likely to arise during the earliest stages of industrialization.
The theories of opportunity and grievance also deal with similar factors; consequently, the first one proposes opportunities for rebellion, whereas the second one adds explanatory power to the latter (Collier, 2005). The latter depends on such economic factor as the availability to finance, namely that the civil wars result from opportunities for extortion that such commodities provide, making rebellion feasible and even attractive (p.17).
Second factor influencing rebellion is the cost of such action, namely these are secondary education enrollment, pet capita income, and the growth rate which can reduce the conflict rate, as people are likely to pay great price in case such conflict arises (p.17). Their intelligence and education are those barriers which prevent them from being manipulated by abstract ideals which are often used in order to stimulate people to join certain military troops.
The third factor of the theory of opportunity is military advantage, for instance dispersed population is likely to lead to increasing of the risk of conflict, whereas mountainous terrain does not usually give such an advantage (Collier, 2005).
The economic factors are the reasons why nowadays there are many internal conflicts. The conflicts, which have not transformed into civil wars, but have already demonstrated their threat to one’s whole statehood. In particular, in the European Union the great threat which can lead to collapse is determined by the economic reasons. Certain states feel that their input in the total GDP of the EU is much greater, than the one of the other states: thus, they insist on either refusal to help less developed state or even leaving the EU.
Social fractionalization leads to confrontation. This is a paradigm which has been proven by lots of instances. However, the fractionalization can be different, as they are lots of factors which can fragmentize the society. It can start with previously analyzed economic factors, as there are the poor and the wealthy, and goes to certain other ones. In particular, it is often agreed that ethnic, linguistic, or religious cleavages may play an important role in internal armed confrontations.
Ethnic reasons have already caused not only civil wars, but acts of genocide against certain ethnic minorities. It took place in Rwanda (however, it was not the main factor to cause such severe internal military conflict) as well as in Turkey (in which there are other factors leading to genocide, besides ethnicity) which once aimed its internal policy at destroying the Kurds.
It is highlighted that ethnicity per se does not always lead to the violent military conflicts, however, when it is linked with acute social uncertainty, it emerges as one of major fault lines along with societies fracture (Misra, 2008).
Key is another example which demonstrates how ethnicity influenced the civil war: it led to deep ethnic cleavages, conflict over land distribution, and political competition. (Collier, 2005)
Lots of other civil wars, in particular, in Africa (Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Eritrea, and Ogaden) are believed to be mainly caused by the religious reasons polarizing the society, namely by the Islamic component in the society (Mazrui cited in Krause and Suzuki, 2005). The previous author also adds that civil wars in Angola, Zimbabwe, and Zaire were also determined by the religious component; however, ethnic element was added which made the war even severe (p.162).
The aforementioned states Call (2012) analyzes in the following way: these countries were suffering from social marginalization, exclusion, and cultural and political suppression. In Niger and Mali the decisive factors that led to war were the marginalization and deprivation of the Tuareg that led to war were negation of the existence of Tuareg ethnic community by black African leaders and exclusion of the Tuareg from political participation (p.169).
The statement regarding this matter is as follows: greater ethnic diversity in societies increases domestic peace by raising transaction and coordination costs to rebellion (Collier and Hoeffler cited in Krause and Suzuki, 2005). The factors from this category are usually divided into two main types, namely social fragmentation of the society (ethno linguistic and religious fractionalization) and ethnic dominance which is also called polarization (p.163).
As we have noted, it is agreed, in particular in quantitative model or CH, that ethno linguistic fractionalization has positive impact on the unity of the society as well as can prevent certain internal military conflicts from occurring (Collier and Hoeffler cited in Krause and Suzuki, 2005).
Religious fractionalization, namely when there is clear diversity of religious thoughts and beliefs, have not empirically proven its either positive or negative impact on the society. However, ethnic dominance is usually the factor which rapidly increases the risk of civil war. Moreover, it has shown its practical application for many times during the history. It is said that ethnic dominance (45–90 percent) significantly increases the risk of civil war (Krause and Suzuki, 2005).
Domestic governance is also a factor which can rapidly affect the course of civil war: it could both prevent it and increase the severity of it. It is believed by Hegre et al (cited in Krause and Suzuki, 2005) that strong domestic governance, for instance institutionalized democracies, is able to reduce internal conflict because it contains a legitimate system for peaceful conflict resolution (p. 164)
Democracies, having a variety of peaceful instruments of conflict resolution and relying on the economic progress in their activity, are also thought to be the appropriate form of a state able to cope with internal conflicts. This can be illustrated by the examples of the United Kingdom which has managed to cooperate with Scotland on the basis of trust; Spain which has also found certain approach towards its regions which were likely to proclaim independence and so on.
The former states also create the system of protection of the rights and freedoms of all the citizens, paying attention to specific categories of its population, in particular ethnic or religious minorities, indigenous people etc.
Autocratic regimes can also prevent the civil war appearance within their jurisdiction. Gates et al (cited in Krause and Suzuki, 2005) agree that these states have institutional arrangements that prevent competition among political elites and parties, and make it relatively easy for leaders to control or monitor political opponents (p.164). The appropriate example is Russia, in which, despite the proclamation of the diversity of parties, all the affairs of the state are ruled directly by one party and by its leader Putin.
The concentration of power in one’s hands as it usually occurs in such regimes leads to the paradox: it increases the level of stability (p.164). Although political leaders’ ambitions are restricted in democratic societies, illegitimate political challenges, insurgencies, or rebellions are very costly because of constitutional restriction and legitimized means of peaceful conflict resolution; moreover, it is difficult to obtain strong citizen support for illegal political actions (p.164).
In contrast, so-called institutionally inconsistent political regimes are weak enough so as to enable the civil war to happen: firstly, since it cannot provide legitimate restrictions for illegal activity as well as cannot lead to formation of political and social conscious among citizens who will not support any anti-state actions; secondly, it does not have enough power so as to lead to the formation of the statehood leadership which can limit the level of concurrency between political parties (p.165).
Krause and Suzuki (2005, p.165) highlight that despite the fact that political leaders in inconsistent regimes also seek to maximize power and authority, create their model of leadership, motivate people to follow their commands and orders, occupy all the governmental offices, their attempts tend to raise confrontation among competing groups whose conflicts and grievances tend to remain unchecked by institutionalized conflict resolution,
Trade openness debate is analyzed in context of the consequences of globalization for certain state (p.165). There are two main positions regarding this issue which are opposite ones, namely liberal and structuralist ones. The latter proposes the idea that trade as well as globalization lead only to positive consequences in context of peace and war prevention, namely it is done by promotion political and economic integration and raising opportunity costs for political conflicts (p.165).
In contrast, structuralist approach defines the globalization as a negative phenomenon in the aspect of civil war appearance, namely that trade openness contributes to conflict as it intensifies domestic inequalities and fosters insecurity by threatening balanced development, weakening government capacity, and demolishing social integrity (Krause and Suzuki, 2005, p.165).
Call (2012) proposes his six main reasons which lead to the civil wars. His study is based on the empirical data which the author has collected for years. First reason for civil war is precipitating exclusionary behavior which took place in 60 % of all the cases he explored (p. 98). It is the situation, when people feel that they were deceived. In particular, it happened in 9 states of the analyzed ones, when the newly introduced policy violated the expectations of the former rebels or their followers and supporters, and this conduct served as a basis for recurrence of either civil war or military conflict (p.98).
Second main reason is exclusion by the state against its former wartime allies (p.98). When two states unite so as to deal with certain conflict and consequently they defeat their enemies, one of the states, called victorious, is likely to enter a conflict with the wartime ally as it happened to East Timor and Zimbabwe (Call, 2012. p.98).
Third widely spread reason for civil wars is violation of power-sharing arrangement. It happens in the situations and under the circumstances, when the relations between certain units of the state are well regulated at the formal level, and both have certain expectations towards the prospective conduct of one another (Call, 2012, p.98).
Fourth reason consists in such state of affairs, when start carries out chronic and exclusionary conduct following mass violence (p.98). This is complete failure of certain state (Burundi, Rwanda) to organize its internal affairs in a rational way. On the contrary, these states apply armed forces to resolve each conflict arising within their jurisdiction. Other factors are the modifications of the previous ones.
Preventive measures
Krause and Suzuki insist on the following measures to be taken so as to reduce the potential civil war rate: careful policies aiming at the promotion of economic development have to be carried out, in particular it requires certain developing states (those which are closed for foreign trade) to minimize the level of trade regulation; the regimes in terms of their democracy or autocracy are to be monitored by the international bodies, as it is done in Europe by the OSCE; appropriate state’s management of ethnic fractionalization is also the key process which can prevent certain groups from the willingness to create a separate state; militarization of certain countries is to be controlled as otherwise the civil war boost can occur (Krause and Suzuki, 2012, p.174)
Conclusions
Hence, as far as we have seen during this analysis, the issue of civil wars is started being analyzed even greater, than it used to be. It is caused by the need to explain and interpret the internal military conflicts arising in the contemporary post-Cold War world, despite the security measures which have been taken so as to prevent such conflicts. It has been concluded that nowadays there are lots of theories which explain the logic of civil wars as well define the civil war risk in certain states.
The analysis gives as enough evidence so as to say that only complex approach should be applied so as to find out the valid reasons for conflicts, as the explanation cannot be limited to only one cause. Nowadays military conflicts, in particular in Ukraine, Syria, and Sudan require additional analysis of which issue in order to, inter alia, define whether we deal with civil war or with interstate conflict, when certain troops are equipped and financed from abroad. Thus, the importance of the study of the issues discussed remains obvious.
References
Misra, A. (2008). Politics of Civil Wars: Conflict, Intervention, and Resolution. New York: Routledge.
Collier, P. (2005). Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Collier, P., Hoeffler,A. (2003). Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy. Washington, DC: World Bank
Krause, V., Suzuki, S. (2005). ‘Causes of Civil War in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: A Comparison’. Social Science Quarterly 89(1) : 160-177.
Call, C.T. (2012). Why Peace Fails: The Causes and Prevention of Civil War Recurrence. Georgetown University Press.
Woods, M.E. (2012). What Twenty-First-Century Historians Have Said about the Causes of Disunion: A Civil War Sesquicentennial Review of the Recent Literature. Journal of American History 99 (2): 415-439.
