Introduction
War spins a community or a nation into a retrogressed state of unrest, poverty, lack of democracy and without sober leadership. The aspects leading to war are frequently complex and due to a number of issues. Where clashes arise over matters such as territory, power, resource, or beliefs, and if a peaceable decree fails, or is disillusioned, war often results. In order for a state to indict a war, it must be in possession of the hold up of its leadership, its military crew, and the population. Post-war states present both a considerable challenge and an outstanding opportunity. Three dimensions of policy should be the focus of post-war engagement: political processes that legitimate the state; the development of the framework of the rule of law, including with respect to economic governance; and the re-establishment of a framework of security, including, but not limited to reconstitution of the state security apparatus.
Research question
How does war affects the effective state-building Process?
Research objective
Literature Review
War adversely affects a state but the aftermath developments may rebuild a state to a position it had never attained before. War-making, extraction, and capital accumulation interacted to shape European state-making. Power-holders did not undertake those three momentous activities with the intention of creating national states. With respect to state-building (in the fine sense of eradicating or neutralizing the local foes of the people who ruled the state), a region inhabited by great landlords or by different religious groups normally imposed higher costs on a defeater than one of fragmented authority or identical culture; this time split and harmonized Sweden, with its relatively little but efficient apparatus of power, may illustrate the consequence. Thus, the absolute size of the administration diversed directly with the endeavor devoted to withdrawal, state-making, defense and, especially, war-making, but conversely with the commercialization of the financial system and the degree of the resource foundation.
The associates of those classes lend resources, offered technical services, or helped guarantee the conformity of the rest of the populace, all in reward for a measure of guard against their own opponents and enemies. As a consequence of these numerous strategic options, a characteristic state apparatus developed within each major region of Europe.
States that have attained independence in recent times through decolonization or through reallocation of region by the adversary dominant states have obtained their military dockets from outside, without similar in-house forging of common limitation between rulers and ruled. To the point that exterior states go on to provide armed forces goods and expertise in reward for merchandise, or military coalition, or both, the new states welcome powerful, unrestrained organizations which without difficulty outdo all other associations within their territories. To the degree that exterior states assure their borders, the heads of those military forces utilize extraordinary command within them.
Roland reiterates that since wars are fuelled by and significantly shape economic systems, a key aspect in peace building is the transformation of markets and their related flow and accumulation of riches and distribution of poverty and hardship.
War and threat have been reviewed as the major incentives for the long process of state building that began in Europe. Boaz argues that Africa states lack the external threats to that prompted European rulers to boost taxation. Boaz reasons that, higher taxation might occur without an actual war due to the presence of potential rivals. The threat of war can then push states to expand their extractive capacity. This is because sustaining war is expensive and lack of proper planning and anticipation can lead a state into a debt crisis. Therefore, the process of state building will be crippled due to shortage of funds.
War could arise from border disputes or still could lead to border disputes. The process of state building in Israel was highly affected by the degree at which its borders were challenged during the war, and these affected neighboring countries such as Lebanon. This weakened Lebanon’s relation to border fixity, but Egypt, Syria, and Jordan was strengthened by uncertain border with Israel and territorial threats. Boaz Atzili tells of how Gamal Abdel Nasser’s regime in Egypt and its state apparatus were significantly empowered by Suez Crisis. In which Egypt’s territory was threatened by Israel, Britain and France. Hafez Assad managed to consolidate the unstable Syrian state in the wake of the Six-Day War, which cost Syria the Golan Heights. The same war also strengthened the Jordanian state, which by 1970, was able to crash the PLO’s state “state within a state”. While the territory of these three states was strengthened, their survival was not, which explains why their sociopolitical strength they gained from those threats was not as profound as that gained by Israel.
When war breaks out within a country or between states, the international community, comes in and tries to resolve and initiate International police-building programs. Most instances, they are part of larger state-building exercises in fragile or post conflict states. The objectives can vary from humanitarian to strategic and operational and are reflected in the diversity of approaches to police building. However, there are obstacles to successful implementation of police-building programs. These obstacles include civil strife, public order breakdown and political turmoil in countries at war. These events provide reason to reassess the adequacy of externally led efforts to build police forces. Moreover, they cast doubt upon the efficacy of current institutional lessons learned approaches popular among donor governments and agencies.
Methodology
Data for this study will be amassed from secondary sources to find how war affects the effective State-building Process.
Conclusion
War swirl up false logic of patriotism and it leaves the people deluded as to the actual reasons for war. It destroys weaker countries’ infrastructure with incessant bombing and missile flames. However, state building has become a strategic response to security fears about transnational crime and terrorism, and spearheads re-development, reconciliation and integration.
Bibliography
Andrew, Goldsmith. "Transnational Police Building." Taylor&Francis Group, 2007: 1-20.
Boaz, Atzili. Good Fences, Bad Neighbors:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.
Deborah, Brautigam. Taxation and State-Building in Developing Countries:. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Roland, Paris. The Dilemman of statebuiding: confronting the contradictions of postwar peace operations. New york: Cambridge university press, 2005.
Tilly, Charles. "WARMAKING. AND STATEMAKING - AS ORGANIZED CRIME." 1982: 1-18.
