War and Statebuilding in Afghanistan literature
Week 1
Session 1 Introductory session
Barfield 2010, Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History
Afghanistan became a cockpit for the Cold War struggle between the US and the SU.
Tribal warriors held power over zones that states could not access, and legitimacy of
foreigners in Afghanistan was rejected.
Collins 2011, Understanding War in Afghanistan Chapter 2
A number of threads tie together the events of Afghan history from 1901 until 1978; first
a successful emir or president must learn to share power and deal effectively with local
leaders. Second, Afghanistan’s intellectuals were awash with new ideas. Third,
Afghanistan has often been politically unstable. Fourth, most of the rulers of Afghanistan
face “center versus periphery” issues that tended to generate internal conflicts. Fifth,
Afghans are superb fighters. And finally, external pressures from great powers had
significant effects.
Rubin 1988, Lineages of the State in Afghanistan
Nation-state institutions (imposed by Britain and Russia) never became stable or deeply
rooted in Afghanistan > Islam, not the state, is the guardian of universal values. Four
“institutional clusterings” characterize modernity: “heightened surveillance, capitalistic
enterprise, industrials protection, and the consolidation of centralized control of the
means of violence.” The regional political organizations that have emerged from the
resistance could form the basis for a more broadly based, decentralized state.
- Giddens traditional state: is divided geographically by class, namely the
city/countryside distinction. The traditional state is not “sovereign” as is the
modern nation-state; not only does it not actually govern the segments under its
rule but it is not part of an international system of sovereign states that recognize
each others’ sovereignty within clearly defined (surveyed) borders (p. 1189)
, Session 2 What is state formation?
Weber 1947, Politics as a Vocation
Modern state formation is about power and legitimacy. Power: imposing your will on
others. Authority: power without coercion, power by consent.
Three types of authority:
- Traditional: institution that’s always been there (the queen in GB)
- Charismatic: traditional elders (in Afghanistan). Hard to maintain this type of
authority because it goes with the one who dies. A successor has to earn it again
- Legal/rational: based on institutions and the rule of law (Rutte in the
Netherlands)
Weberian state
The state can only be defined in terms of its specific means: the use of physical force
(violence). The state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of
the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.
- Hobbes: if there are no social institutions it is an anarchy: war of all against all >
Leviathan (social contract): a collection of all people giving up a bit of their
freedom in exchange for safety
Modern state formation is about monopolizing resources (and power and violence) to
make sure there are no rivals. The state is the only legitimate actor to use violence. State
domination is contained by controlling civil servants (staff).
Modern state formation is about bureaucratization: building a modern state based on
legal principles (bureaucracy = Weberian state).
Tilly 1985, War Making and State Making as Organized Crime
Modern state making is about war making, protection and extraction. ‘Organized crime’
because governments essentially operate in the same way as racketeers (p. 171).
- State making: eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside their territories >
lead to instruments of surveillance and control (Taliban: institutions and army)
- War making: eliminating or neutralizing their rivals outside their territories >
lead to armies, navies etc. (Taliban: northern expansion and conquest of Afgh.)
- Protection: eliminating or neutralizing the enemies of their clients > lead to
courts and representative assemblies (Taliban: Al Qaeda, drug traffickers, court
system etc)
- Extraction: acquiring the means of carrying out the first three activities > lead to
fiscal and accounting structures (Taliban: drugs, AQ, foreign aid, taxation etc)
These four interacted to shape European state making. Tilly neglects external relations
(his theory doesn’t apply to post-colonialism of post WWII), which shape every state
(competition stimulates war making etc).
Figure: state goes to war > will need extraction. In process of extracting will be
state making (you need administration and institutions). You will be doing state making
Week 1
Session 1 Introductory session
Barfield 2010, Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History
Afghanistan became a cockpit for the Cold War struggle between the US and the SU.
Tribal warriors held power over zones that states could not access, and legitimacy of
foreigners in Afghanistan was rejected.
Collins 2011, Understanding War in Afghanistan Chapter 2
A number of threads tie together the events of Afghan history from 1901 until 1978; first
a successful emir or president must learn to share power and deal effectively with local
leaders. Second, Afghanistan’s intellectuals were awash with new ideas. Third,
Afghanistan has often been politically unstable. Fourth, most of the rulers of Afghanistan
face “center versus periphery” issues that tended to generate internal conflicts. Fifth,
Afghans are superb fighters. And finally, external pressures from great powers had
significant effects.
Rubin 1988, Lineages of the State in Afghanistan
Nation-state institutions (imposed by Britain and Russia) never became stable or deeply
rooted in Afghanistan > Islam, not the state, is the guardian of universal values. Four
“institutional clusterings” characterize modernity: “heightened surveillance, capitalistic
enterprise, industrials protection, and the consolidation of centralized control of the
means of violence.” The regional political organizations that have emerged from the
resistance could form the basis for a more broadly based, decentralized state.
- Giddens traditional state: is divided geographically by class, namely the
city/countryside distinction. The traditional state is not “sovereign” as is the
modern nation-state; not only does it not actually govern the segments under its
rule but it is not part of an international system of sovereign states that recognize
each others’ sovereignty within clearly defined (surveyed) borders (p. 1189)
, Session 2 What is state formation?
Weber 1947, Politics as a Vocation
Modern state formation is about power and legitimacy. Power: imposing your will on
others. Authority: power without coercion, power by consent.
Three types of authority:
- Traditional: institution that’s always been there (the queen in GB)
- Charismatic: traditional elders (in Afghanistan). Hard to maintain this type of
authority because it goes with the one who dies. A successor has to earn it again
- Legal/rational: based on institutions and the rule of law (Rutte in the
Netherlands)
Weberian state
The state can only be defined in terms of its specific means: the use of physical force
(violence). The state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of
the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.
- Hobbes: if there are no social institutions it is an anarchy: war of all against all >
Leviathan (social contract): a collection of all people giving up a bit of their
freedom in exchange for safety
Modern state formation is about monopolizing resources (and power and violence) to
make sure there are no rivals. The state is the only legitimate actor to use violence. State
domination is contained by controlling civil servants (staff).
Modern state formation is about bureaucratization: building a modern state based on
legal principles (bureaucracy = Weberian state).
Tilly 1985, War Making and State Making as Organized Crime
Modern state making is about war making, protection and extraction. ‘Organized crime’
because governments essentially operate in the same way as racketeers (p. 171).
- State making: eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside their territories >
lead to instruments of surveillance and control (Taliban: institutions and army)
- War making: eliminating or neutralizing their rivals outside their territories >
lead to armies, navies etc. (Taliban: northern expansion and conquest of Afgh.)
- Protection: eliminating or neutralizing the enemies of their clients > lead to
courts and representative assemblies (Taliban: Al Qaeda, drug traffickers, court
system etc)
- Extraction: acquiring the means of carrying out the first three activities > lead to
fiscal and accounting structures (Taliban: drugs, AQ, foreign aid, taxation etc)
These four interacted to shape European state making. Tilly neglects external relations
(his theory doesn’t apply to post-colonialism of post WWII), which shape every state
(competition stimulates war making etc).
Figure: state goes to war > will need extraction. In process of extracting will be
state making (you need administration and institutions). You will be doing state making
