Search

A review of the history of the United States from its colonial origins shows how Americas successful development has always been guided by two basic principles: representative democracy, and a proper division of power between national and subnational governments. The United States of America was established as an independent nation by a congress of delegates from 13 provincial assemblies, each of which consisted of representatives elected by their communities. Since colonial times, local democratic rights have attracted immigrants to help build new towns in the growing nation. Responsible local governments in America have had the power and the incentive to make local public investments for developing prosperous communities. Democratic competition in America has been strengthened by the ability of successful local leaders to become competitive candidates for higher offices. But in spite of Americas example, many nations since the French Revolution have instead been drawn to centralized democracy, as national elites may prefer to centralize power around themselves. Americas successful growth ultimately depended on its citizens basic understanding that their welfare and security were enhanced by a balanced federal division of power between their elected local governments and the higher sovereign government of their nation.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been described by one senior African diplomat at the United Nations as a 'state in the making; it is not yet a state.' Further, this 'state in the making' also is a state that, with few exceptions, has been in decline since the early 1970s. The colonial era, from 1885 until 1958, was a period of nearly uninterrupted state construction; the hegemony of the Belgian colonial apparatus steadily deepened. In its final two years, the colonial edifice progressively lost control over civil society to a tumultuous and fragmented nationalist movement, which was unable to capture intact the colonial infrastructure. The result was five years of turbulent state deflation, generally known as the 'Congo crisis.' The Mobutu coup of 1965 inaugurated a new cycle, with eight years in which a rising tide of state ascendancy seemed to dominate the political process. After 1974 currents of decline again began to flow strongly, progressively eroding the superstructure of hegemony. The actual purpose of the Zairian government under Mobutu was not to fulfill basic state functions; rather, the government existed as a structure for individual enrichment and patronage. Officials at the highest levels stole large amounts of money, usually from mineral or customs revenues, sometimes through extremely straightforward strategies, such as literally pocketing gem diamonds and having them sold for personal gain in Antwerp or elsewhere.

Strengthening the rule of law is widely regarded among traditional donors, multilateral institutions, and a growing number of middle income and fragile states as a necessary precondition for sustainable peace, poverty alleviation, and development. Crime and violence deter investment and lower employment, undermine social institutions, and divert resources through direct and indirect costs, all of which hinder development. It is likely to disproportionately affect poor and marginalized populations by limiting access to basic services. The formal criminal justice system is seen in many environments as failing to deliver justice. Most states experiencing fragility do not have the capacity to effectively prevent crime, enforce laws, or peacefully resolve disputes across the whole of their territories. There is another powerful deterrent for communities to seek redress through state criminal justice institutions: they are frequently a primary instrument for the government and elites to maintain power and control through the perpetration of injustice. The informal system, however, is alone insufficient to handle the pressing justice requirements of fragile states, not least for preventing and responding to inter-communal conflict, to serious organized and cross-border crime, and to public corruption and other 'white collar' crime.

There is broad recognition, across the political spectrum and in both 'northern' and 'southern' countries, that justice reform, and more generally the promotion of the 'rule of law', are central to development policy, particularly in conflict-affected, fragile and violent contexts. More recently an increased focus on global security and the interaction between security and development as put a renewed emphasis on such efforts. However, while legal, regulatory and 'justice' institutions are now seen as key part of the 'solution' to problems of conflict, fragility and development, this recognition is not matched by a correspondingly clear sense of what should be done, how it should be done, by whom, in what order, or how 'success' may be determined. There often tends to be a clear misunderstanding of both the nature of the problem and (thus) of the solution. In this paper, the author seek to provide some insight into these questions and sketch out a practical conception of effective justice reform in situations of conflict and fragility that may provide the basis for effective programming.

This case study examines contemporary experiences of conflict in four contexts: Papua New Guinea, with particular reference to the island of Bougainville and the Highlands region; Solomon Islands; and Vanuatu. We find common themes in these experiences, despite the regions famous sociolinguistic diversity, fragmented geography and varied experience of globalization. Melanesia offers distinctive lessons about how conflict may be understood, promoted and avoided. The paper is organized in two broad parts. The first part is contextual. It provides a brief account of conflict and violence in social life before and after colonization. It then tracks, largely chronologically, through the local, national and transnational dimensions of contemporary conflict, how it was avoided, how it has changed, and how it has been managed in different contexts. Particular attention is given to global and regional influences, and to how governments, local people, and external security, development and commercial actors, have worked to mitigate and, at times, exacerbate conflict. The second part of the case study is more analytical. It steps back from the particulars to address themes and propositions in the overall conceptual framing of World Development Report (WDR) 2011 about the nature of conflict, and the underlying stresses and interests that may render it more likely. Part two draws lessons from the histories and contexts discussed in part one. The report organizes these around three themes that reflect views shared with us by people during consultations. The first highlights the need to recognize conflict as an inherent part of social change and thus the need to distinguish between socially generative social contest, and forms of conflict that are corrosive and destructive. The second examines how the ways people 'see' and understand the world directly shapes systems of regulation and 'the rules of the game' and thus directly affect responses to conflict. The third theme argues that capable and legitimate institutions to regulate social contest requires not just capable state institutions, but as much, relationships with local and international agents and organizations operating below and above the state.

The aim of this study is to convince national and multilateral policy makers of the importance of the public sphere concept for democratic governance and strategic post-conflict assistance planning with the objective of positive and sustainable change in current post-conflict assistance policy and practice. The study introduces the conceptual thinking underlying the public sphere framework and, citing evidence from different countries, highlights its relevance and calls for its application in post-conflict environments. For practitioners the study provides a public sphere assessment toolkit and a toolbox for interventions. It also offers concrete examples and recommendations on how to address the specific governance challenges identified through a public sphere analysis in three countries: Timor-Leste, Liberia and Burundi.