In an attempt to explain the dynamics of violent conflicts, scholars have proposed various explanations. One of these is the state failure thesis which posits that a state fails when it is unable to discharge its responsibilities of providing political goods and services to its citizens living within its borders (Rotberg, 2003:2). Failure to control its territory and a loss of
35
legitimacy weakens the state’s security apparatus rendering it vulnerable to the disgruntled populace who form insurgent groups which rebel against the state with the hope of changing the status quo. Consequently, it turns into a security threat to its neighbours and to the greater region at large. This theory strikes resonance within the African continent as most states that are engaged in conflicts within their borders can be said to exhibit a failure of governance to a certain degree (Libya, DRC, Somalia etc.).
Despite its usefulness, the state failure thesis does run into some difficulties with regard to its dominant political narrative in its analysis of conflict. As Bates (2008:261) succinctly puts it, this theory remains unpersuasive as it only highlights the effects such as poor governance, lack of political institution and loss of legitimacy but does little to explain the actual cause of the conflict. But despite this criticism, the theory remains useful and relevant to this study because it explains (at least in part) why people resort to terrorist activities.
Neo-patrimonialism is another theoretical approach used to explain conflict, with specific focus on Africa. Neo-patrimonialism can be defined as a form of governance that is sustained through ‘unequal forms of political reciprocity which link patrons with their clients along vertical social lines’ (Chabal, 2005: 3). This is characterised by the fact that the legitimacy of the politicians lies not in a system of accountability but depends rather on their ‘ability to provide for their own’ (2005:4). Despite functioning well in certain regimes in post- independent African states, the inherent instability within neo-patrimonialism meant that it possessed the seeds of its own destruction. The eventual demise of this system leads to conditions where ‘the line between the private and public spheres is so blurred that notions of the public good and of independent civil society are ultimately absent’(Englebert and Tull, 2008: 117).
Within this situation of confusion coupled with disorder and even violence, political actors, seizing the opportunity to maximise their own interests, undermine the state and loot its resources. In short, the political elite use ‘disorder as a political instrument’ to pursue their own interests and satisfy their greed (Chabal, 2005:7-8). The regimes of Sani Abacha of Nigeria and Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire exemplify ‘predatory states’ where the political elite feats on the state resources with ‘any more regard to the welfare of the citizenry than a predator has for the welfare of its prey’ (Evans, 1989:562).
36
This theory becomes problematic, however, due to its ardent focus on the gluttonous appetite of the elite. Similarly to the state failure theory, it fails to take into account other factors that led to the unfolding of the post-colonial system into conflict. These include ‘the collapse of the post-colonial mode of accumulation that was in part linked to the pressures from globalisation, and the anti-state market reform agenda promoted by the IMF, World Bank and other donors’ (Obi, 2009: 111). However, the theory remains useful in the sense that it explains how reciprocity results into dissatisfaction among sections of society and thus triggers violent activities which include terrorism.
Moving away from a political explication of conflict, Huntington (1993) developed the clash of civilisations theory that examines conflict from a cultural perspective. This theory advocates that in the aftermath of the Cold War, the causes of conflict are no longer ideological, political or economic in nature but cultural as it emanates from a clash between groups or nations of different civilisations. The core of this thesis rests on the premise that
‘these civilizations are based on irreconcilable values, rivalry and conflict among them is inevitable’ (Heywood, 2011:514). The primary irreconcilable value that Huntington attributes to the cause of ethnic conflict and identity wars is religious division or ‘fault lines’ among civilisations, especially between the West and Islam (Franks, 2006:79).
In the wake of the 2001 Trade Centre attacks and the current wave of violence of Islamist extremism, Huntington’s statement that Islam has ‘bloody borders’ and possess a high propensity to resort to violence in international crises (1996:258), has gained prominence amongst many scholars. As Abrahamian (2005: 529) articulates, ‘the mainstream media in the USA automatically, implicitly and unanimously adopted Huntington’s paradigm to explain September 11’.
Although Huntington deserves credit for his prescient theory, some elements within his argument are questionable. Firstly, it fails to take into account why some states fight each other while others do not (Jacoby, 2008:80). Secondly, the model of civilisations painted by Huntington is rigid and homogenous which is far from the objective reality since cultures are complex and open to external influence (Heywood, 2011:515). From this, it can be concluded that the argument oversimplifies religion as the sole instigator of conflict while disregarding other causes.
37
After having briefly examined these three frameworks mentioned above, it can be noted that although these theories are useful in analysing conflicts, they are limited in assessing the causal factors that lead to violence in the first place. This further reinforces the debate surrounding the insurmountable task of developing a theory that seeks to explain warfare at the abstract level (Jacoby, 2008: 182). This difficulty of such an undertaking is captured by Levy (1998:140) in the following words:
there is no consensus as to what the causes of war are, what methodologies are most useful for discovering an validating those causes, what general theories of world politics and human behaviour a theory of war might be subsumed within, what criteria are appropriate for evaluating competing theories, or even whether it is possible to generalise about anything as complex and contextually dependent as war.
While this sullen communiqué spotlights the setbacks that scholars face, it is far from an indication that the task is impossible. Keeping the foregoing warning in mind, the study favours the greed and grievance theory as it provides a more nuanced analysis of the causes of conflict. It is also a more viable paradigm with which to assess the phenomenon of AQIM and its context. So conceived, the theory is examined under separate headings (greed then grievance) before reconciling both in order to promote a broader and more encompassing analysis.
3.2 Theories that guided the Study