Accomplice or Spoiler? Examining (In)formal Relations in Multi-Actor Conflict

• In Event: Coordination, Competition, and Learning in Multi-Actor Conflict

Abstract

How can we better make sense of group relations in conflict settings that feature nonviolent and violent actors? This paper argues that groups enter relations to signal maximal resolve vis-à-vis their adversaries and to retain maximal constituency support. In highly repressive contexts, nonviolent and violent tactics become complementary and induce more formal relations (declared alliances, common decision-making bodies). Less repressive contexts render different tactics more substitutive, resulting in more informal relations (solidarity events, co-participation, common membership) between groups. I test the theory through a novel dataset on movement organisations in the South African anti-apartheid movement, comprising more than 135 political parties, labour unions, religious organisations, student groups, civil society organisations, armed groups (1919-1994). Using quantitative network analysis and historical process tracing, I test the prevalence of different group relations depending on the level of repressiveness and trace back decision-making processes of group leaders. First findings show that nonviolent and violent groups in multi-actor conflicts are more densely interconnected than often anticipated and alliances often assume a complementary nature - also across group types (e.g. student groups and political parties). This paper significantly contributes to our knowledge about strategic interactions and group interdependencies in multi-actor conflicts especially in contexts that feature both nonviolent and violent groups.

Author

• Finn Lukas Klebe, University College London