Supporting Local Governance in the Absence of an Effective Central State

Diverse actors have gained power and autonomy, effectively localizing authority in these areas. Working with local governance authorities is a key approach to addressing donor objectives such as stabilization, countering violent extremism (CVE), peacebuilding, inclusive governance, and improved service delivery in these and other Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries. Local governance orders in contexts of limited central state presence lie on a continuum, ranging from mostly-state orders to mostly non-state orders. However, there is never a complete absence of order, and the state is never entirely absent. Informal systems of protection, authority, risk management, and basic governance exist in communities, while vestiges of the state survive in the form of structures such as local councils or universities that continue to operate to varying degrees. Local governance orders differ across and within countries by the actors involved, their level of legitimacy, and their capacity. In some cases, a single dominant authority has consolidated control, like Daesh in parts of Syria and Iraq, but generally, there is a wide range of hybrid arrangements involving multiple self-proclaimed authorities. Local governance authorities can range from highly legitimate and responsive to highly corrupt, illiberal, and abusive. Factors affecting the quality of local governance include history, local authorities' goals, and community characteristics. A critical factor is whether local powerholders arrive at an agreement to govern well. Libya provides examples of local authorities mobilizing local networks to address issues such as human trafficking, development, and dispute resolution. Community cohesion can support more effective service provision, but sometimes at the cost of inclusion. Trajectories of change in local governance orders relative to the central state range from secession, to continued autonomy, to (re)integration with some level of decentralization, to (re)centralization. A key concern for local governance work is whether gains from periods of local autonomy will survive the restoration of central regime control and/or influence the nature of the reintegrated state. Effective local governance appears most important as a vehicle for addressing minority and marginalized groups' grievances, while maintaining the state's territorial integrity; bringing decision making and accountability closer to the people; providing a nonviolent dispute resolution mechanism; and building state presence. Service provision alone at the local level does not necessarily advance state- and peacebuilding. Services should be small scale to avoid predation, publicly connected to government, have visible benefits, be contingent on citizen cooperation with government, operate in relatively secure environments, and focus on service delivery that is responsive to local needs. In contexts of limited central state presence, programming needs to consider prospects for the central state, start small, focus on making local orders more accountable, and mitigate risks to staff and beneficiaries. Employing detailed, up-to-date contextual information is essential for effective local governance work.