The weaponization of service delivery in wartime and post-war Daraa al-Balad

During internal armed conflicts, the vacuum caused by the decay of state institutions in rebel-held areas prevents the regular delivery of civilian basic needs. As a consequence, civilians may be compelled to appeal to rebels to “settle down, wear a crown, and replace [internal] anarchy with government.” Beyond the realm of enacting violence, rebels may respond to civilian expectations and undertake a host of state-like activities intended to cast themselves as capable of governing territories and the population. Rebel groups often collect taxes, recruit foot soldiers, provide security, health care, justice, and education. In doing so, they demonstrate their commitment to civilians, dissuade them from collaborating with the state, and achieve a degree of popular legitimacy. While “insurgency” is best understood as “a process of competitive state building,” the state struggles to recover territory, regain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, and establish the supremacy of its institutions. To achieve this, the incumbent often uses indiscriminate violence to annihilate rebel infrastructure and victimize their civilian, popular base of support. The defeat of the rebellion, however, does not necessarily generate a “post conflict” environment and processes of transition from war to peace. Nor does it imply a restoration of full state authority and a resumption of apolitical and equitable public service delivery to the local population.