Paper short abstract:

This research seeks to understand how inclusive governance takes place in fragile countries, in particular, comparing how state (and non-state) actors respond to the demands of disadvantaged citizens (e.g. people with disabilities) for public services in Myanmar, Nigeria and Zimbabwe.

Paper long abstract:

Myanmar, Nigeria and Zimbabwe are countries where states show a low capacity to respond to and be accountable to citizen demands and where civil society has very limited space to manoeuvre. This restricts the capacity of disadvantaged groups to access public services and related decision-making. The WJP Rule of Law (2020) index locates the three countries in positions 119, 112 and 108 of the worldwide table, with position 128 being the worst case for the rule of law. Civicus’ report on the State of Civil Society (2020) lists the three countries in the category of ‘repressed’ civil society.

The research strand of the 3-year programme ECID (https://evidenceforinclusion.org/), funded by FCDO, seeks to understand how inclusive governance takes place in fragile countries. What similarities and differences exist in the three countries regarding the challenges of official state responses to the demands of the disadvantaged citizens targeted in ECID (mainly people living with disabilities, but also rural women living in remote areas, adolescents, drug users, female sex workers, people living with HIV/Aids, internally displaced people and LGBT+ communities)? Why does the state respond to some citizen demands while it leaves others unattended? How do these reasons and actors compare between the countries? What non-state actors (e.g. traditional institutions, rival political factions) exist that respond to these citizen demands when the official state does not?

This paper will present a comparative analysis of the mixed-methods research pieces in the three countries, with empirical case studies. Some short videos may be presented.

Paper short abstract:

This paper presents findings from a longitudinal research study in conflict affected sub-national areas of Myanmar exploring how marginalised people and their intermediaries navigate the governance systems of competing authorities to resolve problems.

Paper long abstract:

This paper presents findings from a longitudinal research study in conflict affected sub-national areas of Myanmar exploring how marginalised people and their intermediaries navigate complex multi-authority governance systems to resolve problems. It explores the lived experience of ordinary people in two conflict-affected & contested regions, expectations of and interactions with duty-bearers, who their formal and informal intermediaries are, and how these people mediate between them and multiple authorities. Using the ‘governance diaries’ method, the research team visited participant households monthly for one year, giving a rich understanding of their contexts, issues, and ‘repertoires of action’ amidst contestation. Subsequently identified village level intermediaries were interviewed regularly over several months to analyse their motivations, role, and strategies, and how they dealt with issues that arose. Ordinary people and intermediaries in these contexts face a multitude of challenges in resolving daily challenges of governing community life, accessing services, and resolving disputes. We find preferences for community self-provision and local resolution, rather than involving formal external authorities. These are driven by distrust in authority, previous negative experiences, difficulties engaging with competing authorities, and ideals of self-reliance. Local level intermediaries – in particular ‘village leaders’ – play a crucial gatekeeper role in determining how these decisions play out and enforcing their outcomes. They influence what issues are escalated, navigating a complex environment of multiple governance actors to do so. These dynamics have important implications if we want to understand how ongoing conflict and contestation alter ordinary people’s relationships with their ‘governors’.

Paper short abstract:

How do states secure democratic legitimacy in hierarchical settings? Based on fieldwork in India, I find that public scrutiny and agency norms lead frontline police officers to promote inclusion during elections. E.g. female officers are deployed to voting booths to encourage women’s participation.

Paper long abstract:

Scholars of development maintain that free and fair elections are integral to good governance. However, in hierarchical settings with low state capacity, electoral interference can undermine legitimacy of the state. How does the state establish legitimacy under such conditions? Based on a case study in India, this paper finds that police agencies bear the administrative burden of instituting free and fair elections. Notwithstanding severe resource constraints and political interference, police officers are subject to public scrutiny from state and civil society agencies to uphold impartiality. Officer commitment is sustained by organizational norms upholding “law and order" duty. The findings draw on qualitative fieldwork—participant observation with police agencies during elections, interviews with officers, election observers and other state officials—in Madhya Pradesh, one of India’s poorest states, along with administrative data and internal documents from the Election Commission. During state assembly elections, police agencies are under the scrutiny of civilian agencies and the media and undergo planned organizational upheavals, including the mass transfer of officers. Visible efforts are undertaken to demonstrate impartiality and inclusion, such as women’s participation through the creation of women-only voting booths and deployment of female officers. Police initiatives during elections contrast sharply with how law enforcement normally handle complaints from women and other marginalized social groups. The paper theorizes that police administration of elections promotes state legitimacy while reproducing institutional weaknesses in everyday law enforcement.