Spotlight on CIVICA Researcher: Jemima Ackah-Arthur

28-11-2024

We spoke to Jemima, a PhD researcher at the Department of International Relations at LSE, about her research on government militarised responses to insurgent activities in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Could you tell me a little bit about the aims of your research?

I explore the Nigerian government’s responses to Boko Haram attacks through the lens of state and society relationships. I examine the impact of two sets of relationships, namely, between sub-national leaders and non-state security groups, and between communities and insurgent groups. I show how these two distinct sets of relationships facilitate government responses to violence by the mechanism of information-sharing.

I use qualitative research methods to examine the Nigerian case. I focus on government responses to Boko Haram activities in the three most affected states in the northeast namely, Adamawa, Yobe and Borno. This investigation includes expert interviews with civil society groups, non-governmental organisations, religious and traditional leaders, police, military, vigilantes, counterterrorism experts, academics, humanitarian workers, and federal government officials. Such experts understand the local context because of their work with the Nigerian government and their duties towards the people. 

Why did you decide to take on this topic for your PhD?

I have been curious about conflict and security since my undergraduate studies in political science when I got introduced to civil wars in Africa. This passion drove me to pursue a master's degree and complete a thesis project that focused on the international community's response to the Boko Haram crisis which was gaining global attention after the kidnapping of the Chibok girls in 2014. After this degree, I became more interested in understanding the nature of government responses and state intervention towards addressing insurgent activities and violence. I then chose to dig into this topic at the PhD level, this time focusing on how a state facing insurgency addresses security challenges within its own borders. 

What have you learned so far through your research?

The establishment and sustenance of community level relationships are central to governance in areas of weak state capacity and beyond. The execution of basic government tasks in contexts where the state has limited reach involves information and knowledge sharing as well as communication between the government, local communities, non-state actors, and security agents that share diverse social relationships. Governments in such states manage security threats within their own borders based on interpersonal connections and common affinities. This is the current nature of security policy in developing states. 

Importantly, social relations create conditions that enable the government to regulate the lives of the populations as information about local demands for security disseminates to relevant state actors. Yet, through the violent actions of security agents, the government demonstrates a lack of appreciation for local perceptions and expectations of what it means to be protected from harm. The people’s dissatisfaction with the inability of the government to meet these expectations and disappointment in the actions of state security agents often leads to diminished confidence and trust in the government to perform its responsibilities. As a result, they take local initiatives to provide their own security in response to the inappropriate actions of state actors and violence from insurgents by organising vigilante groups and other forms of self-governance.

Moreover, community-based armed actors such as vigilante groups play significant roles when they collaborate with subnational leaders or administrations. When serving as partners of the state, such groups can be very instrumental in curbing violence. Their partnership with state actors allows the government to manage local demands for security by acknowledging which populations need protection, how frequently they need defence, and why they are more vulnerable to insurgent attacks than others because of the mechanism of information sharing and communication.

Loyalties between insurgents and communities also have implications for the execution of state responsibilities where the armed group serve as alternate rulers within a community - in which case they may rule in opposition to the government and serve as independent actors controlling a territory and/or people. Particularly, strong interpersonal connections between the armed group and the population restricts government intervention during period of crises. Thus, populations under insurgent control may be continuously exposed to danger because they are often separated from the rest of the society. This leads to neglect from the government that creates more distant relations between such people and the state because of their association with the insurgents. 

My analysis, therefore, demonstrates that the state remains selective in performing its duty of security provision just as it distributes benefits unequally in such weak state and patrimonial contexts. In controlling violence, it favours those populations and areas where state actors have access while ignoring communities which are impenetrable. Without social and interpersonal links with these actors, many communities are exempted from receiving attention from the state’s security sector. 

^{Photo credits: Jemima Ackah-Arthur}