Topic selection and research direction

¶ … Greed -- grievance debate" is one of the most interesting debates surrounding the causes and eventually the actual development of civil wars especially in countries such as the ones of the African continent. However, despite their arguments, strong in their nature, it is rather difficult to assess the clear cut validity of either side. It can be better said that the answer to this debate or to the question on the causes of the civil wars is a mix of arguments and opinions.

The first part of the debate that relates to the issue of "greed" was thoroughly developed by Paul Collier, whose main arguments focused on the idea that economic factors, such as scarcity of resources is one of the basic elements at the onset of civil wars. In this sense, he points out in one of his studies that "the risk of civil war has been systematically related to a few economic conditions, such as dependence upon primary commodity exports and low national income" as opposed to other conditions which are related to "grievances" which in fact hold second place in the way in which civil wars are started. Moreover, he underlines the fact that civil wars, throughout the world are only possible in cases in which the belligerents and especially the paramilitary groups are financially capable of supporting a guerilla war, as it is the case in most civil wars (Collier, 2006).

Collier, in his argument, strongly underlines the fact that the causes of civil wars do not lie in the actual emotional and personal shortcomings of the society, but represent rather an outburst of pragmatic, organized action, aimed at obtaining financial gains. Moreover, he argues, misperception or the image created by the society for the observant is often misleading and diffuse, but surely it would be the result of organized action, especially in terms of public relations. Therefore, it can be said that the official justification, placed on the issue of grievance, is tailored for the public and the international community which may be more prone to such elements rather than technical economic factors. While the former cannot be quantified, the latter may always be verified and thus used against the rebel movements.

Despite economic arguments, such as the severe cases of civil wars in Zimbabwe over diamonds and oil (Global Witness, 2010), the feelings concerning the triggering elements for civil war are mixed. Even in the report from Global Witness which targets the way in which the wealth of the nation is handled in a system which lacks transparency and legal practice, the authors point out that the causes of this state of fact are rather complex. They deal with economic reasons, on the one hand, and with political and administrative issues on the other. Better said, a crucial point in starting a war but most importantly in waging it is that of the state authorities. However, in a failed state such as Zimbabwe, the state fails to offer any social and personal protection to its citizens and thus to the entire array of its resources. Furthermore, the lack of legitimacy enables rebels to influence a much wider pool of adherents to a certain cause. However despite these aspects which relate to the actual structure of the society, the corruption in the administrative apparatus together with that in the rebel camps fuel civil wars. Therefore, it is rather difficult to consider a single most important aspect of the situation. Indeed, in such cases as the one in Zimbabwe, the civil war had an economic onset. However, it was maintained by illegality, lack of transparency and corruption.

Another important point in this debate presents a perspective which contradicts both theories related to the causes of the war. In this sense, Sambanis, from Yale University, points out that there is no certainty that civil wars are conducted by rebels when they are financially supported through resources or that they are exclusively waged as a result of indoctrination. He offers some examples to illustrate such aspect. Therefore, "civil wars in resource dependent countries often have nothing to do with natural resources. The Maitatsine rebellion in Nigeria in the 1980s took place in an oil-dependent country, but the rebellion was not financed by natural-resource rents. Rather, the rebels -- drawn from the ranks of the homeless, the unemployed, and the politically exiled -- were recruited through ideological indoctrination and Koranic teaching" (Sambanis, 2004). At the same time however, the 1980s rebellion cannot be compared to decades of civil war in Sierra Leone. Even so, it is important to note that there are situations in which despite the presence of natural resources, rebellions and acts of rebellion take place without any financing or economic gain from natural resources.

There is however a distinct case in that of Sierra Leone. Indeed, the civil war in the country is based on economic factors at this point. This is however, due to the lack of power and authority of the state to intervene in areas where the state has little, if any control of the land. In these areas rebels represent the law, order, and authority (Reno, n.d). Therefore, the local people tend to suppress any type of grievance and to relate more to the part of "greed." Even so, this change represented a very elaborate adaptation of the local people and communities to the actual realities of the area and of the region. The lack of a central authority and of a coherent presence of the state transformed an initial fight for grievances in a fight for life and subsistence for the local population.

Such arguments pave the way for pro "grievance" positions. In this sense, the main point is that the civil war in this case is the free will of the population, of the masses rather than of the rebellious leaders. This is largely due to the fact that in order to convey power to an idea, that idea must be inoculated in a sufficient number of people so that power can be generated. The large social meetings before the Second World War in Germany created by Hitler were particularly created on this precept. The masses offer a large amount of power and legitimacy to its cause and leadership.

A more consistent approach related to the greed -- grievance debate takes into account the wider social, political, and economic perspectives of the civil wars. Indeed, civil wars represent a mix of individuals, state authorities, political commitments, but most importantly societies. These in turn represent particular elements which cannot determine a single path in conducting analyses on the causes of civil war. In this sense, Ballentine and Nitzschke argue that all these aspects must be taken into account in order to ensure that a complex analysis of the civil war phenomenon is built.

There can be no precise answer on which arguments is more important or stronger in the debate over the causes of civil war. As presented by Ballentine and Nitzschke, the answer clearly depends on the perspective of the analysis. Thus, in a rebel oriented perspective, it is clear that the result would rely mostly on the belief that civil wars are conducted as a result of greed, of need for financial gains (2003). The nature of the rebel in general is financially oriented largely due to the fact that in order to become a paramilitary or a rebel group, financial aspects must be taken into account, especially given the illegal nature of the activity. Therefore, rebel groups are always financed and most of the times include a financial gain in order to support their cause.