Lee J. M. Seymour

A Plague of Initials: Fragmentation, Cohesion, and Infighting in Civil Wars

How do we conceptualize the fragmentation of internally divided movements? And how does variation in fragmentation affect the probability and patterns of infighting? The internal politics of non-state groups have received increasing attention, with recent research demonstrating the importance of cohesion and fragmentation for understanding conflict dynamics. Yet there is little consensusonhowtoconceptualizefragmentation,theconceptatthecenterofthisagenda,withauthorsusingdifferentdefinitionsand measures. In this paper we conceptualize fragmentation along three constitutive dimensions: the number of organizations in the movement; the degree of institutionalization across these organizations; and the distribution of power among them.We then show how variation across these dimensions can explain variation in important conflict processes, focusing on infighting. When I came to Spain, and for some time afterwards, I was not only uninterested in the political situation but unaware of it. I knew there was a war on, but I had no notion what kind of a war . . . As for the kaleidoscope of political parties and trade unions, with their tiresome names—PSUC, POUM, FAI, CNT, UGT, JCI, JSWU, AIT—they merely exasperated me. It looked at first sight as though Spain were suffering from a plague of initials . . .

Shirts Today, Skins Tomorrow

While theoretical models of conflict often treat actors as unitary, most self-determination groups are fragmented into a number of competing internal factions. This article presents a framework for understanding the “dual contests” that self-determination groups engage in—the first with their host state and the second between co-ethnic factions within groups. Using a new data set of the number of factions within a sample of self-determination groups from 1960 to 2008, the authors find that competition between co-ethnic factions is a key determinant of their conflict behavior. More competing factions are associated with higher instances of violence against the state as well as more factional fighting and attacks on co-ethnic civilians. More factions using violence increases the chances that other factions will do so, and the entry of a new faction prompts violence from existing factions in a within-group contest for political relevance. These findings have implications for both theory and policy.

Let's Bullshit! Arguing, Bargaining and Dissembling Over Darfur

The crisis in Darfur led to one of the most powerful advocacy campaigns in recent US history. Responding to intense political pressures from this campaign, the US engaged Sudan in a heated public confrontation, increasingly echoing the rhetoric of an advocacy campaign that was surprisingly indifferent to realities on the ground in Darfur. This article examines how the exceptional mobilization around Darfur affected US policy and diplomatic outcomes, using the case to explore larger theoretical questions around deception and truthfulness in International Relations. There was a curious disconnect between the exceptionally strong language US leaders used during the crisis, and the failure of these public claims, promises and threats to achieve the desired diplomatic outcomes. Such strong language should have bolstered US arguments to persuade allies to support measures against Sudan, given the US bargaining leverage with Sudan, and opened opportunities for activists to rhetorically entrap US officials into defending the norms they publicly invoked. Instead, I argue that US leaders bullshitted their way through the crisis in response to advocacy and the demands it generated. Far from being a harmless form of moral posturing, this complicated US diplomatic efforts and undermined the prospects for a political solution in Darfur.

Sovereignty, territory and authority: boundary maintenance in contemporary Africa

Why have Africas borders survived intact in the post-Cold War era, and what changes have the past two decades witnessed in the relationship between sovereignty, territory and authority in African statehood? After 1989, a number of authors predicted changes to the political map of the continent, with far-reaching international changes expected to reverberate in ways the fragile borders of African states were unlikely to contain. Yet legally recognized borders remain basically fixed. Only in the cases of Sudan/South Sudan and Ethiopia/Eritrea did borders change with the consent of the states concerned. This paper tracks the transformations to the postcolonial boundary maintenance regime masked by the lack of meaningful changes to sovereign territorial jurisdictions. The end of superpower competition and the advent of donor conditionality, combined with liberal norms of conflict management and state reconstruction, have attenuated the sovereignty that once bolstered African states against internal rivals. But changes sparked by Chinas deepening engagement with Africa and the emphasis placed on the effective administration of territory in the War on Terror have shored up wavering sovereigns and contested borders. The cumulative effects have been twofold: first, to diminish the formal protections afforded by juridical sovereignty even as recognized boundaries remain fixed; and second, to complicate authority relations within and across borders, undoing the great levelling of the postcolonial period that sought to replace complicated authority relations within and across states with a relatively uniform system of sovereign territorial states.