Commitment to the “National” in Post-Conflict Countries: Public and Private Security Provision in Lebanon

• Author: Melani Cammett,Christiana Parreira,Dominika Kruszewska-Eduardo,Sami Atallah
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221079401
• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Date: 01 August 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2022, Vol. 66(7-8) 1235–1262

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00220027221079401

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

Commitment to the

“National”in Post-Conflict

Countries: Public and Private

Security Provision in Lebanon

Melani Cammett

1

, Christiana Parreira

2

,

Dominika Kruszewska-Eduardo

3

, and Sami Atallah

4

Abstract

A core function of contemporary states is to ensure the security of their citizens. Yet in

many post-conflict settings, non-state actors provide security alongside the state,

typically prioritizing their own ascriptive groups and potentially undercutting a sense of

national political community. When do citizens prefer group-specific versus national

security? While most studies focus on individual psychological factors, we argue that

group-level characteristics also shape political preferences. Based on a conjoint ex-

periment in Lebanon, we explore the relative appeal of group-specific versus national

pledges to assure protection. We find that respondents view national security pro-

vision quite positively, while members of communities with stronger group-specific

security simultaneously favor private provision. Individuals with closer ties to credible

group security providers are also more likely to prefer those services. Citizens

therefore do not see a clear trade-off between private and public protection, while

group-specific legacies mediate heterogeneity in support for pluralist security

provision.

1

Department of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

2

Department of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

3

Independent Researcher, Boston, Massachusetts, MA, USA

4

The Policy Initiative, Beirut, Lebanon

Corresponding Author:

Christiana Parreira, Department of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University, 110 Jones Hall, Princeton, NJ

08544, USA.

Email: cparreira@princeton.edu

Keywords

ethnic politics, political violence, security, political parties, voter behavior, conjoint

analysis, public opinion, Middle East, Lebanon

Introduction

Afirst order responsibility of the state—perhaps the defining characteristic of the state

as the monopolizer of violence within its territorial borders (Weber 1965, see also

Acemoglu, Robinson, and Santos 2013)—is assuring the protection of its citizens. Yet

during civil conflict or state collapse, the state may cease or curtail security provision,

while non-state actors fill this void. Militias and rebel organizations, among others, are

key suppliers of security during and after conflict. They often provide these services in

an exclusionary manner along the lines of territorial control, co-ethnicity, political

support, or some combination therein. In some states, non-state security provision

extends well into the post-conflict era, even as state capacity re-emerges. Non-state

security provision may also reflect and perpetuate citizen mistrust of the state as a

source of protection. Under these conditions, what do citizens demand from states and

other actors with respect to security?

In this paper, we develop and test a theory of citizen demand for national security in

post-conflict settings. We contend that micro-level security preferences are conditioned

by the structure of group representation and the nature of group-specific security

provision.

1

In some post-conflict settings, national security institutions remain weak,

allowing non-state actors to capitalize on this vacuum by offering protection as a way to

consolidate control and further their interests. Yet not all non-state actors are equally

effective at providing security to their constituents. Some may have highly organized

militias or other protection rackets, while others feature weak or nonexistent security

forces.

In line with existing research, varied individual-level experiences and attributes

shape the demand for security, but we contend that these are mediated by group-specific

variation in the nature of non-state governance. In short, both meso- and micro-level

factors shape preferences for national security, calling for a synthetic framework to

explain public preferences for distinct types of security provision.

We investigate preferences for security provision—national and group-specific—in

a hybrid security environment where both forms exist. Using a conjoint experiment, we

randomly expose respondents to statements by hypothetical Lebanese parliamentary

candidates, who pledge to ensure either the security of the nation as whole or of their

own communities. The results of the experiment indicate that preferences for group-

specific and national protection are not mutually exclusive, but rather depend on the

credibility of different security providers. In particular, we present two key findings.

First, people favor politicians who frame security as a national good when national

security provision is credible, even if a group-specific alternative exists. Second, people

also favor politicians who frame security as a group-specific good when the salient

1236 Journal of Conflict Resolution 66(7-8)