I've been thinking that the rise in non-State violence indicated a breakdown in the Westphalian system. I thought that the interventions by hegemonic powers or regional actors in weak States indicated something about how technological development allowed small groups of non-State actors to act effectively against States. I thought that the breakdowns and border areas created new opportunities for non-State groups to create networks of their own.
But now I'm thinking about historical events - the rise of States, how centralized power has slowly expanded and contracted over time, how loosely-organized non-State groups have impacted and afflicted States from uncontrolled areas ever since there was something resembling a State.
What if the use of hegemonic power to prop up weak States, or to expand those States' control into border regions, is part of a trend of expanding State control?
States will prop up and legitimize other States. It is in their interest to reinforce and normalize the existence of States, as this give their own existence legitimacy. This is seen in Syria, where the US prefers to work with an organized council, who creates a government with prime ministers and presidents, just like the established States.
The conflict between State and non-State actors has long been tilted in favor of States, with organization, funding, legitimacy - the victors write history, after all. Technological developments, specifically allowing network effects and efficiency, are allowing and will allow organizations smaller than and independent from States to act.
Originally SF writers and futurists predicted that the democratization of tech would reduce State power and would allow people to form free networks of their own, without coercion.
But power accumulates power to itself, and anything that increases power inherently aids States, if they are smart enough to take advantage.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
