Legitimacy and control: introduction to the special issue on rebel governance

Rebel groups behave in curious ways.The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) devoted substantial resources to developing a reputation as a legitimate political movement.Their multifaceted approach included providing intelligence to the Philippines Government on the operations of rival rebel groups, cultivating linkages with local politicians, and offering basic goods and services to civilians.Meanwhile, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) struggled to create a reliable civilian base despite the provision of local services such as farm collectives, in part because they focused on the labor class at the expense of their rural base.The CPP strategy was meant to fill gaps in central government service provision, but ultimately failed to secure domestic legitimacy.The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) established intricate systems of mobile courts to provide access to justice and showcase their good governance.By regulating the narcotics economy that employed vast segments of the population, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) consolidated control and enhanced local legitimacy.What explains the different strategies that rebels adopt in their rule?What is the purpose and what are the consequences?Rebel governance has been defined as "the set of actions insurgents engage in to regulate the social, political, and economic life of non-combatants during war" (Arjona et al. 2015, 3).Although attempts at rebel governance are as old as the earliest states -and probably older -the research on this topic has taken off in recent years, especially in political science (