The role of elite cohesion

Within the civil war scholarship, the notions of cohesion and fragmentation are widely used to explain the rise and duration of conflict. The cohesive or fragmented nature of conflict spaces can affect the onset, intensity, and modalities of violence in civil war

(Brenner 2015; Carboni and Moody 2018; Pearlman and Cunningham 2012; Warren and Troy 2015). Bakke, Cunningham and Seymour (2012) show that variations in the fragmentation of non-state armed groups in civil war contexts can explain the onset of infighting within internally split movements. These studies typically focus on how rebel groups, self-determination movements or ethnically based militias interact with state structures. However, in situations of protracted or endemic conflict, political elites routinely negotiate access to political power through the use or the threat of force. Hence, elite fragmentation can produce specific incentives to use violence as a means to achieve political goals (Raleigh and Dowd 2018). The resulting scenario is the emergence of subnational ‘wartime political orders’ oscillating between active cooperation and collusion to coexistence or open conflict (Staniland 2012), and displaying distinct patterns of violence and hierarchies of power (Carboni and Moody 2018).

The role of elites is indeed of great significance in shaping the trajectory of political orders (Burton and Higley 1989). Elite behaviour is widely understood to determine fundamental political changes, and ultimately to explain patterns of stability, regime transformation and violence (North et al. 2013). Elite cohesion constitutes a pillar of regime stability (Magaloni 2006). Different levels of elite cohesion are associated with distinctive regime types, in which the unified or divided nature of the elites dictates how power is organised and exercised. Elite scholars Burton and Higley distinguish between four types of political elites based on their levels of integration – the extent to which they share common ties and values – and differentiation – the extent to which they are specialised functionally and significantly plural (Higley and Burton 2001). According to their typology, four elite types and related regimes are identified: consensual elites are highly integrated and possess extensive functional differentiation, producing stable representative regimes; ideocratic elites are highly, and often forcibly, integrated but the organisation of power allows little extensive functional differentiation and autonomy, producing stable unrepresentative regimes; fragmented elites operate across several functional domains but are weakly integrated, producing unstable representative regimes;

divided elites have limited functional specialisation and actively seek to destroy their rivals, producing unstable unrepresentative regimes. Changes in the levels of cohesion trigger political elite transformations that generate new elite types and political practices.

Reflecting the distribution of power among elites and consequently the nature of the relations between key political actors, elite cohesion is defined as the “rulers’ ability to

maintain the loyalty and cooperation of allies within the regime” (Levitsky and Way 2012: 870). When cohesion is high, key political actors are expected to support the regime resulting in low levels of defection or insubordination. As a result, united elites are more likely to ‘tame’ politics by agreeing on the norms that regulate political competition (Sartori 1995). By contrast, when cohesion is low, elites are less likely to collaborate with the regime, which is subject to a variety of threats such as elite splits, coup attempts and rebellion. Unity is said to enhance the success of collective action by maximising the elites’ ability to enforce coordination and restraint among the adherents (Luttwak 1969;

Pearlman 2012).

In short, higher coordination among groups and individuals raises an elite’s ability to survive existential crises. Highly united elites can leverage entrenched partisan identities consolidated over years of conflict, military party bodies, uncontested leadership and an effective control over the means of coercion to successfully mobilise supporters and fighting resources (Levitsky and Way 2012: 872). By contrast, disunited elites face typical coordination problems related to the aggregation of a variety of groups, relying mainly on patronage for their mobilisation. Indeed, patronage is not a substitute for stronger non-material ties. As highlighted by Levitsky and Way, “although the distribution of material resources is a critical component of authoritarian durability, it is hardly the only one, and in times of crisis, it may not be the most important one” (Levitsky and Way 2012: 880). The absence of strong ties hinders elite cooperation as mutual trust is low and access to rents or public office is scarcely institutionalised. When non-material sources of cohesion are absent or weak, incumbents can enhance elite unity through patronage, the creation of formal institutions or repression, or further obstruct coordination through institutional fragmentation and elite circulation (Lutscher 2016;

Woldense 2018).

The elite network paradigm provides a theoretical framework to explain the emergence of distinct wartime political orders in Yemen. Nationally, Yemen resembles the divided elite model, with multiple camps fundamentally opposed to each other engaging in a violent competition over the control of the state. Networks are weakly connected, reflecting the deep divisions that separate them. At the same time, each of these camps conforms to the fragmented elite model, whereby elite pluralism offsets the absence of unifying ties preventing an all-out conflict within the warring blocks. While multiple groups possess the capacity to use violence, no faction is strong enough to seize authority,

privileging an uncomfortable cohabitation over a violent struggle (Higley and Burton 2001: 187).

When conflict escalated within these camps, thus triggering a transformation from fragmented into divided elites, different levels in elite cohesion between the warring factions contributed crucially to their success or failure. This was the situation prior to the rebellion that broke out in Sana’a in December 2017, following the collapse of the alliance between the Houthis and Ali Abdullah Saleh. Before turning to the analysis of this case, I trace the evolution of elite networks in Yemen under the presidencies of Saleh and Hadi.