I'm not sure. I would maybe reverse what you just said.
I think with fragmentation, inevitably there is going to be conflict. Political theorists have talked about this for a long time. In an anarchic situation, it's difficult to trust anybody.
I would maybe rephrase it, though, to say it may not be that fragmentation is the root cause as much as an effort to rebuild the state. I'm not sure I know the way forward here, but there is a case to be made that the problem isn't just the fragmentation, but trying to make a federal government that looks like, as you said earlier on, what we westerners expect a country to look like.
We assume that every state should have a federal government that should speak on behalf of all of its people. I'm not sure that's possible in such a massively decentralized state where there can be very profound suspicion of any effort to create any sort of federal government. As I outlined in my opening remarks, if you read, for instance, a series of International Crisis Group reports, each one will often say there is a need to make it more inclusive. In the next one, there would be another effort to be inclusive, but somebody would say they were left out, or be unhappy about being left out.
The problem may not be just the fragmentation, but maybe the effort to build a centralized state structure. The more resources you give it, the more desirable it becomes to control it, and, therefore, the more likely it is that people will contest it.