Peacebuilding, Memory and Reconciliation

Bridging Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches

Bruno Charbonneau, Genevieve Parent

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781136491108
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book aims to bridge the gap between what are generally referred to as 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches to peacebuilding.

After the experience of a physical and psychological trauma, the period of individual healing and recovery is intertwined with political and social reconciliation. The prospects for social and political reconciliation are undermined when a 'top-down' approach is favoured over the 'bottom-up strategy'- the prioritization of structural stability over societal well-being.

Peacebuilding, Memory and Reconciliation explores the inextricable link between psychological recovery and socio-political reconciliation, and the political issues that dominate this relationship. Through an examination of the construction of social narratives about or for peace, the text offers a new perspective on peacebuilding, which challenges and questions the very nature of the dichotomy between 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches.

This book will be of much interest to students of peacebuilding, peace and conflict studies, social psychology, political science and IR in general.

Part I

Conceptual issues

Chapter 1

The post-conflict paradox:

Engaging war, creating peace

Patricia A. Maulden

In cases of civil war or intrastate conflict, the signing of a peace agreement brings international resources and personnel to bear on disarming, demobilizing, and reintegrating soldiers, reforming the security sector, building institutions, establishing good governance, conducting truth and reconciliation projects, and instituting transitional justice (Anderlini 2007: 15). When implemented, each of these macro level enterprises includes actors and organizations on the meso and grassroots levels (Lederach 1997: 44–55). These goals also attempt to engage causal dynamics and effects of the war while at the same time building a national framework that creates and sustains a political and social landscape of peace (Young 1997: 48–49). As the primary focus for personnel and resources rests on the macro level with elite or emerging elite leadership, relatively few tangible benefits of peace make it down to the majority of the population. War survivors, in general, initially hold fast to the knot of war weariness and generalized post-conflict hope, giving the international community and the state space to implement aspects of the peace agreement (Maulden 2007: 199). Over time, however, the knot can unravel as people continue to suffer their own personal experiential legacy from the war as well as ongoing economic uncertainty, lack of government services, and community and social conflicts. In essence, individuals cannot only re-experience the material deprivations that existed prior to the war but also struggle with the war-related burden of physical and psychological trauma and loss.

Causal factors influencing the presence, or indeed the absence, of civil war remain a subject for consideration. Cater (2003: 41) postulates that economic and political differentiation between intrastate groups derives from state institutional structures and practices and can lead to insurrection and violence. Collier et al. (2009: 21–22) have moved from focusing exclusively on greed and grievance to investigating a wider range of social and political variables that include feasibility factors such as income, natural resources, peace duration, population, social fractionalization and composition, and motivation. Keen (2000: 25), on the other hand, presents a top-down (elite) and bottom-up (grassroots) model, similar to the Lederach Approaches to Building Peace leadership triangle (1997: 39), to demonstrate the operationalization of intrastate violence; political leaders and entrepreneurs mobilize violence for their own political and economic ends, bottom-level individuals and groups participate in the violence either as part of or in response to top-level actions and policies. If the violence continues or escalates, individuals in the mid-range of the Lederach triangle, religious leaders, civil society leaders, and academics find themselves faced with the difficult choice of how to respond to ongoing circumstances. At this point, the exploration of process and practice (Richards 2005: 21–22) of war or peace becomes increasingly salient, particularly as intrastate or civil wars can seep into all levels of socio-cultural, political, and economic life potentially becoming a “total war at the grassroots level” (Summerfield 1998: 33).

Whether individuals living through war and violence fall into the by-stander, elite, or opposition categories, the injuries, deprivations, and inequities can link personal, political, and societal problems. This interpersonal sharing of negative, often violent, experience moves suffering from the individual to the social realm (Kleinman et al. 1997, ix). The idea of social suffering blurs the boundaries between the individual and the group and opens the door to the consideration of political, economic, institutional, and socio-cultural factors as dimensions of the suffering, as well as the healing dynamic. This chapter, based on fieldwork conducted in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Burundi – each country recently emerged from civil war – highlights researcher observation and respondent narrative in an exploration of trauma, post-conflict healing, and recovery.¹ As people spoke indirectly about suffering experienced both during the war, as well as in the new post-conflict environment, they did not separate experience from context, citing, for example, lack of economic opportunities, corruption by political officials, and ethnic tensions as realities integral to their lives past and present. These realities often destroyed the socio-cultural bonds that held individuals and communities together and, if ignored, could hinder social and political reconciliation during the post-conflict period (Jeong 2005: 155). Reconciliation as considered in this chapter involves individuals and groups working to restore broken relationships and learning, as a result, to live nonviolently with radical differences (Ramsbotham et al. 2005: 231).

Herman posits that psychological trauma can, among other things, be considered an affliction of the powerless (Herman 1997: 33). As such, post-conflict trauma healing and recovery for individuals and for socio-cultural groups often depend upon finding power and agency in the aftermath of war through political, economic, and social avenues. In addition, social and cultural considerations play important roles in the expression and conceptualization of war experiences, in individual differences in the appraisal process (Friedman and Marsella 1996: 23–4), and in consciousness, memory, and identity (Kirmayer 1996: 147–50). The individuals and groups spoken to in the country cases support these assertions as will be examined below. The chapter proceeds with a section exploring subjective interactions, discussing the contextual dimensions of civil war, the intervention of violence and nonviolence, and individual and group engagement with socio-cultural symbols and narrative in relation to making meaning under difficult circumstances. The following section examines the nature of social suffering in relation to recovery, focusing on agency, empowerment, creativity, individual variables that could play a role in learned optimism, and the importance of human security. The focus then shifts to reconciling suffering through remembering, cultural representations, and focusing on future oriented actions, with examples from ongoing programs. The considerations and constraints section presents concerns such as structural and cultural violence, marginalization of youth and non-elite, scarcity of resources at all levels, unofficial processes taking the place of government policy, and comparative observations from 2004 and 2010.

Subjective interactions

In Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Burundi and indeed all places where civil war thrives, violence becomes a frequent and thereby normal individual and group experience. To survive, individuals subjectively engaged with the violently normal through appraisal processes and (re-)conceptualizations of the self and others in light of contextual determinations, developing both coping and engagement strategies (Kleinman 2000: 238; Kirmayer 1996: 153). As these strategies or cognitive, emotional, and practical rationalizations are adapted and adopted by more and more individuals and groups, they become replicated and routinized, in time becoming part of accepted socio-cultural norms, values, and practices. When violence serves as the intervening variable effecting behavior, this re-valuing process can be termed social militarization, or the predisposition to use or sanction violence to solve personal and group problems. In the post-conflict environment, on the other hand, social demilitarization processes occur as nonviolent social actions enter into every day experience, undergo subjective appraisal and evaluation, and cognitive and emotional re-conceptualizations formulate and are routinized through individual and social nonviolent action (Maulden 2007: 19).

For example, as part of the “Never Again” Campaign sponsored by an international organization in early post-war programming, rural women belonging to a Bondo traditional female organization in the northwest Temne region of Sierra Leone (see Shaw 2002) organized a ceremony that gives substance to the ephemeral concepts of social militarization and demilitarization. The Bondo devil statue, painted or singed black, represented the society's spiritual and socio-cultural power and influence in the local communities. Over time, however, the statue came to reflect the conduct of the war, which especially devastated that part of the country and involved various spiritual and traditional dynamics. In a public ceremony and celebration the women covered the statue in white paint and fabric, traditionally symbolizing the desire for peace. Re-covering the statue gave tangible form to the idea that peace can envelop the darkness of violence. In so doing, Bondo society members individually and as a group uncoupled (in the present) their organization and traditions from violence and war (the past) and aligned themselves with nonviolence and peace (the future). Other community members, when viewing the reformed devil, could recall the overt as well as the implied messages, employ appraisal and attribution processes, and generate personal meanings that could shape their present and future social actions. Stories emerging around the devil's transformation could provide a cultural shape around which future nonviolent actions align.

While the Bondo devil story points to the variety of forms the long processes of individual and social demilitarization may take, the re-painting of a statue, while perhaps providing a starting place, remains insufficient for sustainable individual and group reconciliation and post-war recovery. When the war ends and the violence stops, the suffering dynamic does not immediately cease but continues through the memories, bodily violations, psychic distress, trauma, and illnesses that endure. On the other hand, peace accords and peace programs can help to foster a gentle shift toward reconsideration and healing. This reality constitutes the post-conflict paradox – remembering, perhaps re-living the war, while envisioning and conceptualizing the peace. A corollary reflects where to “place” the creation, manifestation, and continuation of peace or the ability to handle conflict with empathy, nonviolence, and creativity (Galtung et al. 2000: 19–21). Boulding (2000: 1–2) posits peace as an action that involves continuous reshaping of understandings, circumstances, and behaviors to create and sustain well-being for individuals and groups. She further notes that because aggression can penetrate all levels of analysis from the global, regional, state, community, interpersonal, to the individual, the processes of nonviolence and peace must follow similar paths to deal with human differences and their attendant conflicts. With these ideas in mind, the placement of peace as a process blurs boundaries and conceptual domains. With this broad scope of potential for peaceful influence, individuals, groups, institutional frameworks, and socio-cultural norms, values, and practices at each level of analysis have an important role to play in not only the war-to-peace transition but also in the continuing work of consolidation and sustainability. Post-conflict interactions between the international, state, local, and individual levels, as will be described further below, add to the complexity of moving away from war and violence. At the same time, however, the expansive terrain for interaction could facilitate increased potential for the conceptualization and implementation of peaceful practices.

During fieldwork in the countries listed above, community members rarely used the word “trauma” to describe the violent and certainly traumatic events that happened during the war. Individuals positioned the “events” beyond themselves, referring to wartime life as “very difficult” and to post-conflict life as a new road down which the country – and they – might travel. At the same time, however, they offered stringent critiques on political parties and governments and occasionally placed at least partial blame for the war on themselves and their communities. Suárez-Orozco and Robben (2000) point out that large-scale violence occurs in complex contexts intertwined with psychic, social, cultural, economic, and political dimensions, targeting social bonds and cultural practices. Meaning making, on the other hand, constitutes a fundamental human activity (Laue and Cormick 1978: 218) that allows individuals to find their place in the world no matter what the circumstances. As people struggle to make sense and meaning out of lives and selves irreparably changed by violence, images, metaphors, and narrative strands emerge from socio-cultural symbolizing systems, blending with individual traits and circumstances. This process allows individuals to call upon their own agency, their own essence, to redefine identity, increase self understanding, and reweave ways of anticipating and engaging with the world. These processes can ease the sense of powerlessness (Neimeyer 2001: 263) and by “naming the abyss” (Arvay 2001: 224) gain some control over it.

In Liberia, the phrase “put cement on everything for them,” spoken by a traditional leader, referred to the historical role of the elders and the hierarchical system in resolving individual and community conflicts. This calls to mind the spiritual nature of tradition and the increased political power held by traditional councils since the decentralization of government after the war. On the other hand, an international nongovernmental organization (NGO) funded and facilitated the reconfiguration of traditional leaders into a national presence, serving as example of the expansive post-conflict terrain described above. The use of this particular form of “cement” however, reconceptualizes the centuries old claims of tradition – a tradition encouraged by some, found burdensome or onerous by others.

A young man in Burundi who experienced ethnic violence during his school days and now spends his working life advocating for peace and justice demonstrates another example of the linkages between domains of influence and conceptualization. He maintained that barriers of fear shift by talking about what happened. For him, this proved quite literally true. The positioning of fear as a barrier and talk as a means to move that barrier can resonate strongly. On the other hand, shifting the barrier does not remove it, as he acknowledged himself during further discussion around teetering democracy, corrupt national institutions, the bribing of public officials to gain access to public goods and services, and so on. From a different point of view, adults in Sierra Leone often repeat the phrase: “save the children kill the parents.” This references not only the specific international organization and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Report but also ongoing international and state pressure to implement child rights across sectors – this dynamic can also be found in Liberia. Adults insist that children's responsibilities be included into any child-related rights policy and that the power to control and influence children remain in adult hands. In part these concerns hark back to pre-war, traditional child rearing practices, recognizing that the child, in traditional societies, also possesses spiritual powers that need to be accessed sequentially through careful initiation at the proper developmental level (Moran 2006: 146–7). Adult responses to the intervention of a child-rights agenda, however, also reflects the trauma and fear of the war years as child fighters took adult power into their own hands, killing, maiming, creating havoc and destruction in communities across the country. Children, for their part, seem well aware of their rights and, according to many conversations in Sierra Leone and Liberia, are often not shy about pointing them out to parents or guardians.

The examples in this section highlight the influences of and tensions between the international, state, and individual interpretations and evaluations of post-conflict policies and practices. In addition, these interactions are posited as providing at least the potential for the creation and manifestation of the ability to handle conflict nonviolently. As this occurs and becomes a part of everyday life, individuals and groups can conceptualize and incorporate nonviolent social action within and across domains. The section examples also demonstrate how multiple meanings can be taken from narrative phrases depending upon individual experiences and attitudes (Gonçalves et al. 2000: 276). The narrative strands themselves offer individuals a way to view life, develop alternative possibilities for understanding and individual action (Gergen and McNamee 2000: 334–5), and in essence, attempt to stave off powerlessness as they position the self in a world that can seem out of control.

Social suffering and recovery

Residents of Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Burundi traditionally envision people and relationships as a form of wealth for the present as well as for the future (Honwana 2006: 52; Bayart et al. 1999: 32; Chabal and Daloz 1999: 75; Bledsoe 1980: 47). Through processes of coping or reconstructing personal and social worlds, as explored briefly above, individuals endeavor to recover the ordinary, to recall and reconstitute everyday nonviolent life, and to establish new and to reclaim former relationships. While institutional remedies – justice, political and economic equity, for example – can be considered essential to the overall sustainability of peace, so too are socio-cultural and individual efforts to refashion the normal. The socio-cultural and individual efforts gain added importance when institutional remedies flounder, promises are broken, and trust in government is waning or absent. Articulation of the post-conflict landscape needs to encompass discussion that engages society, promotes respect, and encourages new socio-cultural as well as political and economic solutions. Beyond simple declarations, however, lie the complex details of process, both personal and social.

Processes involve multiple possibilities or socio-cognitive variables – for example interpretations of situations/events, expectations, and goals – that mediate and regulate social action (Dweck 2000: 139). This mediation/regulation happens through personal attribution and appraisal, as discussed above, motivating the individual towards alignment with certain groups or ideas and away from others. The alignment constitutes one form of personal agency, albeit constrained by existing conditions, real and perceived, concerning what is available at the moment and what might be possible in the future. An evaluation of township youth who participated in the violence in South Africa during the 1980s (Straker 1992: 218) supports this alignment, noting that the roots of optimism lay within the perceptions as well as the actualities of the current environment, mitigated by individual physiological and temperamental makeup. In sum, people in general explain situations differently, to themselves and to others; some explanations leave room for hope, others do not. The trick in post-conflict environments, therefore, becomes creating a space, both real and perceived, for hop...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: peacebuilding, healing, reconciliation
• Part 1 Conceptual issues
• Part 2 Case Studies
• Bibliography
• Index