When an armed conflict ends, a major issue that often emerges in a peace process is how to detach combatants from their armed mobilisers and reintegrate them back into communities. Actors of armed conflicts often mobilise narratives of political violence to justify destructive function of a conflict as an instrument deemed necessary to induce social and political change. Reintegration of ex-combatants at the end of an armed conflict , therefore, becomes a complex process which not only aims to transform narratives of violence into narratives of peace but also transform destructive function of war into constructive social and political change. This change is often characterised by a process of creating enabling social, economic and political conditions in which ex-combatants are able to transform their identity into a new identity of civilians (Bowd, 2006; Kilroy, 2015; Ćzerdem, 2009, 2012; Porto, Alden, & Parsons, 2007). The process of transforming combatants into civilians is, however, not an easy job, perhaps one of the most challenging issues that any post-conflict peacebuilding process is likely to encounter. Difficulties and dilemmas of reintegrating ex-combatants at the end of an armed conflict and how that concerns with politics of peacebuilding constitute the central theme of this volume
The examples and case study included in this volume are from Nepal where management of Maoist arms and armies was a key peacebuilding priority, stipulated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) reached between the Government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal Maoists (CPNM) 1 on 21 November 2006. Despite a broad political consensus that reintegration of Maoists ex-combatants would be essential for lasting peace and security in the country, the CPA document remained vague about the process and mechanisms that would be involved in reintegrating Maoist ex-combatants back into communities. Consequently, management of Maoist ex-combatants became a deeply contentious political issue as well as an impasse in the peace process. The impasse led to having the ex-combatants confined in cantonments for five years, between 2007 and 2011.
Much has been already written about disarmament , demobilization and reintegration (DDR ) and peacebuilding in a variety of contexts around the world (Alusala, 2008; Barakat & Ćzerdem, 2005; CICS, 2006; Jennings, 2008; Kilroy, 2015; Kingma & Muggah, 2009; Muggah & OāDonnell, 2015; Ćzerdem, 2009; Porto et al., 2007). The abundance of the literature on DDR, nonetheless, begs a simple question : Why another book on DDR and peacebuilding ? In response, I choose to provide two simple and straightforward justifications.
First, most of the existing studies examine reintegration of ex-combatants in the contexts of traditional DDR programmes. Internationally, DDR of ex-combatants has become a major part of a peacebuilding programme in countries emerging from an armed conflict . Unlike elsewhere, as this volume will show, management of Maoist ex-combatants in Nepal involved some elements of traditional or conventional DDR programmes such as disarmament and demobilisation of combatants in cantonments . Yet, the process did not follow standard DDR practices as recommended by international guidelines, for instance, the United Nations Integrated DDR Standards (UNIDDRS). Rather, a mix model of DDR was adopted, combining disarmament and demobilisation with a cash-based package or the cash-based approach taken to reintegrate ex-combatants . The nuances and anomalies of a cash-based approach, adopted to reintegrate ex-combatants , made the entire process what is called in this volume a āunconventional DDR ā. This volume is the first in-depth study of the mechanisms, processes and outcomes of a unconventional DDR programme, which was heavily politicised and deeply centralised in Nepalās peace process.
Second, DDR of ex-combatants is as much a political process as is social and economic one (Ćzerdem, 2009; Pouligny, 2004). Therefore, processes and outcomes of a DDR programmes are circumstantial , often defined and determined by political economy of the peace process in question, as well as the friction of power relations between key actors involved. Broadly focusing on the political economy of post-conflict peace process as well as social, political and cultural conditions in which the unconventional DDR programme emerged, this volume critically analyses and interrogates theory and practice of reintegration in the light of cash-based approach taken to reintegrate the Maoists ex-combatants . Examining relevance and effectiveness of the cash-based scheme , the volume endeavors to analyse what mechanisms and processes ex-combatants adopt to reintegrate when a formal reintegration support is lacking.
This volume maintains that ex-combatants do not constitute a homogeneous social category. Rather, they form heterogeneous social entities, with individual ex-combatants having different needs, interests and aspirations in the peace process. Most of these ex-combatants operate in highly politicised, securitised and stigmatised environments. It argues that in such a complex environment of war to peace transition, not all ex-combatants reintegrate into society in the same manner. Their capacities to integrate back into society, both socially and economically, largely depend on their ability to forge social networks and social capital ādefined as existing networks and trust between individuals and groups (Putnam, 2000)āwith their families, kinship network and social networks. However, the role of āwar family ā, a war-driven social network that functions as a moral, emotional and psychological support system and āsafety netā for ex-combatants during an armed conflict , cannot be necessarily overlooked because many ex-combatants also continue to rely on formal and informal networks of the war family in addition to receiving support from their own families and relatives in their reintegration process.
Because social network and social capital of ex-combatants becomes a facilitator to transform combatants into civilian, this volume argues, reintegration of ex-combatants constitutes transformative elementsātransformation of their identity , transformation of their livelihood, transformation of destructive function of war system and finally transformation of their relationships with communities where they originally belong to. The transformative aspects of reintegration , therefore, suggest that successful and effective reintegration of ex-combatants must aim at fostering social capital , recognising (a) diverse needs of ex-combatants as a heterogeneous social category, and (b) achieve this aim by recognising the roles of ex-combatants , their families and relatives as well as members of the āwar family ā.
A cash-based scheme adopted to reintegrate ex-combatants not only ignores various socio-economic needs, including gender -specific needs, of ex-combatants but it also fails to bring transformation in the liv...