Does a more participatory approach to reintegrating ex-combatants lead to better outcomes? Evidence from Sierra Leone and Liberia

Abstract

Peace agreements and ceasefires may be signed, but whether they hold is another question. Rather than being single events, they are embedded in a peace process, which often begins long before any signatures are added, and can continue even longer afterwards. Supporting this process, with all the scaffolding required for social, political, institutional and physical reconstruction, is what we now know as peacebuilding. And a key component in that task is dealing with the combatants who took part in the armed conflict, and whose existence and actions can contribute to the peace process or undermine it. Programmes for the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) of ex-combatants have therefore come to be regarded as an essential part of the peace-builder's toolkit. They have quite properly been described by the UN as often being 'at the nexus of peacekeeping, postconflict peacebuilding and development'. 1 Attempts to measure the immediate results of DDR have shown mixed results. Some studies indicate real benefits for those ex-combatants who took part in reintegration programmes, in terms of their social and economic well-being, for example in Liberia. 2 Others have failed to measure any significant benefit in Sierra Leone, 3 or have highlighted significant difficulties in trying to bring about social and economic reintegration, 4 especially for women. One of the difficulties with reintegration programmes is that they interact with a wide range of issues, from security sector reform and transitional justice, 5 to political and economic reconstruction. Sometimes the boundaries and lines of responsibility are not clear. The need for a holistic, integrated approach has long been recognised. 6 However, putting this into practice remains a challenge. DDR programmes come in a variety of forms, and some do not actually use the title. According to the review of the 22 programmes underway in 2006, 7 about a third come under the authority of national bodies, though nearly all rely on international funding. Most (16) include specific programmes for children. There are many obstacles to implementing a programme effectively, including security concerns and lack of infrastructure or capacity in the immediate postwar environment. There may be an understandable desire to show quick results and 'keep the ex-combatants busy' at a time when tensions or spoilers could destabilise an agreement. There are a wide range of actors with different interests, from large international agencies and organised armed groups to disempowered communities or struggling national ministries. Perhaps the greatest problems have been the exclusion of girls and women, 8 and the question of ex-combatants failing to find livelihoods after they have gone through reintegration. This is hardly surprising, given the context of extreme poverty and economic disruption which may be à à ¼ p , 0.05 Blank cells: No significant effect observed Key to tests used I: Individual regression analysis (variable on its own, with control variables) G: Grouped regressio...

Precarity, clinical labour and graduation from Ebola clinical research in West Africa

“…Graduation ceremonies and training certificates were provided for participants who completed the programmes (Munive & Jakobsen, 2012). Numerous DDR/RRR graduates experienced re-marginalisation and disappointment once the programmes officially ended (Bøås & Bjørkhaug, 2010; Kilroy, 2014; Maclay & Ozerdem, 2010; McMullin, 2013; Munive & Jakobsen, 2012), similar to post-graduation narratives we encountered in this study.…”

“…Kilroy described the identical understanding of ID cards among graduates from reintegration programmes: “the experience with the identity cards left many ex-combatants with the impression that their benefits were being siphoned off by people working in the agencies” (Kilroy, 2015). Moreover, common to both reintegration programmes and Ebola vaccine research were pre-participatory aspirations of participants; ongoing, temporary social protection during participation; and unmet expectations after graduation, which appeared in stark contrast with the perceived wealth and power absorbed by the implementers (Kilroy, 2014).…”

Concealing former identity to be accepted after the demobilization process in Colombia: A real reintegration in a post conflict scenario?

“…But these research traditions have not studied the effect of concealing a former combatant identity on their reintegration into civilian life in an ongoing conflict scenario. Many empirical studies in post-conflict scenarios define social reintegration in terms of acceptance of ex-combatants by their families and their neighbours (Gomes Porto, Parsons, & Alden, 2007;Humphreys & Weinstein, 2007;Kilroy, 2014;Nadler & Shnabel, 2015). Although there is no academic consensus on the definition of social reintegration of the ex-combatant (Kaplan & Nussio, 2018), the persistence of the term acceptance in almost all definitions (it is understood that it is acceptance of the ex-combatant -as ex-combatant -by the community) makes it possible to understand that the concealment of the former identity is not a mechanism of integration compatible with the spirit of the process itself.…”

Assessment of progress in education for children and youth with disabilities in Afghanistan: A multilevel analysis of repeated cross-sectional surveys

“…First, to promote peace and reconciliation, since the 1980’s the international community has promoted programs of Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) that include skills training to help economic reintegration of ex-combatants, including child soldiers [36]. Unfortunately, multiple studies have shown that reintegration can be threatened by numerous elements such as lack of reconciliation [37], little consideration for local contexts and needs of program recipients [38] and poor participation of recipients in the definition and implementation of the program [39]. Second, it has been argued that education can offer a protective environment for children particularly through emotional, psychological and cognitive development [40, 41] while protecting them from forced recruitments, exploitation and prostitution [6, 42].…”