By Amy Toure, Regional Advisor on Post-Conflict Management and Governance, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Sub-Regional Office for Central Africa
Introduction
In the past two decades, numerous conflicts have taken a toll on the prospects for uninterrupted development in African countries. From Burundi to Sudan to Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, DRC, Ethiopia, Somalia, Liberia and Sierra Leone and many others, Africa has witnessed more conflicts than any other continent in the world during the last century. The various and multiple violent conflicts that have afflicted the continent have exacted an incalculable toll on the economies, politics and society, robbing them of their developmental potential notwithstanding the continent’s wealth in natural re-sources. The United Nations Security Council has spent not less than 75% of time and money resolv-ing conflicts and performresolv-ing humanitarian duties in Africa, more than any other part of the world, and according to the UNHCR (2010), there are over 3.2 million refugees and internal displaced persons (IDPs) in Africa, second highest number after the Middle East.
The root causes of conflict in Africa are diverse. They generally stem from poor governance with mas-sive violation of human rights, social and ethnic exclusion, scarcity and/or inequitable access to lands and natural resources, unequal distribution of revenues from natural resources exploitation, poverty, artificial borders lines and claims of territories and many others. The previous chapter outlined some of these causes in greater detail. Countries can thus be in conflict situations (in a state of fragility) stemming from combinations of many of these factors.
A post-conflict scenario, as termed by analysts, generally refers to a situation where peace has re-turned or at least signs of the return to peace are evident. Conceptually, the term post-conflict can be misleading because violence often continues in societies after a peace settlement has been accepted.
According to analysts, post-conflict is the period that commences with the signature of the peace agreement. It formally marks the end of the war and the beginning of the post-conflict reconstruction period often fraught with a multitude of challenges to stakeholders. There is consensus that
gener-ally post-conflict reconstruction consists three phases: the emergency phase, the transition phase, and the development phase. However, these phases are neither absolute with clear boundaries nor do they occur in any pre-determined chronological order. The phases might differ from one country to another. Similarly, different geographic, ethnic, language or religious regions or groups within a country emerging from conflict are likely to result in differences in phases. Therefore, any assessment or planning should factor in these attributes.
The emergency phase is the period that follows immediately after the end of hostilities and aims at establishing a safe and secure environment for humanitarian relief programmes. In this phase, while many external actors ensure basic security necessary to the humanitarian responses (food aid, re-settlement of refugees and IDPs), domestic actors are pre-occupied with outlining key institutional components of their ravaged political and social system. It is crucial that the latter be consulted by the external actors for involvement early in the process. The emergency phase can last from ninety days to a year.
The transition phase derived its name from the period of transition during which an appointed interim government is set up. The interim government is followed, within a reasonable period of time by a transitional government which will be in charge of laying out the foundation of the future political landscape or writing the constitution. The transitional phase ends with the election that set up the freely-elected government. At this stage, internal capacity is focused in re-establishing basic social services such as education, health, for example, and the governance mechanisms. The process then moves from the emergency situation to recovery rehabilitation and reconstruction with job creation and the rebuilding of economic infrastructure.
The last phase, that of development, is oriented towards post-conflict reconstruction and sustainable development with internal actors and development partners, including the United Nations country team, taking full responsibilities of planning and coordinating progress. The shift from post-conflict reconstruction to development commences during this phase which usually lasts from four to ten years depending on domestic factors including the extent of destruction and instability.
It is worth emphasizing that the national and transnational linkages and complexes that spawn, sus-tain, or shape Africa’s conflicts are obviously multidimensional. Similarly, the post-conflict recon-struction remains a complex system that demands an assessment during the emergency phase, and a coherent, well planned and coordinated multifaceted response. It aims at short, medium and long term programmes that take into account the specificity of each country.
Economic reconstruction is critical for the political economy, and is one of the most important chal-lenges in any state building strategy. After the peace agreements, the context requires that policy-makers manage economic, social and structural challenges created by instability. This, for example,
entails moving from violence to security, from lawlessness, political exclusion and human rights violations to the rule of law and inclusive and participatory government, and from communities/
casts, religious or ethnic confrontation to social cohesion and national reconciliation, and from war-wrecked economies to functioning market economies to allow people to earn a decent living. Fur-ther, the process has to create mechanisms to prevent disputes from escalating, avoid a relapse into violent conflict and to build and consolidate sustainable peace and hence sustainable development.
The complexity of these challenges makes the task even more daunting for economies emerging from instability as basic structures to coordinate such important processes are often absent and there is general suspicion amongst the population.
As has been observed already, countries emerging from conflict have become a growing concern for many international donors because sustainable peace, a key ingredient for development, is a chal-lenge in this case. Dire poverty, ongoing ethnic, political or religious rivalry, the proliferation of arms, weak government structure and ravaged infrastructure pose tremendous threats that can easily lead a country back into war. At the same time, notwithstanding the overwhelming challenges, the post conflict period is also a period of hope and opportunity especially from the inflow of financial and technical resources which can help to address the root causes of war, and shape social and economic pillars to propel development in a stable environment. Yet it has been acknowledged that, in most cases, “winning the peace” poses a bigger challenge than winning the war and that nation-building is a complex and long-term process that no single institution can address without collaboration.
Although the study of the link between conflict and development is a relatively new field, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that countries in conflict have failed to pursue consistent development programmes as budgets are often diverted to support war efforts and coordination of national devel-opment programmes is often secondary. Further, leadership is often either preoccupied with address-ing the causes of conflict or its symptoms. In addition, many post-conflict reconstruction efforts have failed because they haven’t been development-oriented. The lack of comprehensive planning, insuf-ficient aid and assistance, and poor coordination among partners are the main reasons. We should not overlook the fact that countries making the shift from conflict to peace face the multipronged transition in the political, security, social, legal and economic sectors and the challenges of achiev-ing reconciliation and sustainable peace, which often overcomes the capacity of the institutional infrastructure.
Although the effects of conflict depend on the characteristics embedded in the root causes of the wars as well as the specifics such as the protagonists (both internal and external actors), the intensity, territorial location, duration, and the peace agreement, following the lessons of experience from post-conflict literature, seven common effects of post-conflict would constitute the key challenges. Further, we will look at the way to address the challenges towards peace and sustainable development.
Key components and challenges in post conflict reconstruction
As noted above and also in the previous Chapter, the causes of conflicts can be traced to, for exam-ple, the unequal distribution of the revenues from the exploitation of the nations’ natural resources in-dustries that provide high rents, a low or declining capita income, scarcity of some natural resources such as lands, social exclusion, poor governance, political corruption, disregard for the rule of law, massive violations of human rights, artificial borders claims, unfair international trade and the prolif-eration of small arms. In the aftermath of the conflict, the transitional governments often face issues related to legitimacy and weak authority. Yet these are the cornerstone of state authority.
Distrustful legitimacy and weak state authority
Violent conflicts are associated with or often result in poor governance, lack of legitimacy and weak state authority. Often, the transitional government is the result of the brokered peace agreement between warring factions without the participation or involvement of the population. Therefore, the transitional government is seen as lacking legitimacy as their mandate is not the results of popular elections. The transitional government often includes ex-combatants (rebels and other armed groups) who have perpetrated crimes and violence on the populations. This brings a complex dimension which has to be dealt with. The holding of democratic elections to create a new government within a reasonable time frame following the peace agreement is an important stabilizing factor, which will help consolidate peace. Democratic elections remain a key ingredient to engage all the population, victims and perpetrators, in an acceptance of the peace process and thus conferring legitimacy to the government. Furthermore, the transitional government may have a weak authority over the country or some parts of the country, and/or wealth like natural resources. When these are in the hands of former rebel groups, public policies need to be negotiated with the armed groups who may become “spoil-ers” depending on their interests. Partners should work for restoring state authority across the country.
Once the war breaks and the authority of the state collapses, all the other governmental structures fall apart, leading to a societal, political and economic breakdown. Such degeneration undermines legiti-macy and trust, and regaining it back from the population is essential for sustainable recovery, peace and development. The transitional government needs to work towards transforming the peoples’
mindset to trust them in delivering a lasting peace and prosperity for all. The rebuilding requires a committed and visionary leadership with a strong agenda on ensuring justice and security, protecting and promoting human rights according to the international standards, redeploying and strengthening credible, transparent and accountable public administration institutions that can ensure equitable service delivery and shift from “war economies” to a sustainable market economy.
High corruption
Post-conflict environments are almost inevitably characterized by high levels of corruption. The lack of political will and weak corruption prevention mechanisms, due to the lack of shared vision among
parties in the transitional government, undermine fairness, transparency and accountability. Very of-ten, individuals’ and/or groups’ interests prevail over those of the state, and corruption becomes endemic. Further, post-conflict reconstruction is an opportunity for international companies to offer diverse services, from security to natural resources exploitation passing by financial services. These investors can face significant regulatory challenges as with the wars, laws may not support this.
Sometimes, bribing officials may facilitate business. The lack of law reforms engenders high levels of corruption that can discredit the reconstruction process, and increase the risk of renewed conflict.
Dysfunctional justice system and massive human rights violations
In the post-post conflict setting, the ineffective and dysfunctional justice system and the culture of impunity undermine the legitimacy of the state and weaken formal disputes resolution mechanisms.
This encourages citizens to resort to illicit means or any other forms of grievance resolution.
Destruction of infrastructure, lack of access to justice, courts’ closure due to the departure of the justice professionals who feared for their safety or were threatened are typical to post-conflict justice system. The impact of conflict on the justice system is among others:
» Militarisation of the administrative system and the decision-making process along with lack of inclusive participation;
» Ethnic and/or religious segregation within the bureaucratic system;
» Disintegration of local governance institutions (destruction of infrastructure and departure of local staff);
» Law officials are discredited for having contributed to the violations of human rights;
» Lack of trust leads to militia formation;
» Lack of credible institutions for grievances management;
» Prisons are overcrowded, brutality is common and some detained have been languishing in prison for years without standing any trial;
» Corruption is rife; and
» Diversion of programmes funds towards supporting the conflict.
The absence of a credible and properly functioning justice system affects the population, particularly the most vulnerable and the minority, in many ways. These include:
» In post conflict environment, any small, solvable issue can generate into a social conflict;
» Militaries’, officials’ or extremist groups’ abuses are ignored. Similarly, the formation of militia leads to violence and legitimizes acts of revenge and impunity in the communities;
» Communities affected by conflict have limited possibilities to make claims regarding their lands and basic social services, and IDPs’ legitimate claims in regards to their properties in their re-gion of origin go unsolved;
» Frequent clashes between refugees and host communities regarding sharing the natural resourc-es; and
» With the lack of trust in post-conflict environment, formal courts are viewed as biased, cor-rupted and unfair based on political, ethnic or religious orientation. As a result, populations in the concerned communities are reluctant to deal with them.
It is therefore crucial to reform the justice sector and related institutions, and provide them with adequate human and financial resources, rehabilitate the physical infrastructure and staff capacities within a legal and regulatory framework and raise them to standards consistent with international human rights norms.
Security and porous borders issues
Post-conflict states are by definition weak states and are therefore associated with significant political and security risks. Violence and insecurity affect the delivery of basic services, humanitarian opera-tions and the reestablishment of government authority and redeployment of the administration. The disintegration of the institutional structures and more specifically those of the security forces have led to the lack of trust in the public authorities and therefore a ground for renewal of violence and conflict.
In a post-conflict setting, although political and historical legacies can differ, the security sector pre-sents the following general characteristics:
» The military and police forces may be abusive, corrupt and incompetent along with a culture of impunity;
» The militias remain a threat to individual and communities’ security;
» There is discord between civilians and militaries, and between militaries and the police forces;
» There is lack of professionalism in the security sector;
» The warring factions may want to keep the status quo and not be willing to move forward with SSR;
» There is lack of credible data about the condition of the security system. For example, the number, size and organizational structure of the military, police, intelligence services, private security actors and illegal armed groups; and
» The former warring factions are often more interested in maintaining the status quo than in mov-ing the reform process forward.
Security from violence and from fear is a human right and fundamental to sustainable economy, social and political development, and this is held true for all including minorities and vulnerable populations. Therefore, transitional rulers need to ensure that security is part of the package of post-conflict development programmes. Developing responsive, effective and accountable security and
justice institutions remains a key priority in post-conflict reconstruction. Security and justice reform can help support peace building and reconstruction, and prevent a slide back into violence.
Porous borders remain a breeding ground for illegal arms, drugs, and human trafficking, prostitution, customs and tax invasions, money laundering, smuggling of goods, mercenarism, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, peddling, armed robbery, etc., to which the presence of anti-personal mines that have not been removed is added, and remains a human security issue. Cross-border crimes engender instability. Weak security and justice system, uncoordinated and weak collaborative efforts, and legal regulatory frameworks have been challenges to curb cross-borders criminal activities. The regulation and control of cross-borders criminal activities are critical to ensure peace and stability, and promot-ing political and socio-economic activities corollary to a regional integration.
The issue is how to regulate and control the borders to further discourage such activities that threat peace and security at the national and regional level, and promote safe and free movements favour-ing integration?
Social capital, cohesion and special groups’ needs
In post–conflict settings, often there is disintegration in the relationship between the social capital and social cohesion. Incoherent public policies and the lack of inclusive participation mechanisms may lead to exclusion or discrimination against sections of the population, and the national interests could be at stake. Exclusion and the absence of participatory mechanisms in public policy formula-tion challenge the rehabilitaformula-tion of local governance structure. Vulnerable populaformula-tions such as return-ing refugees, internally displaced people, ex-combatants and former child soldiers are likely to invest in illicit activities, which are counter-productive. Furthermore, the lack of sufficient local ownership and participation in post-conflict reconstruction is unsustainable. The reinforcement of networks of civic engagement contributes in rebuilding the social capital and re-establishing trust that would in turn contribute towards social stability and peace. Transitional government should work towards in-stitutional reforms and programmes that promote social cohesion through participation, fairness and inclusion meeting the needs of the vulnerable and minority groups.
Addressing grievances: reconciliation
Reconciliation processes are one of the challenges that should not be overlooked in post-conflict reconstruction. If grievances are not addressed properly or left unsolved, they risk precipitating the return to the conflict situation. Abuses and crimes must be tackled, whether their perpetrators are high rank officials, armed groups or individuals within the communities and the causes of the conflict must be addressed. Any ignored reconciliation can undermine social cohesion and peace building.
Experiences have shown that in some post-conflict situations, truth and reconciliation commissions (TRC) were ineffective because of inadequate implementation and lack of support. In others, such commissions have been counterproductive because of the lack of political will and follow-up.
Fur-ther, the lack of coherence between the peace consolidation processes and short term actions or lack of funding for peacekeeping interventions may impede the effort to achieve sustainable peace and
Fur-ther, the lack of coherence between the peace consolidation processes and short term actions or lack of funding for peacekeeping interventions may impede the effort to achieve sustainable peace and