This week’s session, facilitated by Dr Suda Perera, explored political engagement with Non State Actors (NSAs), looking particularly at state building in a post-conflict context with the case study example of armed former militants in the post-conflict DRC. A key message from the lecture and some of Dr Perera’s research was the argument that truly inclusive political settlements should involve any none state actors who are capable of exercising significant economic, political or social influence on the development process- regardless of whether their influence is positive or negative.
When examining the case study, problems became particularly evident regarding the effective engagement with non-state actors of those outside civil society, which related to issues with, in the first instance, normative understandings of what constitutes a ‘Non-State Actor’ and, for that matter a ‘State’ actor, or the constitution of a State.
2 main lessons stood out for me when it comes to sticking to a particular normative understanding of state-society relations in external intervention in general, but particularly in post-conflict situations.
I Good Intentions, Bad results
Dominant paradigms with credible roots and good intentions can often yield bad results due to misunderstanding.
In an anecdote relayed during the lecture, Dr Perera mentioned that in a meeting with UN officials regarding post-conflict resolution in the DRC, she had suggested an approach where Peacekeepers engaged with armed groups. However in response she had been asked why womens’ groups couldn’t be engaged with in this way instead?
I completely acknowledge that often in fragile situations vulnerable groups do suffer disproportionately. And in patriarchal society women, who may be culturally subordinate, form part of this group. Accordingly, I do believe that initiatives to target these power dynamics directly are necessary and should be supported.
However it seems to me that realisations such this have contributed to a one-size fits all approach , where women-specific initiatives are at the forefront of peace-building; this being the case irrespective of whether or not the situation has revealed such considerations to be a plausible priority for action. However this isn’t just the case for women in post-conflict situations. For instance Laura Burr’s ethnography on Vietnamese street children detailed unsuccessful attempts to repatriate these children from urban cities back to their rural homes; attempts which were unsuccessful particularly because they did not deal with the lack of resources and opportunities in the impoverished communities which had caused the children to migrate initially. Similarly, a reluctance towards significant engagement with armed groups in post-conflict development could obstruct development progress and objectives in general (such as stability).
II Victimiser or Victim?
‘Only two positions, victimiser or victim, both end up in destruction trusting this crooked system’– Lauryn Hill.
Yes, I did just quote Lauryn Hill in my development politics blog. But I think that her line from the Mystery of Iniquity highlights the point that the lines between victimiser and victim can be blurred, the distinctions between their positions unclear. Over-simplifying a complex picture can allow for certain actors to be characterised as perpetrators of violent insecurity; yet they too may also be victims of their surrounding systems. For example, Perera also highlighted the fact that for a number of her informants, violence had become a last resort in the absence of other options such as opportunities to trade- an absence caused, for example, by bad roads leading to eastern DRC.
Without diminishing the horrific acts committed by non-state militants in the DRC, the point still stands that the determination to stick to a particular normative understanding of statehood and conflict-ridden situations which does not reflect the given context , can confuse understandings of appropriate course of action. This seems to apply both in knowing how to engage with people within these contexts and subsequently appropriate policies to implement in post-conflict reconstruction. Not that finding the right path is, by any means, an easy thing to do.
So what?
As this week highlighted, local change agents for development (and society) can include a range of non -state actors and the dynamics that afford them power whether through violence or otherwise, allowing them to significantly influence the development process.
To succeed in this endeavor it seems be absolutely indispensable that you engage fully with the context in which you find yourself, looking for those in positions of power and who can effectively be used in development aims: whether they fit your normative understandings of an ideal development agent or otherwise.
Sources
- Burr, Rachel, (2006) Vietnam’s children in a changing world, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press
- Perera, S. (2015) Political Engagement with Non-State Actors in Areas of Limited Statehood Development Leadership Programme, University of Birmingham
- van der Haar,G., Weijs, B. (2013) Engineering’ non-state governance: Engaging in fragile settings [online]. Available here: http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Engineering-non-state-governance
The Narrator's Pen 