Post-conflict reconstruction focuses on the consolidation of peace and security to ensure sustainable socio-economic development in countries that are affected by war (Gaub 2010, p. 54). Conflicts are frequent in many parts of the country such as the current Syrian Civil war, the Mexican Drug war in 2006, the World Wars of 1918 and 1937 amongst others. Wars can have devastating consequences such as the displacement of citizens which leads to a refugee crisis, deterioration of human development indicators such as access to education, health services and life expectancy. Wars also lead to a dramatic rise in the number of people in need for social assistance such as the disabled, children and the elderly. Due to these consequences, post-conflict reconstruction becomes a critical tool that can be used to restore law and order, ensure economic rehabilitation and development, promote good governance practices, and foster social conditions that allow for justice and reconciliation. It is essential for countries to draw lessons from successful post-conflict reconstructions to assist them to adopt good governance practices that aim at avoiding the devastating consequences of war in any country.
Peace Economies
One of the critical lessons that can be learnt from successful post-conflict reconstructions is the need for countries to move from war economies to peace ones. War economies emphasise on producing, mobilising and allocating resources to sustain violence instead of fostering peace. Taking the example of Afghanistan, research has identified that war-economies sabotage peace efforts during any conflicts and this leads to an increase in human suffering (Goodhand 2010, p. 15). A report assessing the impact of war economies on OECD countries that had experienced different forms of conflict such as Kenya in the 2007 post-election violence, the 2006 riots in Solomon Islands, and autocratic regimes resisting opposition in North Korea, Zimbabwe and Equatorial Guinea found out that war economies limit the chances of such countries to receive financial aid (OECD 2011, p.3). The countries that are likely to engage in conflicts are labelled as fragile which makes donors reluctant to provide them with finances even for recovery after a war.
Countries that have sound economic policies which focus on fostering peace are more likely to receive funds as opposed to others with war-based economies (OECD 2011, p.5). First, countries which do not promote peace are viewed as fragile by donors, and this makes them reluctant to provide them with any funds, especially when they are dealing with conflicts. The most common way for countries to ensure that they are not regarded as fragile by donors especially after wars is to develop policies that focus on recovery of their citizens, social inclusion, macroeconomic management and sustainable reforms. Policies concerning openness in trade also foster financial aid and prevent countries from experiencing sanctions.
A comparison was made to assess the impact of financial aid on different economic sectors for peaceful and post-war countries that emphasise on peace based economies. The research found out that post-war nations are more likely to receive assistance in education, health and economic infrastructure as opposed to peaceful countries. As such, economic growth for post-war nations that do not focus on war economies is slightly higher than even that of peaceful states. Moreover, post-war countries are 10% more likely to receive debt forgiveness than peaceful ones (Hoeffler 2012, p.10). Financial aid not only fosters recovery after war but also promotes economic growth and sustainable development for countries. Therefore, the nations that experience conflicts of any nature should learn how to develop policies that emphasise on the need for peace to access funds and aid their recovery period. The order-based economies also give post-war countries a competitive advantage over the peaceful ones as the donors do not regard them as fragile assets.
The peace-based economies foster investment. Mozambique is one of the countries that suffered a prolonged civil war which lasted for 16 years. After gaining independence in 1975, the government was quick to emphasise the need to maintain peaceful relations with its colonisers and other countries in the region (Addison 2003, p.9). The emphasis on peace led to an influx of foreign investors in the country including private wholesalers who aimed at recreating the grain market to ensure food security in the post-war nation.
In post-war countries, governments face numerous challenges such as the lack of tax revenue from its people, the need to revive the private sector, infrastructure improvement, and reconstruction of the health and education sectors (Boyce and Forman 2010, p.13). As such, the government cannot provide employment opportunities to its people which further contributes to the low tax revenues, and hence, poor living standards among the people. The government also faces a massive public deficit especially considering that the cost of war regarding military expenditure and training is expensive. The peace-based economies such as that of Mozambique makes it easy for foreign direct investment mainly from the private sector.
Foreign direct investment provides employment opportunities for the people in countries affected by war, which allows them to pay taxes to governments and hence providing the required funds to supply necessary services. Moreover, in post-war countries that are based on peace-economies, investors are likely to focus on business areas which are very dire to the people such as healthcare, provision of consumer goods and services such as banking. As the investors provide the citizens with the products and services that are in greatest demand, they also enjoy the minimal risk of failing. Investors also set standards for best practices in specific industries which ensure sustainable economic development even as the citizens are empowered to become entrepreneurs and investors. Therefore, foreign direct investment is very crucial for post-war countries as it helps governments re-build their states together with any financial aid received.
Peace-based economies also help countries develop an efficient public sector. Most of the wars and conflicts experienced in nations are as a result of poor governance practices based on dictatorial leadership styles, corruption and mismanagement of public funds. Chad is an excellent example of how the misuse of federal funds meant to provide services to the people led to a civil war from 2005 to 2010. After the war, the country could not provide any public services such as education, health and infrastructure to its people (Hoeffler 2012, p.17). However, because the country was based on a peace economy, interventions from France and the USA were readily available for the people. The foreign governments helped to provide public services to the citizens of Chad with the aim of reconstructing the country. Due to the intervention from foreign nations, Chad was re-build on a conventional system of public administration which regulates misappropriation of federal funds. The conventional method focuses on making funds available to the members of the public which limits the chance that another civil war can occur (Hoeffler 2012, p.19). An efficient public sector was built in Chad because of its peace-based economy.
The Need for Broad-Based Recovery
The end of the 19th century was characterised by many armed-conflicts in Africa such as the civil war between Ethiopia and Eritrea (International Peace Institute 2014, p.10). The need to achieve peace has been one of the primary focus for all interventions in the African countries that have been affected by wars. Looking at the post-conflict reconstruction in the African countries, it seemed that recovery was not broad-based but only focused to benefit the few elite. The poor are the people who are affected significantly by war because it destroys their human and physical capital as it undermines the bonds of family and kinship that are vital to African communities. Furthermore, individuals from low social class are the ones who depend a lot on government services such as education, health and infrastructure since the elite can access private services. There is the need for countries recovering from conflicts to focus on reconstruction that benefits the majority and not only the warlords who get the most benefits.
Broad-based recovery emphasises on practising the needs of communities (Panic 2009, p.25). The main challenges that face citizens of any country involved in conflict include the need to resettle the refugees, resolution between warring parties, the need to enforce peace and demobilisation. Most of the post-conflict reconstruction strategies focus on adopting policies that attract foreign direct investment or rebuilding damaged infrastructure without considering the needs of the communities. Although investment and infrastructure benefit the economies of countries by providing employment opportunities and tax revenues, it is crucial that the people are first empowered to lead their normal lives which are often disrupted by conflicts.
First, post-conflict reconstruction should develop social programs that aim at fostering peace between warring parties. The funds received from donors, or even the government should be allocated to such programs. The programs should focus on educating the communities on the need for peaceful negotiations in case of disagreements and the adverse effects of engaging in conflicts. Civic education on how to recover from war is also important where the members of the community are taught on the need to seek for employment opportunities to help them earn an income and also engage in investment opportunities later.
Broad-based recovery also focuses on accountability and transparency on how public funds, especially donations are used in the post-conflict reconstruction. The reforms such as policies that focus on providing financial reports to the public and equal distribution of resources without discrimination help to foster peace especially in countries that have experienced civil conflicts. Mozambique is one of the nations that focused on accountability and transparency even before the civil war in the country was over. When the citizens realised that the government was committed to improving public expenditure and prioritise social services, the conflict came to an end. Therefore, prudent financial regulations especially concerning donations and federal funds are essential for broad-based recovery.
Broad-based recovery also concentrates on transformation other than reconstruction (Addison 2003, p.12). Reconstruction only focuses on re-settling of institutions that may have been affected by war such as governmental agencies and infrastructure. On the other hand, transformation looks at adopting policies that aim at fighting poverty, correcting errors in institutions that may lead to conflict, educating the people on the need to maintain peace and taking peaceful methods of resolution such as negotiations and use of mediators. Focusing on reconstruction solely may lead to the repeat of conflicts in future because the causes of issues are not addressed. Furthermore, the people are hardly resettled into their normal lives which may make them grieved by their governments leading to chaos and wars.
Security-Sector Reforms
During wars, countries focus significantly on the mobilisation of their armies to assist them to handle the disrupted peace and order (Cooper, Turner, and Pugh 2011, p.2000). However, as the militias are empowered to tame the violence during wars, it leads to the development of coercive power. The military forces become very powerful and can control a lot of decisions made in a country even after conflicts are resolved. The research conducted by the Crisis States Centre found out that when the military forces are overpowered, the leadership of the countries recovering from war often feel exposed to the risk of disloyalty which may lead them to seek for self-protecting resulting in further conflicts (Giustozzi, 2011, p. 3). Furthermore, as machinery expands and becomes more complex, there might be management issues may arise as the head of state is unable to rely solely on his direct and patrimonial control. It is also costly to maintain machinery for the military forces which may lead to lack of prioritisation of public funds. It is the role of the government to ensure that federal funds begin by improving the well-being of the society.
Security-sector reforms focus on managing the coercive power of the military forces (McFate 2010, p.12). After the war, it is vital to enact reforms in the security institutions together with those of the criminal justice system. The security system should work collaboratively with the political and governance systems to foster centralisation, bureaucratisation and institutionalism in the country. As the security system works collaboratively with other institutions, it eliminates the chance that it will become a monopoly which may become a risk for future conflicts (Ottaway 2002, p.1013). It also allows the security system to focus on protecting the nations from possible threats, which means that the coercive power may still be present but in a civilised way that does not attract the attention of the public. Bureaucracy and the use of institutions also eliminate the chance that the ruling elites in a country will control the security systems therein.
Security reforms also focus on developing the right models for military professionalism (Enloe 2002, p.27). Pakistan is one of the countries that can best illustrate how rogue professionalism can disrupt the peace in a country. The Pakistan army in 1995 was genuinely professional with high discipline and a robust internal chain of command (Giustozzi 2011, p.11). Due to this concrete structure, the army applied the divide and rule strategy amongst the politicians which led to an attempted coup which aimed at overthrowing the constitutional government to establish a military rule. Due to the rogue professionalism in the army then, the elites and the liberal middle class thought they were using the military for their benefits, yet they eventually clashed with it.
Taking lessons from the case of Pakistan, governments should focus on the military composition that is appropriate to their political regimes. Military professionalism emphasises on the recruitment of educated and skilled personnel which is not only expensive but poses a risk to the government of the day. It is also costly to maintain a professional army. For instance, in 2010, the cost of maintaining the Afghanistan army was several times higher than the government’s revenue, and they had to rely on support from the United States (Addison 2003, p.13). An army that is very expensive to maintain raises a lot of concerns on its long-term sustainability and the prioritisation of public funds that are meant to improve the living standards of the citizens of a country. Furthermore, the context of the army should reflect the more comprehensive social structure. An army that matches the fabric of its society minimises the risk of overthrowing the government. Although it is important to have educated personnel in the military, most of the elites in the community should be the rulers who provide governance (Paris, 2010, p.350).
The Need for Peacekeeping
In post-conflict reconstruction, interventions focus mainly on the reestablishment of order and security in the war zones. The intervening countries and agencies tend to focus on peace-making other than peacekeeping. During the Cold War of 1974, the UN peacekeeping agencies only sought to provide conditions that would promote stability by fostering mediation and negotiations (Richmond 2001, p.333). As such, the requirements for peacekeeping only allowed for a controversial status quo which was based on state security other than justice and human security. Peacekeeping aims at preventing open violence, monitoring cease-fires, and status quo. Negotiation, on the other hand, seeks to bring the warring parties to a consensus, exercising coercion and facilitating the communication process mainly using incentives. Although peace-keeping mechanisms help to deal with wars, they do not efficiently deal with the causes of the problem (Andreas 2009, p.32).
Peace-making focuses on strategies that aim at promoting harmonious co-existence even before any war occurs (Handrahan 2004, p.438). One of the critical aspects of peace-making is facilitating conflict resolution. In conflict resolution, the issues that seem to disrupt peace are addressed from their grassroots. Individuals who are representatives of the warring parties are encouraged to reason with each other at a personal level in the presence of a mediator whose role is to foster communication (Richmond 2001, p.342). In conflict resolution, there may be diplomatic compromises where the government chooses to act in specific ways to foster peace. Moreover, conflict resolution also provides education to the members of the society on the importance of maintaining order, and this helps them understand how conflicts would affect their daily lives. Therefore, peace-making is essential because it aims at dealing with a problem before it leads to chaos in a country.
The need for peace-keeping agencies to go a step further and help in sustaining calmness in a country is also vital (Krause and Jutersonke 2005, p.450). A research that aimed at assessing the performance of the US after a number of civil wars determined that follow-up from intervening nations and agencies is critical to maintaining peace (Emmanuel and Rothchild 2007, p.179). The externally facilitated order is only supported when the representatives of the warring parties sign an accord but that does not necessarily mean that issues are resolved for the individuals in the grassroots. As such, there is the need for a follow-through where donors not only provide post-conflict aid but ensure that they sustain it through continuous dialogues, mediation and even assisting governments to adopt the best practices of governance in their various agencies to avoid future conflicts. Research on the US proved that there was a higher chance for proper utilisation of donor funds for nations where intervening nations focused on sustaining post-conflict aid when compared to where there was no sustenance (Panic 2011, p.173). When peacemakers emphasise on reinforced behaviour through the adoption of conventional methods of dealing with conflicts and assist warring nations in maintaining their peace agreements, it acts as an incentive for them and the countries are encouraged to meet the threshold and even go beyond it.
Conclusion
Successful experiences of post-conflict reconstruction offer many lessons for both the countries that have experienced war and those that are peaceful. The need to focus on peace based economies that foster harmonious co-existence over the war based ones is one of the most important lessons that can be learnt from post-conflict reconstruction. Peace-based economies ensure continuous growth and development of countries whereas war based ones lead to consistent chaos and suffering for the citizens. Broad-based recovery is also critical as it emphasises the need to improve the living standards of the poor people who are the ones who are majorly affected by wars.
In broad-based recovery, the governments are transparent and accountable for donor funds, and they ensure that transformation is prioritised over reconstruction. De-mobilization of military forces is also a key lesson and governments must ensure that they adopt military professionalism models that fit best to their political regimes. Countries should also learn how to allow for peacekeeping other than peace-making. Peacekeeping focuses on dealing with conflicts in conventional methods such as negotiation before they erupt into wars. If nations utilised the lessons from successful experiences of post-conflict reconstruction, there would be a significant decrease in the number of current conflicts.
References
Addison, T., 2003. Africa’s recovery from conflict: making peace work for the poor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Andreas, P., 2009. Symbiosis between peace operations and illicit business in Bosnia. International Peacekeeping, 16(1), pp. 33-46.
Boyce, J. and Forman, S., 2010. Financing peace: international and national resources for postconflict countries and the fragile states. Washington, DC: World Development Report 2011.
Cooper, N., Turner, M. and Pugh, M., 2011. The end of history and the last liberal peacebuilder: a reply to Roland Paris. Review of International Studies, 37(4), pp.1995-2007.
Emmanuel, N. and Rothchild, D., 2007. Economic aid and peace implementation: the African experience. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1(2), pp. 170-188.
Enloe, C., 2002. Part 1: dismantling militarism, decommissioning masculinities. London: Lawrence and Wishart Publications.
Gaub, F., 2010. Military Integration after civil wars: multiethnic armies, identity and post- conflict reconstruction. 1st ed. London: Routledge Publishers.
Giustozzi, A., 2011. Double-edged swords: armies, elite bargaining and state building, London: Crisis State Research Center.
Goodhand, J., 2010. Frow war economy to peace economy?, London: London School of Economics Research.
Handrahan, L., 2004. Conflict, gender, ethnicity and post-conflict reconstruction. Security Dialogue, 35(4), pp. 429-445.
Hoeffler, A., 2012. Growth, aid and policies in countries recovering from war. Oxford: Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
International Peace Institute, 2014. Peacebuilding and postconflict recovery: what works and what does not?, New York: International Peace Institute.
Krause, K. and Jutersonke, O., 2005. Peace, security and development in post-conflict environments. Security Dialogue, 36(4), pp. 447-462.
McFate, S., 2010. The link between DDR and SSR in conflict-affected countries. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Special Report.
OECD, 2011. Supporting statebuilding in situations of conflict and fragility: policy guidance. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Ottaway, M., 2002. Rebuilding State institutions in the collapsed states. Development and Change, 33(5), pp. 1001-1023.
Panic, M., 2009. Post-conflict countries: aid effectiveness and permanent peace. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Panic, M., 2011. Chapter 7: post-conflict recovery: aid effectiveness and permanent peace. In: R. Kozul-Wright, ed. Securing Peace: State-Building and Economic Development in Post-Conflict Countries. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 159-187.
Paris, R., 2010. Saving liberal peacebuilding. Review of International Studies, 36(2), pp. 337-365.
Richmond, O., 2001. A genealogy of peacemaking: the creation and re-creation of order. Alternatives, 1(1), pp. 317-348.