Preventing the accidental guerrilla syndrome : reintegration and reconciliation as tools of war and control

Conventional evaluations of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs suggest that the disappointing policy outcomes of DDR are largely the result of shortcomings in their design, and overcome through technical, apolitical, and ostensibly ‘developmental’ solutions. This perspecti...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Morgan, David
Language:English
Published: University of British Columbia 2011
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/2429/37299
id ndltd-LACETR-oai-collectionscanada.gc.ca-BVAU.-37299
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-LACETR-oai-collectionscanada.gc.ca-BVAU.-372992013-06-05T04:19:49ZPreventing the accidental guerrilla syndrome : reintegration and reconciliation as tools of war and controlMorgan, DavidConventional evaluations of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs suggest that the disappointing policy outcomes of DDR are largely the result of shortcomings in their design, and overcome through technical, apolitical, and ostensibly ‘developmental’ solutions. This perspective, however, overlooks the profoundly politicized nature of the post-conflict environment, in which political actors attempt to secure patronage networks and rents and reinforce or alter the balance of power in their favour. This paper will argue that, within this context, reintegration and reconciliation programs can be strategically introduced by the dominant faction in a conflict in order to further pacify its rivals and reinforce its control over the post-war environment. With specific reference to the war in northern Uganda, it will reveal how the amnesty and reintegration programs implemented became tools of the broader counterinsurgency effort, as they were designed to gain leverage over ex-combatants and prevent their return to the war as “accidental guerrillas.” In the process, the government of Uganda secured its monopoly over the means of violence in this region, thereby expanding its control over a historically “unruly” population. Reintegration and reconciliation were largely secondary to these underlying legacies of exploitation and structural violence, presenting numerous implications for post-conflict reconstruction and the international donors that continue to fund these initiatives. By locating the outcomes of peace-building initiatives within the broader historical processes of social conflict, this paper offers an alternative theoretical framework for considering the limitations of reintegration and reconciliation initiatives.University of British Columbia2011-09-13T23:34:12Z2011-09-13T23:34:12Z20112011-09-132011-11Electronic Thesis or Dissertationhttp://hdl.handle.net/2429/37299eng
collection NDLTD
language English
sources NDLTD
description Conventional evaluations of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs suggest that the disappointing policy outcomes of DDR are largely the result of shortcomings in their design, and overcome through technical, apolitical, and ostensibly ‘developmental’ solutions. This perspective, however, overlooks the profoundly politicized nature of the post-conflict environment, in which political actors attempt to secure patronage networks and rents and reinforce or alter the balance of power in their favour. This paper will argue that, within this context, reintegration and reconciliation programs can be strategically introduced by the dominant faction in a conflict in order to further pacify its rivals and reinforce its control over the post-war environment. With specific reference to the war in northern Uganda, it will reveal how the amnesty and reintegration programs implemented became tools of the broader counterinsurgency effort, as they were designed to gain leverage over ex-combatants and prevent their return to the war as “accidental guerrillas.” In the process, the government of Uganda secured its monopoly over the means of violence in this region, thereby expanding its control over a historically “unruly” population. Reintegration and reconciliation were largely secondary to these underlying legacies of exploitation and structural violence, presenting numerous implications for post-conflict reconstruction and the international donors that continue to fund these initiatives. By locating the outcomes of peace-building initiatives within the broader historical processes of social conflict, this paper offers an alternative theoretical framework for considering the limitations of reintegration and reconciliation initiatives.
author Morgan, David
spellingShingle Morgan, David
Preventing the accidental guerrilla syndrome : reintegration and reconciliation as tools of war and control
author_facet Morgan, David
author_sort Morgan, David
title Preventing the accidental guerrilla syndrome : reintegration and reconciliation as tools of war and control
title_short Preventing the accidental guerrilla syndrome : reintegration and reconciliation as tools of war and control
title_full Preventing the accidental guerrilla syndrome : reintegration and reconciliation as tools of war and control
title_fullStr Preventing the accidental guerrilla syndrome : reintegration and reconciliation as tools of war and control
title_full_unstemmed Preventing the accidental guerrilla syndrome : reintegration and reconciliation as tools of war and control
title_sort preventing the accidental guerrilla syndrome : reintegration and reconciliation as tools of war and control
publisher University of British Columbia
publishDate 2011
url http://hdl.handle.net/2429/37299
work_keys_str_mv AT morgandavid preventingtheaccidentalguerrillasyndromereintegrationandreconciliationastoolsofwarandcontrol
_version_ 1716587943239352320