What Challenges Do Peacebuilders Face in States Emerging from Conflict?
In an environment of disorder, it is very difficult to put into practice even the simplest changes. Many of the policy prescriptions for rooting out corruption and establishing good governance are merely ideals for many states that are in the throes of conflict, or emerging from it. These fragile states, some of them nascent or struggling democracies, may face many hurdles in attaining anything close to a stable peace. Even if there is not outright violence being committed by armed gangs or warlords, there may be vast numbers of refugees, little (if any) government infrastructure, limited access to basic services, and scarce resources with which to rebuild.
Many of these states depend heavily on foreign assistance until they can get basic security in place, or the institutions of governance up and running. In that sense, peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction has been a “growth industry” for the international community, which finds itself with the complex task of trying to help rebuild war-torn or failed states. And, the process can take years. Peacebuilding was conceived in the context of post-conflict recovery efforts to promote reconciliation and reconstruction, but the term has now taken on broader meaning to include, among others, providing humanitarian relief, protecting human rights, ensuring security, establishing non-violent modes of resolving conflicts, fostering reconciliation, repatriating refugees, and aiding in economic reconstruction. International actors, bilateral donors, international and local civil society organizations, local governments, and private security agencies may all be involved in these processes.
There are many reasons why it is difficult to bring about a stable peace in a country that has been ravaged by conflict. While corruption is not the only benchmark related to fragility of a state, many of those involved in peacebuilding work are increasingly recognizing that corruption can be a major factor in preventing a stable peace from emerging. Why? It may not only keep conflict cycles going by enriching the gangsters, warlords, or individuals who are responsible for the conflict in the first place, but it can also prevent economic and social stability because corruption networks (by benefitting some at the expense of others) strengthen inequalities and divisions in society. “In conflicts where nepotism or patronage networks exclude vast swaths of the population from decisionmaking and access to resources, then corruption lies at the heart of society’s problems,” argue Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church and Kirby Reiling. “Corrupt networks themselves can reinforce the very divisions along lines of ethnicity, religion or class which feed the conflict cycle. If corruption is not addressed, the chances of that durable solution in the form of lasting positive peace remain slim.”23
Iraq offers a concrete example. Deep fissures remain in Iraq—particularly between Shiite and Sunni religious communities—and different factions in the transitional government are constantly jockeying for advantage, or seeking to reward their supporters. “In many of the key public ministries that should be playing a lead role in the country’s reconstruction,” notes Robert Looney, “rudimentary systems of accountability, internal controls and the rule of law are lacking.” Iraq’s Interior Ministry, he says, is driven by political factions. “It houses a myriad of competing police and intelligence agencies that pursue various political or sectarian agendas.” The costs of corruption are staggering. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction asserts that Iraq has been losing $4 billion to corruption every year since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.24 A 2008 report by the U.S. Department of State further indicates that there is “a lack of transparency and widespread, severe corruption at all levels of government” in Iraq.25 Not surprisingly, public services declined, Iraqi citizens grew more disillusioned, and many wondered how foreign aid was really being used.
As those involved in strengthening fragile states work at the challenging task of building good governance by promoting participation, accountability, transparency, rule of law, and other such important components of what we believe contribute to a stable and just society, it’s clear that no quick and simple solutions exist. For example, independent media and access to information can foster transparency, accountability, and informed participation. However, free press could contribute to polarizing the weary and dissatisfied public when those who have ethnic, political, or social bias control and use privatized media outlets. And, a sudden increase in public awareness of corruptions that were once hidden may feed the existing public distrust of those who are governing. What’s more, in a country that has suffered through years of instability or conflict, people who are leaders and are representatives of the population may be all guilty of participating in corrupt acts or worse.
Are There Any Benefits to Corruption?
Despite the many problems caused by corruption, some argue that keeping corrupt systems in place may be necessary to guarantee stability in the short term. Corruption may be a way of life in many societies, or may be necessary to survival when the systems, institutions, and processes that should protect the safety and well-being of citizens are weak or completely lacking. In addition, corruption can be perceived as beneficial in a society where patronage networks ensure that some benefits are channeled down to the poorer members of the community. There are also some who argue that “grand” corruption is not always negative. They argue that it can help contribute to internal stability by creating or sustaining patronage networks and as an incentive for opposition movements to participate in the political and economic system. But such a system also helps sow the seed of discontent among the vast majority who do not benefit from such networks of patronage and corruption.
“Taking apart corruption networks can do more harm than good because they are part of the system,” says Daniel Serwer at USIP, who adds that rooting out corrupt individuals often needs to be done very carefully and over time. Sometimes, if this is done too abruptly when other institutions of governance aren’t yet in place, more violence can result. “Reformers need to ask what is likely to happen if they decide to upset established corrupt relationships or those based on intimidation and fear,” adds Susan Rose-Ackerman at a forum on corruption at Tufts University. “Unless care is taken, a sharp break with a corrupt status quo can breed instability and violence as those who benefited from the corrupt system struggle to maintain their position.”26 In Afghanistan, attempts to halt corruption associated with the production and trade of opium controlled by local warlords led to increased violence.
In order to secure at least some measure of stability, peacebuilders often find themselves in the unenviable position of having to work with or make deals with those perpetrating conflict, such as warlords or corrupt officials who make deals with those conflict entrepreneurs who profit from sustaining conflict and unstable conditions. In other words, curtailing and preventing violence by helping maintain some system of governance, even if broken and dysfunctional, may take priority over accountability and rule of law.
For example, warlords, and often the military commanders under them, often prefer to see a conflict continue. The conflict may give them access to valuable state resources (like gold or diamonds) and building corruption networks around these “spoils” keeps them in power. Such networks are often closely associated with other illicit—but
lucrative—trades in human trafficking, weapons, and drugs. However, sometimes peace agreements cannot be reached and peace sustained without including the bad guys and giving in to their terms. When a conflict comes to an end, warlords are not very inclined to give up their money or their power. And, trying to get rid of them may result in failed peace agreements and a rise in violence that inevitably results in civilian suffering and atrocities.
For these reasons, there may be an attempt to “buy off” potential peace spoilers. What that means in practice is that power-sharing arrangements are given to the parties in conflict, or they may be offered plum positions in a new government. Although this practice has been important for ending civil wars and creating a more secure environment for the populace in the short term, many are less optimistic about the long-term impacts. When potential spoilers have control of state resources or positions, it can increase corruption and make it that much harder to establish functioning governments. The mix of electoral politics and power-sharing arrangements in a peace accord can often lead to weak institutions and undermine accountability as each faction asserts control over its own territorial or institutional turf, which leads to different sets of rules and authorities. Individuals in these positions may reward their own political parties and support networks rather than distribute the resources of the state in an impartial manner. From a moral standpoint, citizens too may wonder where the justice is in a system in which those who have perpetrated a conflict are awarded with top positions. Thus, governmental figures and institutions have less credibility in the eyes of the populace, which makes governing harder and less effective.
After 2002 peace agreements in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the “main former rebel leaders were all made vice presidents in the government, granting them unfettered access to political and economic resources.”27 The result of such an arrangement, according to a report by the International Crises Group several years later, was that “state resources [were] siphoned off to fund election campaigns and private accounts. Between 60 and 80 per cent of customs revenues [were] estimated to be embezzled, a quarter of the national budget [was] not properly accounted for, and millions of dollars [were] misappropriated in the army and state-run companies.”28 Institutions of governance still remain very weak in the country—despite democratic elections held in 2006—and fighting still rages in the eastern part of the country.
Practitioners in the field are more than aware of the trade-offs between short-term stability and long-term peace. And, tolerating corruption may factor into this mix. “The relationship between corruption and peacebuilding is … characterized by a recurring tension between accepting (or even encouraging) forms of corruption in the short term to attain greater stability and the need to counter it in the longer term in order to lay the foundations for legitimate political institutions and sustainable economic development.”29
What Are the Pros and Cons of Foreign Involvement?
The first priority in stabilizing a post-conflict state is usually to meet a range of immediate needs (like food supply, security, and health care). Providing these services is absolutely critical and is an essential role that the international community can provide.
International peacekeepers too create the secure environment needed to get supplies to suffering populations. As a flood of foreign money and aid comes into the country that is in desperate economic condition, there can also be a rapid rise in corruption as citizens scramble for scarce resources and those with power and connections look for ways to 
Development assistance often tends to be high in emergency situations and then to diminish substantially when donors move on to the next crisis. But, making a dent in problems like corruption takes a long time and lot of sustained investment in institutions, legal structures, and civil service reform. Outsiders can choose to ignore the corruption that exists (facing certain negative consequences down the road), deal with it directly (perhaps by putting punitive or preventive measures in place), or work with the host society to change customs and expectations. Local populations, however, may have very different ideas about combating corruption than do international peacekeepers. One-size-fits-all approaches rarely work, and neither “good governance” nor anti-corruption campaigns are likely to be successful if they are not locally driven, or do not take local realities and cultures into account.
Can Citizens Make a Difference?
There are all kinds of institutions and laws that can be put in place to combat corruption, but some of the most effective programs happen at very small scales. Citizens’ campaigns at the local level can, in fact, be one of the most effective ways to fight corruption. “No progress can be made until citizens are involved,” asserts Shaazka Beyerle with the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.32 “To date, there has been an institutional approach to fighting corruption, but there has been a shift in thinking that this alone can’t make a dent. It’s important, but not enough. Civic organizations, neighborhood groups, and community networks all have to become involved,” Beyerle
added.
Examples of this include the youth-driven Mjaft! (“enough” campaign in Albania), which emerged in 2003 to “increase citizen participation, promote good governance, fight corruption and improve social justice. For the fourth year, the annual ‘I Vote’ report disseminates the results of civic monitoring of Albanian legislative activity.” In Paraguay, “Controlarios Ciudadanas has grown into a network of 70 citizen watchdog groups covering every province. They share expertise on filing criminal reports of corruption and getting information to the media about corrupt officials.” In 1997, over a six-week period in Turkey, the “One Minute of Darkness for Constant Light Campaign” mobilized approximately 30 million citizens in synchronized mass actions (like turning off lights and banging pots) to pressure the government to take specific measures to combat systemic corruption, including launching judicial investigations.
Initiatives that give journalists and citizens more access to government information is particularly important to ensure transparency. A grassroots effort in India has been behind the passage and support of the Right to Information Act. The legislation, passed in 2005, requires public officials to provide information to citizens in a timely manner and certain government records are now computerized and proactively published. This legislation enables all Indian citizens to obtain details of any publicly funded scheme, project, or institution. To date, the act is being effectively used by hundreds and thousands of Indian citizens and has resulted in a number of indictments of officials.
