Stories of Change
Colombian Voices on Peace Beyond DDR
Lisa Maza Angulo 10683089 Master thesis Conflict Resolution and Governance Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam Program Director: Dr. David Laws Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Michelle Parlevliet Second reader: Dr. Jana Krause Date of submission: 30 June 2017 Word count: 23.617After 52 years of protracted conflict between guerrilla movement FARC and the government in Colombia, the country has departed on its transition towards peace. It currently faces the challenge of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR), which has become a key component in contemporary peace consolidation efforts around the world, of which ex-combatant reintegration is considered the weakest link (Berdal & Ucko 2013, p. 317). This thesis takes a bottom-up perspective on this issue by analysing local narratives on ex-combatant reintegration as a window to look at the transition from war to peace in Colombia. Based on the author’s fieldwork, this thesis argues that local narratives reveal that the end of armed conflict and successful ex-combatant reintegration are not sufficient to ensure a transition towards peace that is responsive to grievances on the ground. It argues that in addition to these crucial elements, the transition requires that structural and cultural violence be addressed through constructive social change on the structural and attitudinal levels. This study augments the existing body of critical DDR literature by combining narratives of ex-combatants with those of host communities, and pointing out the interrelatedness between economic, social and political reintegration that appears to be underemphasized in conventional DDR literature. Further research should continue monitoring the Colombian peace process as it unfolds, keeping in mind this discrepancy between local understandings of peace and the priorities of the peace process.
Key words: DDR, ex-combatant reintegration, transition from war to
INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 5 1.1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.2 THE TYPOLOGY OF VIOLENCE AND THE TYPOLOGY OF CONSTRUCTIVE SOCIAL CHANGE 5 1.3 DDR FOSTERING CONSTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE 7 1.4 ‘JUSTPEACE’ AS A WAY TO UNDERSTAND CONSTRUCTIVE STRUCTURAL CHANGE 8 1.5 EVERYDAY PEACEBUILDING FURTHERING CONSTRUCTIVE ATTITUDINAL CHANGE 10 1.6 A LENS TO LOOK AT COLOMBIA’S TRANSITION FROM WAR TO PEACE 11
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 14 2.1 INTRODUCTION 14 2.2 RESPONDENTS 14 2.3 AN OVERVIEW OF THE FIELDWORK 17 2.4 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS 19 2.5 FOCUS GROUPS AND PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION 20 2.6 ANALYSING THE DATA 21 2.7 ETHICS 22 2.8 LIMITATIONS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 23 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ON NARRATIVES ON EX-COMBATANT REINTEGRATION 27 3.1 INTRODUCTION 27 3.2 POLITICAL REINTEGRATION 28
3.2.1 ‘THE FARC WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO GAIN ACTUAL POLITICAL POWER’ 29 3.2.2 ‘THE FARC’S MOTIVATIONS TO REINTEGRATE POLITICALLY ARE QUESTIONABLE’ 30 3.2.3 ‘THE FARC ENTERING FORMAL POLITICS IS UNDESIRABLE’ 31 3.2.4 ‘THE FARC ENTERING FORMAL POLITICS IS WORTH A TRY’ 33 3.2.5 EX-FARC COMBATANTS’ NARRATIVES ON POLITICAL REINTEGRATION 34
3.3 ECONOMIC REINTEGRATION 37
3.3.1 ‘EX-COMBATANTS WILL NOT FIND EMPLOYMENT’ 38 3.3.2 ‘EX-COMBATANTS ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED TO REINTEGRATE ECONOMICALLY’ 39 3.3.3 ‘THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR EX-COMBATANTS ARE UNFAIR’ 40 3.3.4 ‘ECONOMIC REINTEGRATION OF EX-COMBATANTS MIGHT JUST WORK’ 42
3.4 SOCIAL REINTEGRATION 45
3.4.1 ‘EX-COMBATANTS ARE BAD PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT CHANGE’ 45 3.4.2 ‘SOCIAL STIGMA IS PROBLEMATIC FOR THE REINTEGRATION PROCESS’ 47 3.4.3 ‘EX-COMBATANTS ARE NOT SAFE ONCE THEY ENTER CIVILIAN SOCIETY’ 50 3.4.4 ‘WE NEED TRUST, FORGIVENESS, AND RECONCILIATION’ 52 CHAPTER 4: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TRANSITION FROM WAR TO PEACE 56 4.1 INTRODUCTION 56 4.2 RE-CONCEPTIONALIZING EX-COMBATANT REINTEGRATION 56 4.3. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TRANSITION FROM WAR TO PEACE 59 4.3.1 STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE TRANSITION FROM WAR TO PEACE 60 4.3.2 ATTITUDINAL CHANGE IN THE TRANSITION FROM WAR TO PEACE 63 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 67
5.5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS: 71
5.6 FUTURE RESEARCH 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY 73
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Michelle Parlevliet for guiding me through the process of writing this Master’s thesis. Michelle, thank you for your valuable support, patience and insights. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Jana Krause for taking the time to review this thesis as a second reader.
My deep gratitude goes out to all my respondents for sharing their stories and vulnerability with me, showing me the resilience of the Colombian people.
Mis agradecimientos a todos aquellos que tuvieron la amabilidad de concederme una entrevista por la confianza que han depositado en mí, al contarme sus historias, sus experiencias, y mostrar su vulnerabilidad y fuerza.
I am thankful for all the people in Colombia who have helped me in countless ways to make the fieldwork possible.
Sin el apoyo de todos que me han ayudado con facilitar ese proyecto, no hubiese sido posible la realización de este trabajo. Muchísimas gracias!
Lastly, I am grateful for the continuous support that Jérôme Strebel has provided throughout the process of writing this thesis.
Introduction
“From now on our only weapons will be words”, said Rodrigo Lodoño1, better
known by his nom de guerre ‘Timochenko’, to mark the end to the war in Colombia that lasted over fifty years (Rathbone & Schipani 2016). The protracted violent conflict between Marxist guerrilla movement Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC) and the government was the longest running conflict on the western hemisphere and has left more than 250,000 people dead and over 7 million displaced since its start in 1964 (idem). It was a conflict characterized by widespread human rights violations on all sides that took a large toll on the civilian population2 (HRW 2017, p. 2-3). With the adoption of the peace
agreement3, the peace process is by no means completed. Now starts the challenge of
implementation, which is typically a difficult and long journey prone to collapse (DeRouen et al. 2010). This thesis is concerned with the transition from war to peace in Colombia and takes as its starting point one particular aspect of this transition, namely DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration). This introduction first briefly provides the context for DDR in Colombia, then it lays out the argument of this thesis, and lastly it discusses the specific contributions this study makes to existing literature, and its social relevance.
Over the last 20 years, DDR has become a key component of most large-scale peace operations that aim to facilitate the transition from war to peace (Berdal & Ucko 2013, p. 317; United Nations n.d., a). It is a set of project initiatives that are part of post-conflict peace consolidation aimed at removing weapons from the hands of combatants, dismantling armed groups, and integrating ex-combatants into society (Torjensen 2013, p. 2; United Nations n.d., a.). Literature on DDR generally holds that successful DDR is critical for long-tem peace (McMullin 2004, p. 625; Miriyagalla 2014, p. 251; Özerdem 2002, p. 962). When successful, it can dismantle the machinery of war, 1 Leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia FARC (Fuerzas Armadas 2 See Denissen 2010, p. 330 for more background on the conflict, which due to the limited space in this thesis cannot be further elaborated on here.
3 The peace agreement was held to a vote in October 2016 when the Colombian population voted on its ratification in a plebiscite. It was rejected by a slim margin, in part because of concerns about its justice provisions. The agreement was then revised and adopted without a
encourage combatants to start leading peaceful civilian lives, reduce the risk of renewed violence and free resources for reconstruction and development (Faltas 2005, p. 2). However, when DDR fails it can lead to renewed violence in the form of individual recidivism or broader collective remobilization (Kaplan & Nussio 2016, p. 4). An example of this is the case of Angola, where unsuccessful DDR left warring parties mobilized and well-armed at election time, which triggered a relapse into civil war (McMullin 2004, p. 625).
Colombia has had ambiguous experiences with DDR in the past. In 2003 the DDR process of paramilitary group United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas
Unidas de Colombia, AUC) began, which led to a significant drop in violence in several
urban areas (Denissen 2010, p. 328). However, there are many reports of demobilized paramilitaries who rearmed and returned to ‘the bush’ (el monte) or entered criminal organizations (ibid, p. 329). This suggests that reintegration of these ex-combatants into civilian life has not been successful. Now that the peace agreement with the FARC has been signed, Colombia is once again facing the challenge of disarming, demobilizing and reintegrating combatants with the aim of preventing renewed violence. Within DDR, the reintegration component can be regarded as “the yardstick by which the success of a DDR programme is measured” (Colletta et al. 1996). At the same time, reintegration is generally understood to be the weakest link in the DDR chain, because it is a slow and complex process that cannot be imposed or centralized in the same way disarmament and demobilization can (Berdal & Ucko 2013, p. 317; Faltas 2005, p. 2; Podder 2012 p. 199). The state can facilitate the reintegration process by providing its parameters and design reintegration programmes, but this is not sufficient to guarantee its success (Torjesen 2013 p. 2). Reintegration also requires ex-combatants to adjust to civilian life and host communities to be willing and able to admit and accept them (Faltas 2005; Kaplan & Nussio 2015). In short, reintegration is a challenging process that plays a central role in how the transition from war to peace is approached (Colletta et al. 1996). Especially in light of the limited success of Colombia’s paramilitary reintegration experience, this provides reason to take a closer look at the reintegration of FARC combatants as part of the current peace process. This provides the window through which this thesis aims to enhance understanding about the transition from war to peace in Colombia.
In recent years, a growing body of critical DDR literature has emerged that highlights the shortcomings of what might be called the conventional approach to ex-combatant reintegration (see e.g. McMullin 2013; Muggah 2006). I position myself within the strand of critical DDR literature that has emphasized the need for a bottom-up perspective on reintegration missing from the often policy-centred literature, and that has highlighted that community involvement is key (see e.g. Asiedu 2012; Faltas 2005; Kaplan & Nussio 2015). This thesis takes a bottom-up perspective by examining the narratives on ex-combatant reintegration that exist on the ground. The reason for this approach is that, if successful reintegration depends not only on the state but also on combatants and host communities, then it is relevant to understand how ex-combatant reintegration is understood from the bottom-up. This thesis does thus not aim to analyse the implementation of policies regarding reintegration, but rather the narratives based on people’s personal experiences and expectations. It asks: What do
local narratives about ex-combatant reintegration tell us about the transition from war to peace in Colombia? To answer this research question, it analyses the narratives of
different bottom-up stakeholders in the Colombian society with different experiences of the conflict, namely ex-combatants, direct victims, and indirectly affected people.
Based on the empirical findings obtained during one month of fieldwork, this thesis argues that local narratives reveal that the end of armed conflict and successful ex-combatant reinteration are not sufficient to ensure a transition towards peace that is responsive to grievances on the ground. It argues that in addition to these crucial elements, the transition towards positive peace requires attitudinal and structural change that go beyond the behavioural change that ex-combatant reintegration engenders. This study augments the existing body of critical DDR literature by pointing out the interrelatedness between economic, social and political reintegration that appears to be underemphasized in conventional DDR literature.
This study is informed by a theoretical framework that combines Galtung’s typology of violence (1969; 1990) and Dudouet’s typology of constructive social change (2006) with existing literature on DDR, Lederach’s notion of ‘justpeace’ (1999) and Mac Ginty’s insights on everyday peacebuilding (2014). It focuses attention on constructive attitudinal and structural change in the context of the Colombian transition from war to peace and explores how this could take shape. The specific contributions of this
there is not so much literature written on the Colombian peace process yet, because it is so recent. Consequently, this study is among the first to be written about DDR of FARC combatants in Colombia while it is unfolding. Methodologically, it takes the bottom-up perspective not only as looking at ex-combatants, which much literature to date has already done, but in addition to that also from victims and indirectly affected people. From a broad review of literature on DDR, a combination of the narratives of these particular actors seems to be rare. In that sense, this research addresses what appears to be an underexplored area in existing literature.
The social relevance of this research is that it sheds light on the peace process while it is still unfolding, which means that its findings could still be taken into account to facilitate the transition. The insights contribute to a more thorough understanding of what reintegration means to Colombians on the ground, beyond the policy level. This could be used as pointers for policy and practice that could address the discrepancy between local understandings of peace and the priorities of the peace process. Moreover, it brings forward the voices of stakeholders in the Colombian population who say they do not feel heard by providing a platform for their narratives and stories. This may help streamlining top-down measures with bottom-up experience to make the peace process more responsive to needs on the ground. As such, this research contributes one piece to the large puzzle of how to consolidate sustainable peace in Colombia. Further research should continue monitoring the Colombian peace process as it unfolds.
To answer the research question of what local narratives on ex-combatant reintegration reveal about the transition from war to peace in Colombia, the structure of this thesis is as follows. Chapter 1 outlines the theoretical framework this thesis is based on; chapter 2 discusses the methodology of the qualitative research conducted, the findings of which are included throughout the subsequent chapters. Chapter 3 discusses the narratives that were discovered on the ground. Subsequently, chapter 4 looks at empirical findings through the lens constructed in the theoretical framework, suggesting a re-conceptionalization of ex-combatant reintegration and examining the implications of findings for the transition from war to peace in Colombia. Finally, chapter 5 provides the conclusion.
Chapter 1: Theoretical framework 1.1 Introduction This chapter sets out the theoretical framework informing this study, bringing together Galtung’s typology of violence (1969; 1990) and Dudouet’s typology of social change (2006), combining them with existing literature on DDR, Lederach’s notion of ‘justpeace’ (1999) and Mac Ginty’s insights on everyday peacebuilding (2014). This chapter argues that Dudouet’s three types of constructive social change are a way to think about redressing Galtung’s three types of violence. While DDR seems a strategy to foster behavioural change, Lederach’s notion of ‘justpeace’ enhances understanding about furthering structural change and Mac Ginty’s everyday peacebuilding provides a starting point for engendering attitudinal change. Taken together, this provides a lens through which one can view the transition from war to peace as a layered transition that is concerned with addressing different types of violence, each calling for different measures. The synthesis of these theoretical elements enhances understanding about Colombia’s current peace process, because it broadens up the scope of the transition towards peace by suggesting it goes beyond the end of the armed conflict with the FARC. This chapter first introduces the typologies of violence and social change by Galtung (1969; 1990) and Dudouet (2006) (§1.2). Subsequently, it discusses existing literature on DDR in relation to behavioural change (§1.3), Lederach’s ‘justpeace’ (1999) in relation to structural change (§1.4) and Mac Ginty’s everyday peacebuilding (2014) in relation to attitudinal change (§1.5). Lastly, it discusses how this theoretical framework provides a useful lens to look at Colombia’s transition from war to peace (§1.6).
1.2 The typology of violence and the typology of constructive social change
In his 1969 paper “Violence, Peace and Peace Research”, Johan Galtung made a distinction between two types of violence, namely personal or direct violence and structural or indirect violence. He explains that direct violence can be traced back to a person who directly harms another, such as in rape, murder or genocide. Conversely,
particular perpetrator and is instead “built into the structure [of society] and shows up as unequal power and consequently as unequal life chances” (Galtung 1969, p. 171). He illustrates his point, saying that “in a society where life expectancy is twice as high in the upper as in the lower classes, violence is exercised even if there are no concrete actors one can point to directly attacking others, as when one person kills another” (idem). Galtung refers to the condition of absence of direct violence as negative peace, and the condition of absence of structural violence, or the presence of social justice, as positive peace (ibid, p. 183). In 1990, Galtung adds a third type of violence to his categorization, namely cultural violence. He explains, “by ‘cultural violence’ we mean those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence […] that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence.” (Galtung 1990, p. 291). In relation to the other two types of violence, “cultural violence makes direct and structural violence look, even feel, right – at least not wrong” (idem).
If Galtung provides what may be considered a diagnosis of types of violence, Veronique Dudouet’s work on constructive social change points in the direction of remedies (2006). She builds on social change theory to lay out three types of constructive social change – namely behavioural, attitudinal and structural change – that seem to correspond clearly to direct, cultural and structural violence respectively (ibid, p. 4). According to Dudouet, behavioural change concerns actions, attitudinal change regards overcoming persistent cultures of violence and structural change entails transforming “unequal power structures or war economies into non-violent systems based on the principles of democracy and human rights” (idem). There are different drivers of social change that can bring about these behavioural, attitudinal and structural changes, such as intra-party processes, relational dynamics, and external influences (ibid, p. 28-45). Lastly, social change is also influenced by stakeholders, which are “the set of actors affected by the conflict and/or affecting its course, as agents of constructive or destructive change, or obstacles to change” (ibid, p. 23-24).
Galtung’s typology of violence and Dudouet’s typology of social change as discussed in this section provide the foundation of the theoretical framework constructed in this chapter. The following sections add building blocks to this foundation that each contribute to an understanding of what constructive social change could look like in the transition from war to peace. The following sections will each first elaborate on the theoretical concept they introduce – namely DDR, ‘justpeace’ and
everyday peacebuilding respectively – before linking back to constructive social change. 1.3 DDR fostering constructive behavioural change The first building block to constructive social change in the transition from war to peace that will be introduced is DDR. According to the explanatory website of the UN, DDR is concerned with “the post-conflict security problem that arises when ex-combatants are left without livelihoods or support networks other than their former comrades, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development” (U.N. 2005). As was explained in the introduction of this thesis, existing literature generally holds that reintegration is the most challenging component in the DDR chain (Podder 2012, p. 199). Consequently, most DDR literature focuses on reintegration, defined as “the process through which ex-combatants adapt to society after existing conflict” (Kaplan & Nussio 2016, p. 4).
According to the UN, reintegration takes place on the economic, social and political levels (U.N. n.d., a). Social reintegration refers to the ex-combatants relying less on their militia network and becoming involved in their communities, which ties in with their acceptance by their families and neighbours (Kaplan & Nussio 2015, p. 2; Torjesen 2013, p. 4). Political reintegration refers to “ending efforts to achieve political goals through violent means” (Torjesen 2013 p. 4). In other words, instead of physically fighting for their goals, ex-combatants enter political life by voting, advocating, or running for office (idem). Lastly, economic reintegration means that ex-combatants find ways to sustain themselves and any dependants through legitimate means, such as formal or informal employment or agriculture (idem). From a broad review of existing DDR literature it seems that most research focuses primarily on the economic aspect (see e.g. Jennings 2007; Levely 2014; McMullin 2004). Moreover, extensive research has been done on reintegration from a policy-based approach, reflecting on reintegration programs and policies in post-conflict countries such as Afghanistan, Mozambique, and Burundi (see Özerdem 2002; McMullin 2004 and Gilligan 2013 respectively).
is narrow, because it excludes from its focus the experiences of ex-combatants trying to take part in the social, political and economic structures of post-conflict societies (Torjensen 2013, p. 2). These experiences go beyond the horizon of the reintegration programmes put in place (idem). Moreover, she holds that reintegration may often be partial, incomplete or reversible, suggesting that reintegration is a continuum and ex-combatants may move up and down this continuum over time (ibid, p. 4) Consequently, Torjensen proposes an object of study other than the policy of reintegration programmes, namely the experiences of ex-combatants as they transition from a violent identity to a civilian one (ibid, p. 4). There is a growing body of literature that has adopted this approach, taking an ethnographic approach to ex-combatant reintegration (see e.g. Katto 2014; Theidon 2009).
Seeing through the lens of Galtung’s typology of violence (1969) and Dudouet’s typology of constructive social change (2006), ex-combatant reintegration is concerned with ending direct violence related to armed conflict, and consequently aims to foster constructive behavioural change. Therefore, the transition from war to peace it aims to facilitate seems to concern negative peace: it intends to change violent behaviour associated with combatants into peaceful behaviour associated with civilians. It becomes clear from a broad review of DDR literature that the successfulness of ex-combatant reintegration, whether studied from a policy-based or a bottom-up approach, is generally judged by behavioural change rather than structural or attitudinal change. The following sections explore constructive social change by looking beyond ex-combatant reintegration.
1.4 ‘Justpeace’ as a way to understand constructive structural change
After having discussed DDR through the lens of constructive behavioural change, this section turns to the notion of ‘justpeace’ as a means to view constructive structural change. Lederach’s work on ‘justpeace’ lays out several gaps in contemporary peacebuilding, which he suggests need to be addressed to make peacebuilding more responsive to experiences and expectations on the ground (1999). This section focuses on one of these gaps, namely the so-called justice gap. Lederach
explains that the justice gap stems from a discrepancy between what people in conflict-torn countries expect of peace processes and what peace processes usually deliver. He starts by explaining the emergence of most armed conflicts, stating that these often arise when people perceive social injustice, or structural violence, to be so rampant that they take up arms to address it. Lederach explains that their aim is to achieve systemic changes in society’s economic, social, political and cultural structures that detrimentally affect their lives. He continues that as the conflict escalates, however, the harm done by war through direct violence becomes worse than the initial injustice it aims to address. Then, he states that when parties move to the negotiation table and a peace process is initiated, people on the ground usually expect that the peace processes will not only stop direct violence, but will also address the structural issues that gave rise to the armed conflict in the first place. Lederach observes that contemporary peace processes usually do deliver a reduction of direct violence, but have not brought the desired structural change. Consequently, he holds that this can lead to deep felt deception among people on the ground and the belief that to reduce violence peace compromises social justice. This is what Lederach calls the justice gap. ‘Justpeace’, then, involves peace that includes social justice, which requires, among other things, addressing the justice gap. Looking through the lens of constructive social change (Dudouet 2006), we may see that the justice gap arises when a peace process fosters constructive behavioural change, but does not engender constructive structural change. In other words, it fails to transform the unequal power structures that translate into social injustice. The notion of ‘justpeace’ enhances understanding of what constructive structural change may look like, because it highlights that the transition towards positive peace involves not the signing of an agreement or the completion of DDR, but rather the eradication of the root causes that gave rise to armed conflict. It moreover highlights that peace without such constructive social change is likely to create deception among the local population. Nevertheless, the last type of social change, namely attitudinal change to address cultural violence, does not seem to be explicitly captured by the ‘justpeace’ approach. Therefore, the following section turns to how attitudinal change may be furthered by adding one last theory to the framework, namely everyday peacebuilding.
1.5 Everyday peacebuilding furthering constructive attitudinal change
The last building block that this chapter adds to its theoretical framework is Mac Ginty’s notion of everyday peace (2014). Everyday peace is part of the critical approach to peace and conflict studies that emphasises the need for bottom-up, localized approaches to peace that stand in contrast with the top-down and institutionalized approaches that many international institutions employ (Mac Ginty 2014, p. 549). According to Mac Ginty, everyday peacebuilding refers to the ways individuals and groups in divided society minimize conflict at both inter- and intra-group levels (ibid, p. 553). Everyday peace activities rely on interaction, social recognition and social responses (ibid, p. 554). Mac Ginty explains that everyday peacebuilding can provide enough “social glue” to prevent a society from tipping from a tense situation into open conflict (ibid, p. 553). He highlights that everyday peace is a form of agency that individuals do not always engage in, as it depends on opportunities, context and a person’s ability to exploit these (ibid, 550). He outlines that the notion of the everyday helps move beyond formal institutional spheres, which is helpful because even if a peace accord has officially been reached, intercommunal differences often persist (idem). He continues that everyday peacebuilding cannot be modelled or replicated, because it is highly context specific, depending on individual agency (ibid, 554). Some environments make everyday peace difficult to pursue, especially those characterized by fear (ibid. p. 555). Nevertheless, in such environments everyday peace activities can still constitute resistance to the division that may be encouraged by political elites (idem). Mac Ginty argues that because everyday peacebuilding is a bottom-up approach, it has the legitimacy and authenticity that may be lacking from imported peace initiatives (ibid, p. 561).
According to Mac Ginty, everyday peacebuilding can be a way to challenge the dominant norms that legitimize conflict and division, which suggests that it could be a strategy to address cultural violence (ibid, p. 555). Consequently, it seems conceivable that everyday peace activities could foster constructive attitudinal change. As Mac Ginty holds that everyday peacebuilding can undermine narratives that assign singular and exclusive identities, this suggests that it could change attitudes regarding the ‘other’ (ibid, p. 560). Nevertheless, he outlines that because of the localized nature of everyday peace activities, they are unable to address structural or international
elements of conflict on their own (ibid, p. 558). Therefore, I argue that it is helpful to see everyday peacebuilding within the framework constructed in this chapter, as one part of the larger puzzle that aims to engender constructive social change on behavioural, structural and attitudinal levels in synergy. 1.6 A lens to look at Colombia’s transition from war to peace The lens constructed in this theoretical framework reveals the transition from war to peace as a layered transition that goes beyond ending an armed conflict. This section first provides a brief summary of the theoretical framework and then outlines how it informs the rest of this thesis.
This theoretical framework has argued that the combination of Galtung’s typology of violence with Dudouet’s typology of constructive social change suggests that the road to positive peace requires addressing three types of violence through three types of constructive social change (Dudouet 2006; Galtung 1969, 1990). It has lain out that DDR, when it argues to facilitate the transition from war to peace, is generally concerned with fostering negative peace. It addresses direct violence through policies aimed at constructive behavioural change. The second type of violence is structural violence, which stands in the way of social justice. ‘Justpeace’ and its notion of the justice gap were introduced to enhance understanding of why addressing structural violence is important and what constructive structural change might entail (Lederach 1999). The third type of violence is cultural violence, which serves to legitimize the other two types (Galtung 1990). Addressing cultural violence requires constructive attitudinal change, a starting point for which seems to be provided by everyday peacebuilding (Mac Ginty 2014). Taken together, this framework highlights the layered nature of the transition from war to peace.
As was stated in the introduction of this thesis, the central focus of this study is ex-combatant reintegration, asking what do narratives on ex-combatant reintegration
reveal about the transition from war to peace in Colombia. Narratives are defined as “an
act of imagination that is a patterned integration of our remembered past, perceived present and anticipated future”, i.e. people’s accounts of an issue shaped by their personal experiences and expectations (McAdams 1997, p. 12). Using the theoretical
people on the ground understand the transition from war to peace in Colombia. In doing so this thesis complies with the growing emphasis of critical DDR literature on the need for a bottom-up perspective on reintegration. Existing research on DDR in Colombia has also looked at ex-combatant reintegration from the bottom-up. For example, Nussio (2011) has investigated ex-combatants’ narratives on their personal security after demobilization, and Theidon (2009) has researched ex-combatants’ militarized masculinities and how these influence DDR processes. This thesis differs from existing bottom-up studies on reintegration in Colombia, because it looks at reintegration not only from the perspective of ex-combatants, but also from those of direct victims and indirectly affected people. The rationale behind this is that all those actors are stakeholders in the reintegration process, because, following Dudouet’s definition, they are “affected by conflict and/or [affect] its course, as agents of constructive or destructive change, or obstacles to change” (2006, p. 23-34). This is supported by existing literature that holds that successful reintegration depends on ex-combatants and host communities alike (e.g. Faltas 2005). An example of constructive change by stakeholders would be ex-combatants and receptor communities committing to peaceful reintegration, whereas destructive change could be recidivism on the part of ex-combatants, or fostering social stigma or revenge violence towards demobilised people on the part of civilians (Kaplan & Nussio 2016; McMullin 2013). Although research exists on reintegration from the perspective of ex-combatants and from the perspective of host communities, the combination of both perspectives into one study appears to be rare. As such, this thesis contributes to an underdeveloped area within DDR literature.
Following from the theoretical framework and existing literature discussed in this chapter, the central research question of what do narratives on ex-combatant
reintegration reveal about the transition from war to peace in Colombia was
operationalized into three research sub-questions. These are:
1. What are the local narratives around ex-combatant reintegration in Colombia?
2. How do these narratives relate to existing literature on ex-combatant reintegration?
3. How do the findings on ex-combatant reintegration relate to the larger transition from war to peace in Colombia?
After having discussed the theoretical foundation for this thesis and the research sub-questions that flow from it, the next chapter outlines the research design that was used to answer these questions.
Chapter 2: Methodology
2.1 Introduction
This chapter explains the methodological approach adopted for this study, which is qualitative in nature and combines fieldwork with the use of secondary literature. The fieldwork consisted of semi-structured interviews, focus groups and participant observation with a broad range of three different categories of respondents. This mixed method research design was adopted to be able to triangulate the collected data, checking whether information obtained through semi-structured interviews was confirmed in focus groups and participant observation, and vice versa. Secondary literature was used to critically reflect on the empirical data obtained during the fieldwork. The following sub-sections will discuss the separate elements of this study’s methodology, starting with the respondents (§2.2), an overview of the fieldwork (§2.3), the specifics of the semi-structured interviews conducted (§2.4), the specifics of focus groups and participant observation (§2.5), how the data was analysed (§2.6), ethical considerations (§2.7), and lastly, limitations and mitigation strategies (§2.8).
2.2 Respondents
This chapter first turns to the respondents of this study. This section mentions which respondents were selected and how they were accessed, then it elaborates on the categories of respondents used, and lastly it briefly reflects on this categorization.
Joining the strand of critical DDR literature discussed in the theoretical framework of this thesis, this research emphasizes the need for a bottom-up approach to reintegration. Recognizing that everyone in the Colombian society has in some way been affected by the war and will in some way have to cope with former FARC combatants being reinserted into society, I chose a broad sample of respondents. These are direct victims of the conflict with the FARC, former FARC combatants, and indirectly affected Colombians. The respondents were reached through the Colombian Agency on Reintegration (Agencia Colombiana para la Reintegración – ACR), my personal network, and the snowball effect. In what follows each category of respondents is discussed separately, and for each the justification for their inclusion in this thesis is linked back to the theoretical framework constructed in chapter 1.
• Direct victims. This thesis defines this category as those individuals who have personally suffered violence from the hands of FARC combatants and/or whose close relatives have. This group was included because their first-hand experiences with FARC combatants will likely colour their take on ex-combatant reintegration. This is because, as was discussed in the theoretical framework, McAdams explains that people’s narratives are shaped among other things by their personal experiences and remembered past (1997, p. 12).
• Former FARC-combatants. This thesis defines former FARC-combatants as those FARC members demobilising as a direct result of the 2016 peace accords, as well as FARC combatants who have demobilised at an earlier stage. Ex-combatants are included in this research, because, as was mentioned in the theoretical framework of this thesis, the experiences of ex-combatants are a useful object of study in a bottom-up approach to reintegration (Torjesen 2013, p.2). Their narratives will most likely be different to those of the civilian population based on their distinct experiences. Moreover, their role in the process is different too, as they are expected to personally make the transition from guerrilleros (guerrilla fighters) to civilians.
• Indirectly affected people. This category of respondents is defined as civilians who do not have first hand experience of FARC violence, but have nevertheless been affected by the conflict. Put differently, this thesis defines indirectly affected people as all Colombians who are not ex-FARC combatants or direct victims. This group was included in this research because, as mentioned in the theoretical framework, it is relevant to analyse how common citizens understand reintegration, because the success of the process depends not only on ex-combatants and the state, but also on host communities (Faltas 2015). The reason for this is that receptor communities play a large part in the reintegration process by providing opportunities for ex-combatants to reintegrate, for example by offering employment, education and social interaction.
When reflecting on the categorization of respondents as outlined above, there are several issues worth mentioning. Firstly, it is noteworthy that the categorization of direct victims focuses on victims of the FARC, rather than conflict-related victims in general, because it is conceivable that their experiences with FARC combatants specifically may influence their views on these FARC combatants’ reintegration into civilian society. Therefore, the only victims of other armed groups that were interviewed are those who were displaced by paramilitaries as a result of FARC presence in the area and/or victims’ alleged involvement with the FARC. This is because those respondents explained that they see the FARC as the source for the harm inflicted by paramilitaries. Secondly, it is notable that some people who are categorized in this thesis as direct victims might not self-identify as victims, but for example as survivors. Nevertheless, the word ‘victim’ was adopted in this thesis, because it is the term that is used most frequently in the Colombian context, both by the government and by common citizens, to refer to those people directly affected by conflict-related violence. Lastly, it is crucial to note that the distinction between categories of respondents as outlined above is not as clear-cut in reality as it may seem on paper. For example, some of the interviewed former FARC members were forcefully recruited, making them both direct victims and ex-combatants at the same time. Nevertheless, this does not pose a problem, because the aim of this research is not to draw conclusions about the relationship between certain narratives and respondent categories. Rather, the aim is to examine the narratives of people with different experiences of the conflict to illustrate the variety of bottom-up perspectives on ex-combatant reintegration.
Throughout this thesis I will refer to with a FARC background as ‘ex-combatants’ and to people with no FARC background as ‘civilians’. Admittedly, this phrasing is flawed, as both groups of people are now civilians (hence ‘ex-combatant’). However, it is a practical way to indicate respondents’ backgrounds, which provide some context for their comments. After having discussed the respondents, the next section provides an overview of the conducted fieldwork.
2.3 An overview of the fieldwork
This section provides general information about the conducted fieldwork, discussing the sample of respondents, the fieldwork locations, and the context in which the formal and informal conversations took place. This sets the stage for the following sections that dive deeper into the specific methods used.
In total, the sample of respondents in this study consists of 82 people. 42 people were consulted in formal settings – 30 of which in semi-structured interviews and 12 in focus groups – and another 40 were consulted in informal conversations. Of the 42 official respondents, 7 were ex-combatants, 9 were direct victims, and 26 were indirectly affected people. Out of confidentiality this thesis is cautious with using respondents’ real names. Only formal interviewees who are experts, community leaders or working with ex-combatants or the peace process are referred to with first and last names. All other respondents have pseudonyms.
The sample consists of respondents who vary in age, gender, political orientation, level of education and involvement with the peace process. The sample was selected by actively looking for difference in my respondents’ demographics. The goal of this broad sample was not to be representative, but rather to uncover variation. Figure 1 provides a graph with the gender distribution within the three groups. This thesis does not analyse how respondents’ gender and other characteristics relate to the narratives they hold, because it does not have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions about this.
Fig. 2 shows a map of Colombia with the locations where the fieldwork was carried out. These are the cities of Bogotá, Cartagena de Indias (henceforth: Cartagena), and Monteria, and the villages Maria la Baja, Retiro Nuevo, Mampujan Nuevo and San Juan within the rural area known as Montes de Maria. The fieldwork locations cover the departments of Bogotá, Bolivar and Córdoba, leaving out the country’s other departments out of logistical considerations. The reason to conduct this research at several locations was to uncover variation in narratives by looking for respondents at places with different characteristics, assuming that this would likely lead to more different narratives than by only interviewing respondents in one city.
Fig. 1: The distribution of indirectly affected people, direct victims and ex-combatants among respondents, including the gender distribution.
Fig. 2: Map of where fieldwork was carried out
All interviews, focus groups and informal conversations during the fieldwork were conducted in Spanish. This served two reasons: firstly, interviewees speaking in their mother tongue generally allowed for more nuance and detail in their narratives. Secondly, it aimed to prevent a sample biased towards that relatively limited part of the Colombian population that speaks English fluently enough to participate in an English language interview. Interviews and focus groups were recorded whenever respondents gave their permission, so that new elements or patterns could be discovered upon a second listen. Informal conversations were not recorded in order to, literally, get access to ‘off the record’ opinions. All interviews and focus groups took place at locations that the respondents, or in some cases a middleman, proposed. Most frequently this was in respondents’ homes or at their workplace, and in a few occasions in a public space.
After having provided background information about the respondents and the context of the fieldwork, the next sections zoom in on the different methods used. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 indirectly
affected people direct victims ex-combatants women men
2.4 Semi-structured interviews
The main research method of the fieldwork was semi-structured interviews. This section first discusses the nature of these interviews and then goes into the specifics of how they were conducted.
The goal of my interviews was extracting narratives of which the interviewee is the knower and which the interviewer aims to understand. This required people to talk me through their train of thought in a way that makes sense to them, rather than simply responding to a set of static, predetermined questions. The interviews were not designed to confirm a particular hypothesis, but instead searched for new discoveries. This type of semi-structured interview can be categorised as descriptive/interpretative (McIntosh & Morse 2015). It is characterized by an acknowledgement that the researcher’s frame is limited and needs subjective knowledge of the participants to be expanded or changed altogether (idem).
Each interview lasted between 1 and 1.5 hours per respondent. Following the standard format for semi-structured interviews, a relatively detailed interview guide was used that provided topics to be discussed while remaining responsive to the participant (ibid, p. 1). I probed within participants’ responses by asking them to clarify or elaborate when needed. Interviewees had the freedom to talk elaborately and to a certain extent steer the conversation towards the issues they found most important or interesting. Nevertheless, each interview included questions on all items of the topic list, to facilitate subsequent comparison and analysis of the data. The topic list was informed by theory and included topics such as economic benefits for ex-combatants, matters of forgiveness, responsibility in the peace process, what constitutes the biggest challenge in the reintegration process, and the role of ex-combatant reintegration in the transition from war to peace in Colombia. The questions avoided introducing words that might prime interviewees in a certain direction, such as ‘reconciliation’. Instead, I would wait until interviewees mentioned certain words themselves and then ask them to elaborate.
After having discussed the main method used for this thesis, the next section discusses the additional methods of focus groups and participant observation.
2.5 Focus groups and participant observation In my mixed-methods design, semi-structured interviews were combined with focus groups and participant observation. This section first discusses focus groups and participant observation separately. Then it ties together the three fieldwork methods discussed in this chapter by discussing how they reinforce each other.
A focus group is a qualitative research method where participants discuss a particular research topic as a group, responding to the researcher’s question and engaging with each other (Mack et al. 2005). The fieldwork included focus groups to get access to a wide range of views in a short amount of time. This was appropriate, because the fieldwork lasted only one month and therefore time was of the essence. Two focus groups were conducted: one with 12 university students and one with three combatants. In comparison, the focus group setting was less appropriate for ex-combatants, because the issue of reintegration is highly personal to them an Both occasions led to useful insights, although in hindsight the focus group setting seems less appropriate for ex-combatants, as the topic of reintegration is highly personal group setting.
Additionally, the fieldwork included participant observation. This method has its roots in traditional ethnographic research and involves the researcher participating in the daily lives and activities of his respondents to learn about the perspectives they hold (Mack & Woodsong 2005). Observations, informal conversations and interactions with members of the study population are important objects of analysis in this method (idem). Participant observation was conducted by staying in the homes of locals throughout the entire stay in Colombia and included informal conversations with people such as hosts, family, friends, cab drivers, and people met in corridors of institutions. Observations and informal conversations were recorded in field notes.
The different elements of the mixed-method research design discussed so far form a coherent whole, because they allow for triangulation, i.e. checking if results on an object of study hold across methods. This is because each element of the research design provided insight in the narratives on ex-combatant reintegration from a different angle. The semi-structured interviews showed what Goffman terms front stage behaviour, or what people explicitly decide to share and present to their audience, which in this case is me as a researcher (1959). The focus groups added a
different perspective, because these revealed how the respondents speak about the topic of ex-combatant reintegration with fellow ‘insiders’, rather than to me as a researcher. Lastly, participant observation constitutes a valuable addition, because it can make visible the back-stage behaviour, or the way people act when they are not consciously presenting themselves to an audience (Goffman 1959). In this way, the combination of methods served as a means to check to what extent the narratives that came up in the semi-structured interviews align with focus groups, observed behaviour and informal conversations, and vice versa. Moreover, by raising topics that came up in formal interviews in informal conversations and focus groups, I was able to explore if the narratives revealed in semi-structured interviews were shared by a broader population. The triangulation of data makes this research design greater than the sum of its parts, because it suggests that the discovered narratives hint to general patterns. Combined, the information obtained through the semi-structured interviews, focus groups and participant observation amount to a considerable pile of data. The next section discusses how this data was analysed.
2.6 Analysing the data
The methods described above generated several kinds of data, including recordings of interviews and focus groups, notes of interviews and focus groups, and field notes of observations and informal conversations. The preparation for analysis included listening again to all recordings, transcribing relevant excerpts for quotes, and adding to the extensive interview and focus group notes made in the field. Subsequently, all quotes and interview notes and field notes were colour coded according to themes and narratives.
After this preparatory work discourse analysis was used to analyse the data. This is a method that “considers how language, both spoken and written, enacts social and cultural perspectives and identities” (Gee 1999, p. i). Language is used to convey significance, activities, identities, relationships, politics, connections and knowledge (ibid, p. 11-13). Rather than taking a linguistic approach to discourse analysis, I used the method to analyse content, picking up recurrent words, images, and themes and clustering these into categories of core themes. This empirical data, together with data
narratives around ex-combatant reintegration in Colombia can tell us about the transition from war to peace in Colombia. After having discussed the data collection and analysis, the next section elaborates on the ethical considerations that were taken into account throughout that process. 2.7 Ethics This section discusses the ethical issues that were considered for my fieldwork. It first treats the “do no harm” principle, informed consent and the attitude adopted towards respondents respectively. It ends with a brief reflection on my own positiononality as a researcher.
For any research, the “do no harm” principle is imperative (Wood 2006, p. 373). I worked with vulnerable groups, namely war victims and former combatants, and both may be traumatized by their experiences in the conflict (idem). An ethical risk is that people may relive these experiences through the interview and be re-traumatized. This is because “the memory of a trauma suffered or inflicted is itself traumatic because recalling it is painful or at least disturbing” (Seedat et al. 2004, p. 263). Therefore, the interview questions did not explicitly ask about memories of experiences of the war. Instead, I left it up to the interviewees to share any experiences of the war that might inform their narratives on reintegration, which happened frequently. When they did, I would where relevant ask for clarifications or more information. If they did not bring their own experiences of the conflict up, I did not touch the topic. In this way I hoped to prevent people from feeling distressed when sharing painful memories when they did not want to, but leave open the possibility for people to share these experiences if they chose to do so.
Another ethical consideration is obtaining informed consent of participants. This means “research subjects must consent to their participation in full understanding of the potential risks and benefits” (Wood, 2006 p. 379). Moreover, especially when doing research with vulnerable groups, participants should be informed that they can stop participating at any time and do not have to answer a question when they do not want to (Seedat et al. 2004, p. 365) I ensured informed consent by introducing the topic and the purpose of the interview, explaining that it was part of research for a masters thesis. Respondents could indicate if they were okay with being audio recorded and the
interview started after respondents had made clear they consented to participating. Before asking sensitive questions, I informed participants that they are in no way obliged to answer questions if they prefer not to.
It is important to acknowledge the possibility that, even when the voluntary nature of the interview is emphasized, some respondents might still feel obliged to talk to me. This could be out of politeness or a perceived hierarchy between respondent and (foreign) researcher, especially in rural areas. I tried to mitigate this effect by adopting a humble and open attitude. Moreover, when I perceived reluctance or hesitance on the part of interviewees to answer certain questions, I paid attention to why this might be so and to what was not being said. When emotions ran high and interviewees cried during some interviews, I would sit silently to give the respondent a minute, before deciding whether it would be best to make a transition to a lighter topic or to give the interviewee the opportunity to share more. If I opted for the latter it was always because the interviewee gave the impression they wanted to finish their story. I did my best to make the respondents feel comfortable answering my questions and provide me with data to analyse, but I kept in mind that doing research is a privilege and not a right; I do not feel entitled to people’s personal stories.
Lastly, during the fieldwork I reflected on my own positionality, i.e. where one stands in relation to “the other”, and how this may have affected response from informants. I am a half Colombian, half Dutch, female university student, who knows the language and the Colombian context well, but was raised abroad. Given this mixed background, my position as a researcher seemed to move between gradations of ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ in different contexts. This manifested itself in informants’ response, because their willingness to share more “back-stage” narratives with me was influenced by how they perceived their own positionality in relation to mine (Goffman, 1959).
After having discussed a variety of ethical considerations related to this research, the next section outlines the study’s limitations and mitigation strategies.
2.8 Limitations and mitigation strategies
applicable, it will discuss the mitigation strategies that were adopted to limit the impact of these limitations on the outcome of this study.
A first limitation is that the duration of fieldwork was one month, which is relatively short. Especially considering that the conflict is a sensitive topic and that this research includes vulnerable groups, time is needed to gain trust. The short duration of fieldwork also means that only a selection of the wealth of narratives on ex-combatant reintegration could be discovered.
A second limitation is that the fieldwork was limited to a relatively small geographical area, which means that narratives of people living in other geographical areas, including those that are currently still experiencing conflict-related violence, were not reached. Consequently, the findings of this research are not generalizable for Colombia as a whole. Nevertheless, the findings remain valuable, as the aim of this research is to illustrate a variety of narratives, rather than to present a representative overview of existing ones. Moreover, the collected narratives recurred often and are based on the accounts of more than 80 people that were consulted (formally or informally) to obtain this data. Therefore, I suggest that the narratives discussed here could point towards general trends, rather than mere anecdotes.
A third constraint is related to the timing of this research in relation to the current Colombian context. The fieldwork was conducted five months after the Colombian peace agreement was ratified. During this period, the DDR process was still on-going, meaning that FARC combatants that demobilised as a result of the 2016 peace accords were still at UN transition zones waiting to return to civilian life. This had implications for my research, because the ex-combatants were inaccessible due to restricted access to these transition zones.
This problem of access to ex-combatants currently in the process of DDR was partly mitigated by interviewing an ex-FARC combatant who after 35 years with the guerrilla now oversees the implementation of the peace agreement on behalf of the FARC in the Tripartite Monitoring and Verification Mechanism4. Due to her experiences
within the FARC and in the peace process she has inside knowledge on how FARC combatants generally view the reintegration process. Additionally, the fieldwork
4 This mechanism consists of representatives of the Colombian government, the FARC
and the UN Mission in Colombia, who are in charge of overseeing the ceasefire and cessation of hostilities (UN News Centre, 2016).
included interviews with ex-combatants that demobilized prior to the 2016 peace agreement and are already in the process of reintegration. Their reintegration experience, even if it took place at another point in time and in a different context, may even be more valuable to analyse than the expectations of those in the transition zones, because they are based on empirics rather than anticipations.
Lastly, the vast majority of respondents were reached through the contacts of nodes in my personal network. It is conceivable that such an approach could lead to a biased sample, blind spots, or speaking only to people with similar views. I aimed to mitigate this effect by actively looking for people with differing views, for example by asking respondents if they could suggest someone I could talk to with a different vision. Moreover, my existing network is large and varied in itself and additionally provides access to my network’s friends, neighbours, acquaintances, colleagues, etc. This means that through the snowball effect, I was able to reach respondents of many different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. Lastly, I not only used my network to gain access to individual respondents, but also to get access to official organisations for ex-combatants or victims, government agencies, and organs established by the peace agreement. As such, they provided an entry point for more official paths to reach respondents. With these strategies I aimed to mitigate the risk for biases.
On a concluding note, I think using this “insider” approach to reach respondents was beneficial for the research. This is because experience has shown that respondents were less likely to participate in the study or disclose their personal views when I approached them without a strong enough link, due to the sensitivity of discussing the conflict and the polarized peace process. Using my personal network to reach respondents proved more fruitful, because the link between me and the respondent, or the shared node in our networks, created a baseline of trust. Consequently, I was able to get more personal and frank views from respondents than an outside researcher likely would.
This section has outlined the different limitations of this research, showing that possible mitigation strategies were employed where possible. Moreover, it discussed how some seeming limitations were actually beneficial to the research. Looking back at the chapter as a whole, it has set out the research design and methodology of this study, providing the necessary information about the process that has yielded the
answering the research sub-questions and tying empirical findings to existing literature and theory.
Chapter 3: Results on narratives on ex-combatant reintegration
3.1 Introduction
The fieldwork carried out as described in chapter 2 has resulted in qualitative data that answers the research question of what narratives on ex-combatant reintegration tell us about the transition from war to peace in Colombia. To break down these results, I present my findings by following the three research sub-questions that were introduced in chapter 2. The current chapter covers sub-question 1, namely: what are the narratives on ex-combatant reintegration?
The narratives covered three general categories, namely political, economic and social re-integration, mirroring the aspects of reintegration discussed in the theoretical framework of this thesis5. The narratives are formed and expressed in a context of wide
political polarization regarding the peace process, exacerbated by the political campaign surrounding the plebiscite on the peace accords (Gill 2016). There were recurring core themes across narratives that convey general patterns of mistrust and uncertainty regarding the peace process and reference to underlying grievances. Generally, ex-combatants are seen as a burden to society, rather than, for instance, a potential resource.
The following sections present the findings according to the three broad categories of narratives of political- (§3.2), economic- (§3.3) and social re-integration (§3.4). The beginning of each section briefly discusses the context in which the narratives should be considered by commenting on how forthcoming they were, linking back to the peace agreement where possible, and providing examples of questions asked. Each section is divided into subsections that reflect core themes. The subsections have headings that paraphrase the main narrative on these themes. Each subsection elaborates on the narratives reflected in the heading and also presents deviant opinions about the same core theme. Throughout the chapter narratives are illustrated with quotes from the interviews that are characteristic for the discovered trends6. Where applicable, quotes will show contrasting views or extraordinary
findings.
3.2 Political reintegration
The first category of narratives concerns political reintegration, which entails the termination of violence as a means to achieve political means (Torjesen 2013, p. 4). This section first provides the context in which the narratives should be considered and subsequently provides an overview of key findings.
Narratives are informed by the Colombian peace agreement, which includes guarantees for the FARC’s formal political participation by granting funds to the political party that will grow out of the FARC to facilitate their transition into politics. Moreover, it secures 5 seats for this party in both chambers of Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives (Acuerdo Final de la Paz 2016). Notably, that political reintegration is the one aspect of reintegration that was brought up by the smallest number of interviewees. If it did come up, it was often only after I probed the topic. Out of the 30 interviewees, only 15 discussed political reintegration. In comparison: every single interviewee brought up economic reintegration. A possible reason why political reintegration was discussed less could be that it seems less contentious than the social and economic aspect of reintegration. Moreover, most Colombians steer clear from politics because of a broadly shared lack of confidence in politicians and the political system. A quote that characterizes this phenomenon was brought up by Amaranto Daniels, professor at the university of Cartagena, who told me his son had explained why he did not vote in elections, saying: “Dad, I don’t believe in anyone”7. This lack of
trust in and engagement with politics could be a reason why the specifics of FARC’s political participation were not brought up often.
Even so, to gain insight into narratives on political reintegration I asked civilians and ex-combatants alike how they feel about former FARC members entering formal politics. Key findings were scepticism regarding the political establishment’s willingness to let the FARC gain political power (§3.2.1), suspicion regarding the FARC’s motivations to lay down arms (§3.2.2), widespread dissatisfaction regarding the prospect of FARC members in politics (§3.2.3), and optimism among some respondents that FARC’s political integration has potential benefits (§3.2.4). The narratives discovered among ex-combatants were varied, ranging from dissatisfaction to contentment with the FARC’s political integration (§3.2.5).
