Peace Review

A Journal of Social Justice

ISSN: 1040-2659 (Print) 1469-9982 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cper20

Peacebuilding in Ethnically Divided Societies

Bojana Blagojevic

To cite this article: Bojana Blagojevic (2007) Peacebuilding in Ethnically Divided Societies, Peace
Review, 19:4, 555-562, DOI: 10.1080/10402650701681186

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10402650701681186

Published online: 28 Nov 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 960

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cper20
Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 19:555–562
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online
DOI: 10.1080/10402650701681186

Peacebuilding in Ethnically Divided

Societies
BOJANA BLAGOJEVIC

Peacebuilding is commonly understood as a process of achieving durable

peace by addressing the root causes of conflict. In the context of ethnic
wars, ethnic hostilities, and ethnic intolerance can be found at the heart of
each dimension of conflict and its consequences. Historical memories of
grievances are mobilized through a combination of political, economic,
and social factors, resulting in a culmination of inter-group hostilities and
intolerance—denial of rights and resources to “other” ethnic groups. If unad-
dressed, these problems intensify and ultimately lead to inter-group violence.
Ethnic and sectarian conflicts in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, and Iraq are
good examples.
In this essay, I would like to propose peacebuilding through reconcilia-
tion as an approach to post-conflict development in ethnically divided
societies. In simple terms, “reconciliation” can be understood as the trans-
formation of relationships and it can take place at all levels of society.
Whether peacebuilding is taking place at political, economic, social or infra-
structural levels, we must ensure that peacebuilding actions and processes
are designed to break down, rather than reinforce, the dynamics of ethnic
hostilities and ethnic intolerance.

B ecause ethnic hostilities and intolerance are the core issues of ethnic
conflict, a logical solution would be to simply separate the ethnic
groups in question. After all, the territorial and political separation is often
one of the main goals of the warring ethnic groups. The motivation behind
the effort to establish a separate ethnic territory lies in the group’s desire
to secure their access to political, economic, and social rights and
resources. Existing separately from the other ethnic group(s) is seen as a
solution to the group’s problems, and other ethnic groups are perceived as
obstacles to peace and development. Many scholars argue for separation
as a solution to ethnic conflict. For example in his article, “Possible and
Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Wars,” Chaim Kaufman argues that,
“Restoring civil politics in multi-ethnic states shattered by war is impossible

555
556 BOJANA BLAGOJEVIC

because the war itself destroys the possibilities of ethnic cooperation.” Based
on this assumption, he proposes that, “Stable resolutions to ethnic civil wars
are possible, but only when the opposing groups are demographically
separated into defensible enclaves.” Indeed, if the belligerent ethnic
groups were completely separated, the hostility and intolerance among
them would be irrelevant. The groups would enjoy complete independence
and control over their rights and access to resources. Such separation
would make it more difficult for one ethnic group to blame the “others”
for their economic, political, or social problems.
Although it sounds good in theory, realistically, complete separation
and independence among ethnic groups is difficult to achieve in many situ-
ations due to the geographical or demographic set up of societies. Separation
could work if all groups in conflict see it as a solution. If any of the groups
see separation as an infringement on their rights and ability to access
resources necessary for human development, the conflict and fighting will
continue. Furthermore, a lack of direct contact and relationship with “the
others” can further deepen dehumanization and fear of the “others.”
Kaufman’s argument stems from the anti-contact theory, which claims that
familiarity breeds contempt. Contact theory, on the other hand, claims that
familiarity breeds content. The assumption in contact theory is that an occur-
rence of ethnic animosities and ethnic intolerance does not destroy the possi-
bility of inter-ethnic cooperation. The conflict potential of ethnicity has been
attributed to all human beings and societies, and most ethnic groups coexist
peacefully most of the time.
If we cannot completely separate the groups, the next best solution is to
work on the transformation of hostile relationships into more positive and
constructive ones. This is not about forcing the groups to like each other.
It is about choosing cooperation—the least destructive option for the
benefit of all. In the process, forgiveness and true tolerance may or may
not manifest as well. Although the ethnic violence in countries such as
Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka appear to testify to an immeasurable and
incurable hatred among ethnic groups, the fact that these communities did
coexist peacefully in the past and that there are some examples of inter-
group reconciliation suggest that ethnic relationships are transformable.
Positive and constructive interaction among different groups reduces
ethnic animosities, while ensuring equal access to rights and resources
further transforms and reconciles inter-group relationships.
According to Alexander Nikitin, social, ethnic, national, or cultural
entities that are organized in two separate systems (for example, nation-
state) are more likely to take their conflicts and controversies to the level
of armed hostilities because “there is not a strong and clear arbitrary force
to mediate in disputes.” On the other hand, if groups are organized in a
“mixed” system such as a federative state (such as post-conflict Bosnia),
PEACEBUILDING IN ETHNICALLY DIVIDED SOCIETIES 557

“contradictions and conflicts will be tackled through means of the internal

regulation of a state, culture or socium.” In ethnically divided societies
where claims to one’s homeland are seen as core issues of the conflict,
dividing the territory into sovereign states reinforces resentment and a
sense of victimization. A territorial arrangement such as the one in Bosnia is
a compromise that gives the groups some level of independence and at the
same time allows them to develop and use mechanisms that mitigate conflict.

L et’s consider the example of the Israeli security project of building a wall
between Israel and Palestine. As noted in the Shalam.org online news-
letter, Just Like You—“the wall is neither the cause of this conflict nor the
answer for peace. It is a wall of separation, and as such, it will directly
impact the nature of the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis.”
Although the wall may achieve more security for the Israeli people, for
Palestinians it increases a sense of unfairness and victimization. For them,
“The wall is yet another manifestation of Israel’s occupation of their terri-
tories and lives.” Because, in this case, the human development of one group
depends on the other, the separation further solidifies the causes and conse-
quences of conflict. In this context, the wall is a temporary cure for the
symptoms of the problem but it does not address the root causes. This means
that, “Hatred contained within walls would find its way out sooner or later.”
Liberal institutionalism is a popular approach to contemporary peace-
building. According to the liberal argument, liberal economics and demo-
cratic political institutions can mitigate ethnic and sectarian conflict. The
argument is that establishment of a free market economy and democratic
institutions shift the focus of legal and political protection to the individual
rather than ethnic groups. According to Crawford, “if ethnic and religious
conflicts do exist, they can be peacefully resolved if the organizing principles
of the political system elevate tolerance and national unity above ethnic and
religious domination and privilege.” One of the problems is that not all
democracies are liberal. As Crawford points out, some “illiberal” democra-
cies “pay only lip service to the rule of law, minority and citizen rights, and
independent judicial review.” Applying the liberal approach to post-conflict
ethnically divided societies, without regard for the problem of ethnic animos-
ities and ethnic intolerance, can reinforce rather than address the problem.
In the context of ethnically divided societies, the condition of ethno-
nationalism and the presence of ethnic intolerance can prevent true
democracy from taking form. Therefore, while application of the liberal
approach at the economic and political level is valuable and necessary in
post-conflict development, another dimension should be emphasized in the
development processes of ethnically divided societies: reconciliation. As
argued in a policy summary of the International Institute for Democracy
and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), “While democratic compromise produces
558 BOJANA BLAGOJEVIC

solutions regarding issues in conflict, reconciliation addresses the relationships

between those who will have to implement the solutions.” Therefore, trans-
formation of relationships should be at the core of the liberal development
efforts. As John Paul Lederach argues, “reconciliation is . . . instrumental in
reframing the conflict and the energies driving the conflict.” According to
him, the essence of reconciliation is that:

Its primary goal and key contribution is to seek innovative ways to create time and a
place, within various levels of the affected population, to address, integrate, and
embrace the painful past and the necessary shared future as a means of dealing
with the present.

Integrating reconciliation into the political, economic, and other dimen-

sions of peacebuilding might help address, more comprehensively, the
causes and consequences of ethnic conflict. This is done by involving the
former belligerents to work together and ensure that they benefit equally
from the post-conflict development policies and practices. In the post-
conflict development period, ethnic intolerance manifests itself at all levels
of the society, prevents “liberal” democracy to take place, and hampers
human development. As argued by the International Institute for
Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA),

An effective post-conflict democracy is built on a dual foundation: a set of fair struc-

tures and procedures for peacefully handling the issues that divide a society, and a
set of working relationships between the groups involved. A society will not
develop those working relationships if the structures are not fair and, conversely,
the structures will not function properly, however fair and just they are, if there
is not minimal cooperation in the interrelationships between its citizens.

T he “Peacebuilding through Reconciliation” approach is based on the

principles of equality, non-discrimination and communal functionalism.
The main premise of the approach is that interdependent ethnic groups are
better off learning to coexist than being separated from one another after a
violent conflict, unless a complete separation is possible and it resolves the
core causes of conflict. For the entire society to be effective, its constituent
groups must not be excluded from or thwarted in their participation in the
political, economic, cultural and other processes through which society
achieves human development. Therefore, all the parts of the “machine” must
work together. As Rusmir Mahmutćehajić argues in The Denial of Bosnia:

Social efficiency, as defined by the rational principle of the greatest utility, is based
on the human capacity for association, and its development in accordance with set
PEACEBUILDING IN ETHNICALLY DIVIDED SOCIETIES 559

goals, depends . . . on the capacity to recognize, within a culture, reasons to put

one’s trust in others who are part of the same community or society.

To achieve the trust, groups must transform their relationships, not only
through dialogue and inter-ethnic exchange, but also through practical steps
toward common goals.
The central question to be asked when assessing whether or not a
peacebuilding approach addresses the problem of ethnic intolerance is
whether the approach in question deconstructs or reinforces social categories
of inclusion and exclusion—ethnic intolerance. The Reconciliation approach
addresses both ethnic animosities and the problem of ethnic intolerance by
integrating transformation of relationships into each level of peacebuilding.
The dimensions of this approach can be identified as: social, economic,
political, and physical transformations. An example of social and cultural
transformation would be reconciliation through interethnic dialogue/
exchange. This encompasses various instances of interethnic sharing that
helps provide accurate information to ethnic groups and counteracts ethnic
dehumanization. When integrated into the economic dimension of peace-
building, reconciliation means that the new economic measures allow for
more equal opportunity and access to societal resources for all ethnic
groups. Economic relationships are transformed for the benefit of all. The
same logic applies to political transformation and institution-building. If,
for example, part of the political transformation is removing political entre-
preneurs from power, it is important not to replace them with another set of
ethno-nationalists that will support practices of ethnic intolerance. An
example of reconciliation through physical reconstruction/transformation
would be rebuilding a bridge that benefits everyone rather than just one
ethnic group in the society.
Peacebuilding through reconciliation projects can be undertaken by a
variety of actors—local, national, international, at all levels of the society.
What follows are some examples of peacebuilding through reconciliation
efforts undertaken by various actors in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Iraq.
The Human Rights Office in Tuzla, Bosnia, a local grassroots organiz-
ation, organized a series of ten meetings between internally displaced Serb
women of Srebrenica and internally displaced Muslim women of Tuzla.
They applied the peacebuilding through reconciliation approach in the
form of an interethnic dialogue. Women from both ethnic groups met to
discuss their wish to return to their hometowns, where they would now be
minorities. According to Steven Sampson, “The conversations did not
simply lay out the groundwork for the much-touted ‘civil society’—they
constituted the civil society itself.” In this example, reconciliation through
inter-ethnic exchange centered on working together for a specific common
560 BOJANA BLAGOJEVIC

good—the right to return to one’s home. Working together, organizing

around a human development issue provides a space to build trust and
engage in a dialogue that can lead to healing and transformation of relation-
ships. According to Sampson, “Whether or not their [the women’s] dialogues
represent genuine truth-telling is beside the point. The women became
listeners, not just about their own particular victimization, but also about
other aspects of their lives.”

T he Peace Radio in Rwanda is an example of peacebuilding through

media for the purpose of social transformation. During the 1994
genocide, the Rwandan government used hate-radio as a tool for creating
ethnic intolerance. To counter this, the USAID funded a “peace radio”
project whose purpose was to inform the population about the progression
of the outbreak of violence, humanitarian assistance, and the proceedings
of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). According to
USAID’s Democracy Dialogue, “Peace radio efforts provided consistent
coverage, boosting citizen confidence and contributing to the path toward
reconciliation.”
The Community Gardening Project in Bosnia was established in early
2000 by the American Friends Service Committee. Its aim was to provide a
safe and supportive space where people from different ethnic groups could
work together to grow food for themselves and their families. Thus, the
project both brings people together and provides a space for inter-ethnic
exchange in the context of organizing around a specific economic benefit.
The project started with one garden in Sarajevo and later grew to
include eight community gardens throughout the country. In 2002, there
were 419 participants and the total annual income was $40,000 (USD). In
2003, there were 962 participants and the total income for 2003 was
projected to rise to $80,000 (USD). Based on the work and experience
through the project, a “how-to-book” for community gardeners was
published and dedicated to “all people who strive to overcome community
divisions.”
The National Reconciliation Plan proposed by the Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki represents integration of reconciliation principles on the
political level. The purpose of the plan is to end the Sunni insurgency and
sectarian killings, which stand in the way of any reconstruction efforts.
The plan includes twenty-four guiding principles and policies including: dis-
cussing with the multinational troops mechanisms to stop human rights vio-
lations during military operations, removing all obstacles that hinder the
political and social participation of any Iraqi citizen or group that did not
commit any crimes, pardoning the detainees who were not involved in
terrorist crimes, and compensating the victims of terrorist actions. Sunni
leader and parliamentary speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani noted that the
PEACEBUILDING IN ETHNICALLY DIVIDED SOCIETIES 561

proposed plan represents a useful effort to bring opposing groups together to

rebuild Iraq.
Initiatives such as these are far from predominant in the overall, main-
stream development strategies. In order to have a significant impact on the
increase of human development in post-conflict, ethnically divided
societies, peacebuilding through reconciliation efforts would need to be
expanded and multiplied. Although the majority of the post-conflict develop-
ment approaches focus on reconstructing or aiding the government, the most
hopeful examples of peacebuilding through reconciliation come not from the
“center,” but from the “periphery” of the societies. In the words of Monica
Llamazares and David Crosier, “the belief that the central government is
the primary initiator of reform and development is rarely backed by histori-
cal analysis.” Rather, “Change is more likely to be driven from the
periphery—from innovative practice in local communities, non/governmen-
tal organizations and other grassroots initiatives.” Post-conflict, ethnically
divided societies, particularly those who were previously under a communist
or colonial rule, may tend to become dependent on international community’s
assistance in peacebuilding. That is why the role of the international actors
should be to help create change that is sustainable at the local level.
Peacebuilding through reconciliation may seem like an idealistic
approach to post-conflict development. In effect, however, it is a realist
approach; it is about creating alliances for the benefit of the common
good—a collection of individual and group self-interests. It is about
appealing to individual and group rationality to overcome destructive
emotions for the sake of development. Conceptually, peacebuilding
through reconciliation provides a theoretical blueprint for strategies in
post-conflict development, based on the principles of equality and non-dis-
crimination. In practice, various contexts provide various opportunities for
the optimal application of the approach.

RECOMMENDED READINGS
American Friends Service Committee. “Community Gardening Project” ,http://www.afsc.org/europe/
bosnia/.. (Accessed October 26, 2007)
Boutros-Boutros, Ghali. 1992. “An Agenda for Peace.” Report of the Secretary General.
Crawford, Beverly & Ronnie D. Lipschutz (eds.). 1999. “The Myth of Ethnic Conflict: Politics,
Economics and ‘Cultural Violence’.” International and Area Studies Research. 98.
Fearon, James D. & David D. Laitin. 1996. “Explaining Interethnic Cooperation.” The American Political
Science Review (December): 90.4.
Insight on Conflict. Database of peacebuilding initiatives in conflict areas. ,http://www.insightonconflict.
org.. (Accessed October 26, 2007).
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA.) ,http://www.idea.int.. (Accessed October
26, 2007).
Jurist: Legal News and Research. “Iraq Reconciliation Plan Offers Amnesty, Bans Rights Violations and
Torture.” (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/iraq-reconciliation-plan-offers.php). Last
accessed June 26, 2006.
562 BOJANA BLAGOJEVIC

Kaufman, Chaim. 1996. “Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Wars.” International Security
(Fall): 21.2.
Lederach, John Paul. 1997. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington,
DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Llamazares, Monica & David Crosier. 1999. “The Myth of Civil Society: Approaches to Societal
Reconstruction in Southern Europe.” Higher Education in Europe. (December) 24.4.
Mahmutćehajić, Rusmir. 2000. The Denial of Bosnia. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University
Press.
Nikitin, Alexander. 2000. “Political and Economic Causes of War” (Working Paper). 50th Pugwash
Conference on Science and World Affairs. Queens College, Cambridge, UK.
Sampson, Steven. 2003. “From Reconciliation to Coexistence.” Public Culture. (Winter) 15.1.
Shalam.org. ,http://www.shalam.org/defaultjly.htm. (Accessed October 26, 2007).
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2001. “Democracy Dialogue.” Technical
Notes From USAID Office of Democracy and Governance.

Bojana Blagojevic teaches Political Science and Global Studies courses at the Department of Continuous
Education and Outreach at Rutgers University in New Jersey. She has a doctoral degree in Global Affairs,
with a specialization in ethnic conflict. The author thanks Michelle Arnone for her assistance with prep-
aration of this article. E-mail: bojana@rci.rutgers.edu