How is post-conflict reintegration in Liberia affected by gender bias? How can such bias be overcome? This article argues that underlying the Liberian DDR process are gendered assumptions, such as that the idleness of male ex-combatants is a security threat, and that men’s reintegration is more important than that of women. Reintegration programming has privileged male access to the formal economy, overlooking the high percentage of female ex-combatants, the shortage of formal employment, and the importance of the informal economy (particularly to women). Contested perceptions of women’s roles and capabilities in war and peace must not be perpetuated.
Donors tend to perceive idleness as equating to instability among ex-combatants. Men’s reintegration is perceived as more critical than women’s, owing to the assumption that organised violence will re-occur if men are left idle. Male idleness is ‘securitised’. It is perceived and presented as a security threat, although there is no evidence for this assumption in Liberia. Studies show no differences in levels of threat posed by reintegration participants, demobilised ex-combatants who have not participated in reintegration, and non-participants.
In contrast, women are rarely presumed to be idle in post-conflict situations. They are viewed as the main caregivers in families disrupted by war, as well as working outside the home. Making men the problem and women the victims has entrenched gender bias by giving men privileged access to the formal economy. This has occurred alongside the growth of a temporary economy servicing international peacekeepers, NGOs, and the UN system that is highly gendered in its demand for women’s work. This peacekeeping economy also reinforces the notion of women as passive victims, especially in relation to the sex trade.
The conceptual ‘securitisation’ and gender bias underlying Liberia’s reintegration programme has largely ignored the fact that a high percentage of women reported themselves as former frontline combatants. Officially, women can only be ‘associated with’ rather than members ‘of’ fighting forces. The reintegration programme also:
- Missed the crucial importance of the informal economy to women’s lives. The primary means by which women can gain financial autonomy is through small-scale trading.
- Resulted in a mismatch between the provision of training and the availability of jobs. Thousands of ex-combatants received training for employment in the context of a severe shortage of jobs. This has meant minimal change in most ex-combatants’ social and economic situations, frustrating expectations and potentially feeding dissatisfaction.
- Not taken proper account of the overlap between female ex-combatants and prostitution, or the wider instability threat this poses.
The ability of any peace operation to impose or substantially impact gender relations and equality in a post-conflict society is limited. There is a gap between the rhetorical aim of reintegration, which is transformational in helping ex-combatants become useful members of society, and the ‘real’ aim – to distract them from a potential return to violence. Reintegration is proclaimed as urgent yet its implementation is lackadaisical. The United Nations should make every effort to avoid perpetuating contested perceptions of women’s roles and capabilities in war and peace. Specifically:
- There is a need for critical gender awareness in designing and implementing DDR programmes. DDR must go beyond diluting programme entry requirements for women or adding women-specific training programmes.
- DDR programmes biased towards men do not only deny women the ex-combatant benefits received by men, but also signal to the host society how women should be treated.
- There should be more focus on the role of the informal economy. Women’s economic opportunities are restricted by reintegration that focuses solely on creating employment for men in the formal economy.
