Different post-conflict countries have fared differently in establishing or rebuilding functioning state institutions. Figure 5.2 shows the evolution of the governance situation from 1996 to 2006 for four post-conflict countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Guatemala, Mozambique and Sierra Leone has made significant progress in all three governance indicators (i.e. ‘voice and accountability’, ‘government effectiveness’ and ‘regulatory quality’) since the end of civil war in 1995. Sierra Leone has also done particularly well with regard to improving ‘voice and accountability’ since its civil war ended in 2001. In contrast, Guatemala and Mozambique have made much less progress. In both countries, governance performance has remained more or less the same (and sometimes has slightly worsened) since their civil wars ended in 1995 and 1992, respectively. The importance of the rule of law The rule of law is associated with basic justice, which is at the core of international peacebuilding efforts. As the UN Secretary-General affirmed in his 2004 Report on the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict States: [The rule of law is] a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.15 The rule of law has invariably failed when countries enter conflict and remains precarious for a long time after conflict ends. Figure 5.3 shows the state of the rule of law in some post-conflict countries several years after the cessation of hostilities. Without rule of law, citizen and community security are likely to remain uncertain. Lowering the levels of economic criminality requires the capacity to prosecute economic predators. Improved security is required for people to re-engage in their livelihoods and is an important enabler of private sector return. Rule of law is also the proper context in which to establish the appropriate framework to protect investments, enforce property rights and resolve property and commercial disputes. Many post-conflict authorities, with some help from external partners, are placing considerable emphasis on efforts to establish the rule of law. In some cases, as a prerequisite to the disbursement of funds, donors are demanding that national governments agree to direct international engagement in the rule of law in a way that may compromise aspects of state sovereignty. For example, the Governance and Economic Management Assistance Program (GEMAP) concluded in 2005 between the (then) Transitional National Government of Liberia and international donors (the International Contact Group for Liberia) requires international participation in such judicial functions as the Anti-Corruption Commission.16 More and more, external partners, sometimes including multilateral agencies, are getting involved in judicial projects, commercial legislation and even legislative reform. It has indeed been observed that “IFIs have started to take a position on what laws are good laws rather than simply advocating the consistent promulgation and enforcement of laws irrespective of their content”.17 It is generally accepted that the role of external partners should at best be advisory and should be based on member state consent. In post-conflict societies, however, the poor state of its systems and the absence of high-level functionaries to negotiate with external partners often makes the role of partners more directive than is desired.18
150
Post-Conflict Economic Recovery: Enabling Local Ingenuity