Lisa Strömbom and Gustav Agneman study the reintegration of former combatants in Colombia. Their research highlights the challenges of delivering apologies and achieving sustained peace in post-conflict contexts. Here, the authors reveal how people from different sides of Colombia's peace agreement divide react to public apologies. In so doing, they highlight the challenge of achieving lasting peace
In recent years, major conflicts around the world have escalated, from Sudan and Israel-Palestine to the Russo-Ukrainian war. Given the tragedy of these conflicts and their seemingly unresolvable logics, it is easy to forget that conflicts always end at some point. Yet, when they do, societies must confront the inevitable question: what now? Peace processes are invariably fraught with problems. Indeed, over 45% of countries which sign a peace deal return to a state of conflict soon after. Ending war is challenging, but sustaining peace is even more difficult.
A case in point of fragile peace is Colombia. This country lived through the longest civil war in modern history, from the early 1960s to the signing of a peace agreement in 2016. During conflict between Colombian Armed Forces and FARC, hundreds of thousands of Colombians were killed, and millions displaced.
Ending war is challenging, but sustaining peace is even more difficult
In 2016, Colombians went to the polls to vote on a proposed peace agreement. The referendum split the population into two equally sized camps: those who supported the agreement and those who opposed it. The no-campaign won by the slimmest of margins, resulting in an initial failure to ratify the peace agreement. Later that year, congress managed to pass a revised peace agreement. But the referendum had revealed a deep societal divide, which has continued to influence public life in the war's aftermath. Our research explores factors that may have contributed to this rift in Colombian society.
Our Journal of Peace Research article, written with Angelika Rettberg, investigates the efficiency of a commonly used transitional justice mechanism: public apologies offered by former armed actors. Actors typically issue public apologies to heal rifts in societies that have experienced war. The rationale is that they should 'undo' collective psychological trauma, build trust between former adversaries and, ultimately, facilitate the reintegration of former soldiers into society. As part of Colombia's postwar peace process, both the government and former guerrilla groups issued such apologies.
As part of Colombia's postwar peace process, both the government and former guerilla groups issued public apologies
But do apologies deliver what they promise? To find out, we collected data on so-called 'reintegration attitudes' – attitudes that signal ordinary people's willingness to reconcile with ex-combatants – in Colombia's formerly war-torn region of Meta. Before questioning participants, we assigned a random subset to watch a video. In the film, former FARC leader Timoleón Jiménez, or 'Timochenko' apologises for FARC's role in the conflict, and pleads forgiveness for its crimes committed in the Meta region.
Were those who watched the video more positively inclined to reintegrate with FARC? On average, we did not see a positive effect from exposure to the video. Yet, when we disaggregated the analysis and subjected participants who favoured the peace agreement and those who opposed it to separate analysis, we found an intriguing pattern: those who favoured the agreement reacted positively to the apology. Those who opposed it, on the other hand, reacted negatively. On average, the effects hence cancelled each other out. This pattern suggests that the strong division in public perceptions of the peace agreement could, at least partly, be the result of differing inclinations to accept armed-group apologies.
Our complementary Journal of Conflict Resolution study reverses the question, asking: who is offered forgiveness? The investigation builds on the same survey project, but uses data from a conjoint experiment in which participants cast votes on fictional candidates with randomly composed personal profiles. We focus on whether candidates had previously been members of armed groups, and their ethnicity.
Historically, Colombia has struggled to reintegrate former armed groups. The country has also experienced strong segregation along ethnic lines. We therefore hypothesised that participants would be less willing to support candidates who had either been members of armed groups, and/or who had Afro-Colombian ethnicity.
The results of our survey revealed that if a candidate had been part of an armed group, their vote share declined by about 16%. If they were Afro-Colombian (as opposed to Caucasian), their vote shares were about 6% lower. We did not, however, find evidence of a pre-supposed Afro-Colombian penalty for having associated with armed groups in the past. Instead, the experiment revealed that candidates of Afro-Colombian and Caucasian descent were punished equally for their links to armed groups. The additive nature of voter biases, however, still means that the least-favoured candidates were Afro-Colombians previously associated with armed groups.
Our experiment revealed that candidates of Afro-Colombian and Caucasian descent were punished equally for their links to armed groups
The extent of biases varies significantly within the Colombian population. On average, participants from minority groups are less likely to display discriminatory behaviour. Moreover, peace-agreement proponents are less likely to be biased against either racialised or armed-group candidates. This finding again highlights the attitude rift between Colombians who supported the peace agreement and those who opposed it.
Thus, when we consider people's relative willingness to grant forgiveness, it is clear how the peace agreement-divide continues to carry significant explanatory power.
Colombians lived through the longest civil war in modern history, and the post-agreement period has not been without volatility. Ascribing transitional justice measures for the transitory period from conflict to reconciliation is a delicate task, revealing how difficult it is to reintegrate former armed actors into society, and into politics.
Colombia is picking its way sensitively through a post-conflict political landscape. Our studies underscore the lingering impact of the peace-agreement divide on preferences for either apologies or forgiveness. It is imperative we understand these preferences, to foster reconciliation and to build a resilient foundation for a peaceful future.
