Comparative Politics

B12(a) - Political Violence and Its Aftermath

Date: May 31 | Time: 02:00pm to 03:30pm | Location: Classroom - CL 417 Room ID:15723

Chair/Président/Présidente : Kate Korycki (University of Toronto)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Sanjay Jeram (Simon Fraser University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Kate Korycki (University of Toronto)

Reconciliation in Bosnia? What Ethnicizing Policies Mean for a New Generation of Bosnians: Maria Krause (Queen's University)
Abstract: Reconciling a society following extreme interethnic violence is a complex, multi-leveled and lengthy process. This violence is intimate in nature, occurring between neighbours, friends and family members. As such, it erodes the trust, norms and values that are foundational to societal cooperation and collective action (Colletta & Cullen, 2000). With violence perpetrated along ethnic lines, domestic and international elites often attempt to reconcile former enemies by regulating interethnic relations through state-level policies. Yet, while scholars continue to debate the success of these policies, they greatly overlook policy impact on local-level reconciliation amongst ordinary citizens. This local-level analysis is key because state-level policies are institutionalized and re-framed in local-level settings in ways that may undermine or transform their initial intention. To illustrate the need for, and contributions of, a local-level assessment, this paper explores the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia’s government, supported by the international community, has attempted to promote interethnic peace by entrenching ethnicity at the macro-level (i.e. federal power-sharing arrangements) down to the micro-level (i.e. ethnically split school programs). Drawing upon five months of in-depth fieldwork in two Bosnian cities, my paper asks: (1) what state-sponsored regulatory policies have been implemented; (2) how are they being framed and institutionalized at the local-level, and (3) how are they affecting reconciliation between young, ordinary Bosnians? By asking these questions, my paper contributes valuable insight into how state policy can promote or hinder peaceful change in deeply divided societies and how these policies are shaping future generations of Bosnians.

Displacement Atrocities and Climate Refugees: Exploring Future Structural Opportunities for Mass Political Violence Against the Displaced: Andrew R. Basso (University of Calgary)
Abstract: The current record-number of displaced persons at 65.6 million is already overwhelming international responders and the number of displaced persons is only projected to rise in the coming decades. Displacement from political violence and development projects has contributed heavily to this staggering figure which currently makes approximately 1 in every 116 individuals in the world a displaced person. Displacement has quickly become the defining crisis of the young 21st Century. This displacement crisis will likely worsen due to the threats of climate change against human security and human rights. A conservative projection estimates 200 million climate refugees over the next 50 years though other estimates range significantly higher. Given this unsettling scenario, the structural opportunities for political violence against climate refugees must be examined in order to understand how displacement as a process may be weaponized against vulnerable populations to destroy them in whole or in part. Specifically, the risks for Displacement Atrocity crimes – the process of forcibly displacing populations and depriving them of vital daily needs (i.e., food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care) to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes – must be considered in order to construct prevention, intervention, and punishment regimes for future possible flagrant violations of human rights. Drawing on knowledge of previous Displacement Atrocity crimes in history, the displacement of populations along long linear displacement routes or into large bodies of uninhabited lands will be considered as violent political geographies which may be weaponized against future climate refugees.

Classifying Truth Commissions: Tammy Lambert (Western University)
Abstract: Truth commissions are one tool available to states and societies grappling with the complex process of addressing the past wrongs and attempting to provide justice for those victimized, harmed, or neglected by past political orders. Political uncertainty generally colours the context in which truth commissions are created. Yet, the type of political uncertainty influencing and constraining truth commission processes often differs from case to case. While the literature recognizes that context influences truth commission processes and the evaluation of truth commissions, the ‘truth commission’ is often presented as a singular type of transitional justice mechanism. This paper argues that it is necessary to distinguish between variations in truth commission processes to better capture the diversity in how these processes take shape in reality. A typology is presented to classify truth commissions. The paper makes a case for distinguishing between truth commissions based on: (1) the type of violence or harm that the truth commission has been convoked to address and, (2) the influence that political elites who were involved in perpetrating conflict, harm, or oppression continue to exert on the transitional political environment. By identifying varieties of truth commissions, clearer distinctions can be made regarding how truth commissions can be expected to operate in particular conditions.

Decolonization, the Cold War, and Transnational Terrorism: Motivations and Justifications for Genocide Since 1945: Maureen Hiebert (University of Calgary)
Abstract: This paper asks, what are the justifications and motivations for genocide since 1945? I argue that genocides in the modern era, regardless of time period, are not driven by elite perpetrators’ attempts to use genocide instrumentally to realize other policy goals as some scholars suggest. Instead, I contend that genocidal elites inhabit an altered moral and strategic universe in which genocide is justified as both morally right and a rational policy that will ensure the continued survival of the perpetrator society. Genocides are thus motivated by the need to destroy victim groups whom elite perpetrators construct as existential threats requiring extermination and the desire to create and preserve exclusionary political communities. While there is no strict division between pre and post-1945 genocides in terms of these foundational motivations and justifications, the difference between genocide prior to and after the Second World War can be attributed to the ways in which three key exclusionary identities - race, nation, and class – have been reinterpreted through the lens of three distinct but interrelated post-war global dynamics: decolonization, the Cold War and the collapse of communism, and transnational terrorism.