Idea of Hybridity: Building Peace & Security in Aftermath of Civil War

HOW USEFUL IS THE IDEA OF HYBRIDITY FOR BUILDING PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF CIVIL WAR?
Student's Name
Course
Professor's Name
University
City (State)
Date
How Useful is the Idea of Hybridity for Building Peace and Security in the Aftermath of Civil War?
Introduction
Civil wars are the armed and hostile conflicts that mainly occur between the armed factions of a country's civilian population. Civil wars have been one of the most devastating forces for a government throughout the twentieth century, as approximately 187 million people have died as an outcome of these conflicts since 1900 (Nagdy and Roser, 2022). However, the most devastating aspect of a civil war is the ensuing anarchy, chaos, and economic and social downturns after the end of the conflict. The persistent political and economic stability after a civil war tends to lead to another civil war within a short span of time; therefore, formulation and implementation of policies are mandatory to accomplish lasting peace after a civil war. One of such strategies that became popular in the 1980s is the promotion of liberalization based on developing democratic norms in societies torn with civil conflicts. However, practical implementation of such peacebuilding strategies exposed the newly democratized governments to even more violent civil wars spells.
According to a scholar, the focus of international peacebuilding organizations is only on rectifying the working mechanism of a form of government is the primary cause of their failure. In this process, peacebuilding efforts often ignore the political, social, and ethical aspects of society that significantly contribute to sparking a conflict (Westendorf, 2016). Because of the failure of liberal peacebuilding initiatives to restore lasting peace in the aftermath of a civil war, scholars and political scientists have become more interested in the effectiveness of hybridity to accomplish this goal. Hybridity is a concept in social and political sciences that involves the unification of two social, political, or economic entities in society to accomplish a common goal. Many political scientists and scholars have verified that the involvement of international and grass-root level local communities leads to the emergence of composite and mutually dependent social norms and practices that ultimately lead to lasting peace in a society (Popplewell, 2019, p. 3).
One of the successful implementations of integrated working of international and local communities is the mutually beneficial association between the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese Armed Forces, leading to significant and lasting security sector reforms and guaranteed lasting peace (Newby, 2017, p. 1). Similarly, one research conducted on 46 civil wars that occurred between 1945 and 2005 to find out ways to accomplish lasting peace after the civil war also validates that international intervention to provide guarantees to belligerent parties also proves successful in imposing lasting peace by reducing fears of the local communities (Mattes and Savun, 2009, p. 738). Another scholar, Ronal Paris, also argues that establishing democratic institutions by the mutual partnership of international and local communities is mandatory before exposing these societies to democratic values and free markets (2004, p. 2). These scholarly propositions, supported by practical examples, conclude that implementing a hybrid approach involving trustworthy interaction between international and local communities is the sole guarantor of lasting peace and stability after the civil war. The following sections of this paper will examine, analyze, and substantiate this fact.
Hybridity and Social Conflicts: A Detailed Analysis of the Term
As discussed above, in the realms of social and political science, the term hybridity refers to mutually beneficial cooperation between international peace missions and the local stakeholders in the context of civil war. Although it involves international organizations, this mixed interaction mainly relies on implementing indigenous and traditional practices to establish lasting peace in a region (Ginty, 2010, p. 391). In another scholar's words, hybridity refers to "the creation of new transcultural forms within the contact zone produced by colonization." Hybridity is a social concept that operates at several levels, including cultural aspects, political ideologies, and racial identities (MAMBROL, 2016).
Modern Conception of Hybridity
In recent political history, the use of the concept of hybridity to resolve social conflict is attributed to Homi K. Bhaba, who, while working on the relationship between colonists and colonizers, proposed the idea of a "third space of enunciation." According to him, under the governance of colonizers, different cultural identities and norms interact with each other, and this amalgamation gives rise to an ambivalent space where a third cultural identity develops (MAMBROL, 2016). In the view of other scholars, including Oliver Richmond and Roger Mac Ginty, hybridity is an essential social evolutionary process, and it involves the appearance of a more advanced culture based on more pluralistic norms and a peaceful environment due to a healthy interaction between external and local social forces (Popplewell, 2019, p. 3).
Descriptive Hybridity
In the studies of social and political sciences, the concept of hybridity is further divided into two categories: descriptive hybridity and prescriptive hybridity. In this regard, the concept of "descriptive hybridity" is a more acceptable term for the scholars of political sciences as this involves a spontaneous, positive, and healthy interaction between external or foreign intervening forces and the local conflict groups at multiple levels, including institutions, rituals, and social concepts and beliefs (Popplewell, 2019, p. 3). This concept of hybridity is more natural and realistic than in the real world; hybridization practices at social, cultural, and political levels are subject to change and cannot be regulated.
Prescriptive Hybridity
This category of social hybridization is based on the conception that hybridity between external and internal forces can be accomplished through premeditated plans and actions to stabilize a region and dispel the conflict. However, this aspect of hybridity has been criticized by social scientists as hybrid outcomes cannot be designed in the practical world (Popplewell, 2019, p. 3). Therefore, any planned and systematic amalgamation of external and internal stakeholders can never produce durable peace and stability.
Criticism on the Social Concept of Hybridity
After analyzing the prevalent concept of hybridity, several scholars have criticized some of its basic tenets and suggested restructuring this concept based on new dimensions. For instance, one scholar argues that local stakeholders always dominate the discussion or implementation of hybridity; however, whatever is deemed local is actually a product of continuous remodeling and inspiration from the global or external. Thus, he argues, it becomes tough to distinguish locals and foreign factors as two separate identities as the proponents of hybridity tend to overlook the hybridization process prior to the conflict (Popplewell, 2019, p. 3). Therefore, this criticism over hybridity introduces a new dimension to the concept that takes into account the decades-long process of hybridization prior to the conflicts such as civil war; likewise, this criticism argues that the implementation of hybridity to resolve social conflicts should be also incorporate the process of hybridization that occurred during the colonial and post-colonial periods.
In this regard, scholars like Nadarajah and Rampton argue that although hybridity does empirically exist and bring about significant social changes to ensure lasting peace and stability, this process takes place at multiple levels throughout the history of the relationship between colonial powers and natives (2015, p. 57). Thus, this criticism further endorses the fact that despite hybridity being a valuable process for peaceful building, it should be implemented and viewed in a much broader historical and cultural background. Another scholar also exposes an often-overlooked aspect of hybridity based on its relationship with racism. He argues that consistent use of the term hybridity may entail a racial connotation that is associated with it in the past (MAMBROL, 2016). Therefore, while implementing hybridity for peace, one should not overlook this possibility and alter the policies accordingly.
The criticism made over the concept of hybridity does not reject its validity and effectiveness in stabilizing a war-torn region with enduring peace and stability. Such criticism aims to introduce new and often neglected aspects of hybridity to avoid its failure and accrue its maximum benefits. Thus, despite criticism, scholars generally agree on the empirical existence and practical effectiveness of the concept of hybridity in bringing about peace and stability. This aspect of such criticism strengthens the central argument of this paper.
Is Hybridity Effective in Producing Lasting Peace?
According to studies conducted on global civil wars that occurred since 1990, on account of global peace efforts undertaken by foreign powers in conflict areas, the scale of civil war has declined substantially across the globe. However, the same report also highlights that since 2013 civil wars have been on the rise again, especially in those areas which had attained peace after previous wars (Fiedler et al., 2016, p.2). This trend substantiates the claim discussed earlier in the paper that liberalization and peacebuilding efforts aiming at fixing technical and systematic glitches in the system often lead to the reemergence of a civil conflict in a new and more deadly form. Therefore, in this context, it is necessary that the pros and cons of the implementation of hybridity to resolve civilian conflicts be analyzed to reach a sound conclusion. An unstable society's various social, cultural, and economic aspects make hybridity an ultimate choice for durable peace and stability. Some of them are discussed under the following headings:
Provision of Sound Security
Without providing reliable security against the threat from different actors, the belligerent parties cannot acknowledge a truce. So, one of the most critical responsibilities of foreign intervention is to maintain and guarantee the security of the conflicting parties; mainly, international powers use inst...