Professor Melani Cammett of Harvard University investigates how communities coexist after conflict by studying three post-conflict societies: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland.
Although there are significant differences between these societies, she chose them for her research because the violence in each case ended several decades ago and was followed by the establishment of consociational power-sharing systems. This allows her to examine life in these countries decades after violence formally ended.
Professor Cammett is the Clarence Dillon Professor for International Affairs in the Government Department and serves as the Director of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. In her work, she focuses on post-conflict identity politics, development, migration, and authoritarianism in the Middle East and other regions.
In July 2024, Professor Cammett visited the Srebrenica Memorial Center to participate in the commemorations marking the 29th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. In addition to paying tribute to the victims and attending the commemoration, she spoke at the international conference “Empowering through Remembrance: Upholding Generational Responsibility,” organized by the Srebrenica Memorial Center. She also gave a lecture to the participants of the Fifth Srebrenica Youth School organized by the Post-Conflict Research Center and the Srebrenica Memorial Center.
“There’s no substitute for talking to someone face to face about their experiences and hearing how it impacted them. I feel that everyone should come here,” said Cammett.
At the Srebrenica Youth School, Cammett presented her research on how communities live together after conflict. While many studies explore this issue, she believes they do not explain how societies naturally coexist after violence, instead primarily focusing on how to improve relations through interventions. Her unique research will be included in a book she is currently writing about life after violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland.
After researching and publishing extensively on Lebanon, Cammett began conducting parallel studies on Bosnia and Herzegovina and Northern Ireland. Since these are three different national contexts, her comparisons largely focus on the subnational level, which she views as a more defensible approach methodologically, although her work also aims to draw some larger lessons about these distinct national settings.
“The good thing about international comparisons is that you can see whether any of the insights you find in one place can be generalized to another context. I am also fascinated by the ways in which different macropolitical, macroeconomic, and regional contexts shape the way intergroup relations play out, because the international community relates to Lebanon differently than Bosnia, or Northern Ireland,” said Professor Cammett.
Connections Between Economic Challenges and Politics
When it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s path to EU accession, Professor Cammett notes the impact of international factors. “The way the international community pours money into peacebuilding initiatives definitely influences the way things unfold on the ground,” she observed.
A key focus of Professor Cammett’s research is the impact of power-sharing systems on coexistence after conflict. Her previous work has focused on the conditions under which such power-sharing systems emerge and persist in post-conflict societies.
“Power-sharing is somewhat of a recipe for institutional design in post-conflict places where there was no decisive victor. In those contexts, power-sharing is the recipe that comes along because that’s the only thing that gets everybody to the negotiating table. The problem is that once you establish these institutions, it is very difficult to dismantle them,” said Cammett.
She explained how virtually every power-sharing agreement is intended to be temporary and transitional. However, this is never the case, as vested powers don’t want to give up that power, which affords them a great deal of influence and control over the population.
“Even when they supposedly hate each other, they all agree on perpetuating the system,” Cammett explained, adding that this view is expressed by both Lebanese and Bosnian citizens.
She noted that systems of power distribution play a role in limiting the scope of reconciliation, which is exacerbated in societies beset by major economic challenges.
“There is definitely a socio-economic dimension to the way these systems function. They seem to be more dysfunctional in areas with limited resources, where factions can truly control economic resources. In more economically developed contexts, where the population or the poor are not dependent on political parties for basic needs, it is easier to see the transition from a power-sharing system or at least a shift from a situation where ethnic parties are dominant,” stated Professor Cammett.
She explained that in lower-income environments, “clientelism gets really wrapped up in power-sharing. One of the key ways dominant ethnic parties perpetuate their power is through patronage and clientelism.” She added that other non-material methods are also used to consolidate control, including fear: “Who will represent you? Who are your greatest protectors?”
Comparable Domestic Policies in Lebanon and Bosnia and Herzegovina
Professor Cammett believes that understanding the parallel trajectories of power-sharing systems in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Lebanon can provide insight into the comparable domestic political dynamics of these societies, including massive patronage and clientelism.
Two years ago, Professor Cammett gave a lecture on Lebanon at the University of Sarajevo. She noted that for many of the political dynamics she was describing, she felt she could have easily substituted “Bosnia and Herzegovina” for “Lebanon” in her lecture.
“What I documented in previous research in Lebanon is that if you don’t have money, you work through political actors to access basic services. Political connections play a significant role in accessing even things that are legal rights of citizenship in Lebanon. And obviously, similar things happen in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I know, for instance, that politicians and political parties mediate access to jobs. This gives them a lot of influence over citizens in ways that don’t occur in Northern Ireland, where residents can access the UK’s free National Health Service,” said Cammett.
However, during a recent lecture in Belfast, she observed higher levels of political influence in working-class areas of Northern Ireland.
“It’s not that former paramilitaries mediate access to everything, but they do help people with loans and similar matters,” Cammett explained.
In each of these three contexts, recent signs of anti-sectarian trends have been observed. Professor Cammett specifically mentions the 2016 and 2017 student protests against school segregation in the central Bosnian town of Jajce, growing support for “change MP’s” in Lebanon, and the increasing prominence of those identifying as neither Unionist nor Republican (so-called “neithers”) in Northern Ireland.
The importance of these trends for reconciliation, according to Cammett, lies in the emergence of anti-sectarian and anti-ethnic mobilization.
“For now, it looks like these movements are not very powerful, but this is how mobilization starts. It never works instantaneously. For example, 13 members of parliament were elected to the Lebanese parliament and are called ‘change MPs.’ Do they have much power? Are they driving significant change? No. But they managed to get elected, and that’s a start. The problem is that the anti-sectarian opposition is really fragmented and divided, and it’s probably not coincidental because it’s in the interest of the powers-that-be to ensure that they remain fragmented. But they exist, and they are mobilizing. In Northern Ireland, the ‘neithers’ are becoming a huge voting bloc. They’re really significant. When you have polls and popular surveys, a large number of people identify as neither Unionist nor Republican,” explained Professor Cammett.
She reminds us that, in these contexts, the challenges faced by such anti-sectarian movements are widespread and deeply rooted, raising questions about whether and how it is possible for societies to transition from constrained, consociational systems to more liberal power-sharing models. As Cammett emphasizes, those who benefit from the political system will fight fiercely to preserve it:
“Transitioning to a liberal consociational system is a political process, and it is not easy. It will be long-term, and the dismantling of power-sharing must come from grassroots mobilization, while the existing authorities will do everything they can to suppress that mobilization.”
Professor Cammett sees this as a long-term political struggle, and as long as many in these societies face dire economic circumstances, it will not be their main priority.
“Lebanese people are currently suffering greatly due to what the World Bank describes as the largest economic collapse in the last 150 years. So, how can someone trying to feed their family and provide their children with a decent life dedicate themselves to political activism? You can’t. There’s neither time nor space for it. And if you need help, you’ll turn to wherever you can get it. I think this creates an additional obstacle tied to the economic situation,” explained Cammett.
“Everyone Feels Like a Victim”
Professor Cammett’s broader research also examines consensus about past conflicts as a measure of post-conflict reconciliation. This year’s commemorative events took place in the context of increased genocide denial by the authorities of Republika Srpska, framed as a response to the adoption of a UN resolution in May that declared July 11 the International Day of Commemoration of the Srebrenica Genocide.
Reflecting on these events in relation to the current state of reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cammett notes that on a macro-level, the situation does not look promising, given that national leaders representing nearly half the country continue to deny the genocide and promote counter-factual narratives. However, on a subnational and individual level, she highlights significant variations in how these processes unfold.
“There is no way to move forward if there’s no recognition of the suffering experienced by the other side. And this becomes really complicated in asymmetric conflicts. It’s hard to ask people to acknowledge the suffering of others when they feel like victims. And that’s the problem, everyone feels like a victim, and maybe they are rightly victims. You know, I think it’s undeniable that the people here in this community [Srebrenica] survived all that brutality. And it’s senseless to deny that. So, the problem is that the side that denies this believes, whether rightly or wrongly, that it is under threat and is a victim. So, you have to break this before you can even talk about deeper coexistence or reconciliation,” Cammett stated.
Valuable Lessons from Former Adversaries
In all three post-conflict societies, there are significant efforts toward peacebuilding, with various actors working hard to establish dialogue with people from the “other” side. Professor Cammett provided an example of a panel discussion she moderated last year, featuring former soldiers and current peace activists from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Lebanon.
The panelists included a former member of the Army of Republika Srpska (Spasoje Kulaga, founder and president of the “True Fire” association), a former member of the Croatian Defence Council (Mirko Zečević-Tadić, president of the War Veterans Association of the 108th Brigade), and a former member of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Asim Parlić, peace activist from Zavodovići), along with a panelist from Lebanon (Assaad Chaftari, activist and vice president of Fighters for Peace, former senior intelligence officer of the Christian militia).
The professor explains that the panelists were intrigued by the opportunity to meet each other and eager to discuss the difficulties of peacebuilding, including shared experiences of isolation and marginalization—being rejected by your own community and labeled a traitor.
“I think there was a certain solidarity in being able to talk to each other and share experiences and comments,” the professor said. She noted that the comments from Serbian and Croatian veterans were about their decisions to take up arms, and that they “felt threatened and thought they were under attack.” However, if you say this to a Bosnian in Srebrenica, it might sound offensive.
“Everyone thought they were under attack,” the professor continued.
The panel participants discussed how far they had come and what enabled these realizations. Afterwards, they visited organizations, schools, and other venues to warn young people not to take up arms and illustrate the futility of war and aggression.
“I think these are very powerful voices. They don’t agree on everything, but I think it is a very valuable lesson,” Cammett added.
When asked how her research has shaped her understanding of how societies progress toward reconciliation after conflict, she responded that there is no definitive answer, but what she has observed is that it is more realistic to think in terms of cohabitation.
“I think reconciliation is a noble goal that we should all strive for, but it’s not something we should expect in the near future or perhaps even in our lifetimes,” Cammett concludes.
Professor Cammett’s participation in this year’s conferences provides valuable insights into the social, political, and economic barriers that hinder cohabitation or reconciliation in post-conflict societies. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland, the emergence of local anti-sectarian trends offers some hope that it is possible to weaken the divisions entrenched during conflict.
However, Professor Cammett’s research serves as a sobering reminder of the scale of the related challenges faced by these anti-sectarian actors. These obstacles make such movements even more vital, as they may represent the best hope for the emergence of societies that transcend “post-conflict.”
