Why were child soldiers such a prominent feature of the violence in Sierra
Leone and to what extent have efforts to rehabilitate them been successful?
Abstract
This essay explores the issues surrounding the prominence of child soldiers in
the violence in Sierra Leone and the extent that efforts to rehabilitate them
have been successful. It will be argued that neopatrimonialism as explored by
Cooper (2002) and Berman (1998), and Galtung’s (1969) theory of structural
violence intricately intertwine to provide a platform for why child soldiers
became such a prominent feature of the violence in Sierra Leone.
Initially, one could conclude that the rehabilitation of child soldiers is
somewhat of a success, however, through Galtung’s (1969) analogy of
‘Tranquil Waters,’ it can be identified that the persistence of these two
concepts has evidently continued into post-conflict Sierra Leone, which has
consequently limited the efforts to rehabilitate child soldiers.
Keywords
Child soldiers, Sierra Leone, neopatrimonialism, Structural Violence,
Rehabilitation.
1
Cooper (2002), Berman (1998) and Bayart (2009) all provide insightful
arguments to support the theory of neopatrimonialism. It will be argued that
neopatrimonialism and Galtung’s (1969) theory of structural violence
intricately intertwine to provide a platform for why child soldiers became such
a prominent feature of the violence in Sierra Leone. The persistence of these
two concepts has evidently continued into post-conflict Sierra Leone, which
has consequently limited the efforts to rehabilitate child soldiers. To support
this argument Montague (2002) and Boas (2001) strongly portray the
evidence of neopatrimonial networks within Sierra Leone prior to the conflict.
Furthermore, Uwazie (2003) and Peters and Richards (1998) clearly identify
the structural factors such as a lack of education and job opportunities, which
has evidently boosted the prominence of child soldiers. Murphy (2003)
illustrates how new patrimonial networks were formed between the child
soldiers and their military commanders which further reinforces the problem.
Other factors such as the changing nature of weapons as explained by
Machel (1996) are also a prominent feature. This all distinctly portrays the
impact of both neopatrimonialism and structural violence on child soldiers in
Sierra Leone. Maclure and Denov (2006) clarify the difficulty Sierra Leone
faced in regards to rehabilitating their child soldiers and Machel (2010)
distinguishes the importance of Transitional Justice in post-conflict periods.
Mackenzie (2009) identifies the disarmament, demobilisation and
rehabilitation (DDR) program which is the most prominent form of
rehabilitation in Sierra Leone. From critically examining the DDR, Williamson
and Cripe (2002) and Solomon and Ginifer (2008) clearly highlight the
structural constraints within the program, which are inevitably forms of
structural violence thus limiting the rehabilitation of child soldiers in Sierra
Leone. This form of structural violence clearly illustrates how
neopatrimonialism still persists which further reinforces the argument that the
rehabilitation of child soldiers in Sierra Leone has been limited.
Montague (2002 p229) explains how the Revolutionary United Front (RUF)
waged a terror campaign against the civilians of Sierra Leone which resulted
in 2/3rds of the population being dislocated, mass accounts of mutilation,
forced recruitment of child soldiers and widespread sexual assault. Peters and
2
Richards (1998 p183) estimate that there were 50,000 – 70,000 RUF
combatants, half of whom ranged from the ages of 8-14 years old. Peters and
Richards (1998) as well as Montague (2002) thus portray the widespread
violence that occurred in Sierra Leone from 1991-2002, as well as the
prominent features that child soldiers upheld within the civil war. In 1997, The
United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF) clarifies that a ‘child soldier’ is “any
child – boy or girl – under 18 years of age, who is part of any kind of regular or
irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity, including, but not limited
to: cooks, porters, messengers, and anyone accompanying such groups other
than family members. It includes girls and boys recruited for forced sexual
purposes and/or forced marriage” (UNICEF 2013). This capacious definition
clearly portrays the various roles and features that child soldiers maintain. The
definition doesn’t limit the understanding of child soldiers to be merely the
children who carry weapons, and thus incorporates all the experiences of
child soldiers into its definition. Moreover, although UNICEF defined this term
in 1997, Shepler (2003 p57) clearly portrays how the usage of child soldiers in
wars is not a new phenomenon. Park (2006) adheres to this by stating that
child soldiers were used even at the time of the Crusades. Although this is
true, Peter and Richards (1998), Shepler (2003) and Park (2006) clearly
demonstrate how over the years, there has been an increase in the usage of
child soldiers, within Civil Wars in Africa and it is thus important to explain why
child soldiers have become a prominent feature of the violence in Sierra
Leone and whether they have successfully been rehabilitated.
The theory of neopatrimonialism must be initially addressed.
Neopatrimonialism is based on Weber’s theory of patrimonialism and it can be
understood by examining Cooper’s (2002) theory of a ‘gatekeeper state.’
Cooper’s (2002 p156,157) ‘gatekeeper state’ illustrates how aid and loans,
military assistance and sovereign resources are all received by the state and
then distributed unevenly across society through patron-client relations which
are often built on reciprocity. Berman (1998 p317) further portrays how ‘big
men’ control these patron-client relations and devise who has access to such
resources. Bayart (2009) uniquely refers to the ‘Politics of the Belly’, which
identifies the social struggle to achieve ones fair share of ‘the national cake.’
3
Neopatrimonialism is thus an intricate social system, which involves state
resources and is evidently fueled by corruption and competition. Reno’s (1998
p2) analogy of a ‘weak shadow state’ encompasses the problems surrounding
neopatrimonialism by highlighting how the state has become increasingly
weak due to the neopatrimonial networks that are dominating the country.
Mamdani (2003) importantly clarifies that patrimonial networks are not new,
as neopatrimonialism was built onto the power relations that were established
during the colonial rule. Moreover, from the understanding of
neopatrimonialism one can consequently correlate the impact it has on
society with structural violence.
Galtung (1969 p171) coined the concept of structural violence. He colludes
that violence can occur indirectly and there are thus different types of violence
other than direct physical violence from one individual to another that can
occur. Violence can be built into a structure and can be presented as a form
of unequal power or unequal life chances. An imbalanced distribution of
resources such as a lack of education can ultimately lead to impoverishment.
Since a lack of education and impoverishment for instance, can be avoided,
they are recognised as a form of structural violence. Galtung’s (1969) theory
is widely supported by theorists such as Farmer (2004) who further recognise
how structural factors can inevitably lead to structural violence.
Neopatrimonialism can be clearly interpreted as a form of structural violence
or a factor that enhances the likelihood of structural violence. The two
concepts are clearly intertwined and it will therefore be deciphered how they
provide a platform for why child soldiers became such a prominent feature of
the violence in Sierra Leone.
Sierra Leone was a colonial British run state, which administered indirect rule
and patrimonial governance. The colonialists maintained preservation of their
own economic interests, and mobilised a small elite, which controlled policies
and access to resources (Montague 2002 p231). From the onset of colonial
rule in Sierra Leone, patrimonial governance is thus evidently clear. In
reference to the post colonial society in Sierra Leone, Maclure and Denov
(2006 p120) argue that the post independence government purely aimed to
4
enrich a “kleptocratic urban elite” and thus “entered a world system with
ruined economic potential and a marginalised and impoverished society.” This
highlights the vast amount of problems that Sierra Leone faced from the onset
of independence. Boas (2001) further enhances this argument by asserting
that neopatrimonialism is a central feature of these problems. Boas (2001
p708) portrays how the country became increasingly dependent on aid to
balance budgets of neopatrimonial relations and when international aid
decreased there was further economic decline. This clearly incorporates
Cooper’s ‘gatekeeper’ state, which was previously mentioned. Allen’s (1999
p367) theory of ‘Terminal Spoils’ is also evident in Sierra Leone as the country
consequently imploded. The implosion, is further insinuated by Montague
(2002 p233) who asserts that Sierra Leone faced “economic paralysis”,
leaving the country in complete disarray. This epitomises how
neopatrimonialism is intricately intertwined with structural violence and it
further provides an understanding of how they both provided a platform for the
prominence of child soldiers in the violence.
Due to the chaos that surrounded neopatrimonialism in Sierra Leone, the
‘weak shadow state’ as depicted by Reno (1998 p2), provided a complete lack
of opportunities and a lack of education. Theorists such as Uwazie (2003),
Shepler (2003) and Peters and Richards (1998) all directly argue that a
mixture of these structural factors accompanied by the desire for food and
protection, led to the prominence of child soldiers in Sierra Leone. Peters and
Richards (1998 p183) clearly explain how “militia life offers training and a
livelihood where poverty and numbers overwhelm education and jobs.” The
structural violence is remarkable clear. Murphy (2003) skillfully uses Weber’s
theory of patrimonialism to portray how children were driven to depend on
military commanders as they offered power, protection and economic
opportunity that their family, community or government were unable to
provide. Murphy (2003) thus depicts how a new form of patronage was
established which was stemmed from the military commanders, and
reinforced through clientalist ties. The military commanders were hence the
new ‘big men’ who were able to distribute resources. However, these
clientalist ties were not based on mutual reciprocity. Instead, deep-seated
5
coercion and brutality characterised the relationship. Maclure and Denov
(2006) explain how there was also a militaristic perception that children were
proficient and obedient soldiers. Peters and Richards (1998) further argue that
some children confuse war and play and can thus become heedless of
danger. It is also argued that children can be easily coerced, brainwashed and
they use less supplies, which also enhanced the idea of using children as
combatants. The change in technology is the final structural factor that will be
addressed in reference to how it led to an increase in the prominence of child
soldiers in Sierra Leone. Peters and Richards (1998) explain how the change
in technology helped to facilitate child soldiers as a battle kit used to be too
expensive and too heavy for a child to use. However, automatic rifles began
to flood the continent and they became light enough for a 10 year old to carry.
Machel (1996) explains that the AK47 costs the equivalent of a goat. The
AK47 was the weapon of choice during the civil war and Machel’s analogy
clearly portrays how cheap and efficient this weapon was. Moreover, it is clear
that several structural factors evidently impacted on the prominence of child
soldiers in Sierra Leone.
It is pivotal to address how structural violence and neopatrimonialsim have
remained consistent factors in post-conflict Sierra Leone, which has inevitably
meant that the rehabilitation of child soldiers in Sierra Leone has been very
limited. Galtung’s (1969) analogy of ‘Tranquil Waters’ is fitting in relation to the
rehabilitation of child soldiers in post-conflict Sierra Leone. Through this
analogy, Galtung (1969) urges individuals to delve past the surface that
portrays peace in order to search for the underlying structural violence that is
present and often hidden in society. Maclure and Denov (2006 p132) express
how Sierra Leone faced the urgent need to demobilise and reintegrate child
soldiers into the norms and institutions that they had been isolated from for so
many years. Maclure and Denov (2006 p132) identify that this was an
inevitably “painstaking process” due to the fact that the war damaged the
psychological and social developments of thousands of children. The
alliteration used, accurately portrays the extent of the difficulty faced by Sierra
Leone and international organisations to rehabilitate child soldiers. Moreover,
at first glance, Sierra Leone alongside international organisations made a
6
substantial effort to rehabilitate child soldiers and to restore peace in Sierra
Leone.
Transitional Justice is key to understanding Sierra Leone’s approach towards
the rehabilitation of child soldiers. Machel (2010 px) explains how there has
been a growing attention towards Transitional Justice in post-conflict periods.
Transitional Justice includes the work of International and Hybrid
Jurisdictions, Truth Commissions, National Courts and Local Reconciliation
efforts. Transitional Justice therefore maintains a variety of different forms.
Machel (2010) initiates that Transitional Justice is a necessary response to
the brutalities that arise from war. The legacy of war is thus dealt with in order
to prevent future violations and the overall aim is to restore stability and peace
within the country. It is thus important to decipher whether the Transitional
Justice that was provided for child soldiers in Sierra Leone was successful.
Once the Lome Peace Agreement was signed in 1999, different variations of
Transitional Justice began to take form in Sierra Leone. One must take note
of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of a Child (UN CRC), which
was signed in 1989. Cook and Heycoop (2010 p160) state that the UN CRC is
the “axis” around which the truth commission in Sierra Leone revolved
around. There has thus become an increased recognition of the need to
incorporate children into the transitional process. Machel (2010 px) argues
that the potential success depends on the extent transitional systems prioritise
children. “A fault line will run through the heart of the nations” (Machel 2010
px) if children are not addressed. Moreover, this analogy helps to highlight
that since Sierra Leone, established a special focus on children, they were
creating the correct steps towards Transitional Justice.
Furthermore, due to the fact that The UN CRC (1989) states that any child
under the age of 18, who is enrolled as a combatant, is to be classified as a
victim the Special Court of Sierra Leone did not prosecute child soldiers for
their actions. A more restorative approach to the rehabilitation of child soldiers
was thus enacted. There are those who disagree with the nature of this
decision such as Peters and Richards (1998) as they argue that child soldier’s
levels of agency must not be ignored. However, taking this into consideration
7
Sierra Leone as well as international organisations such as Amnesty
International continued to regard child soldiers as victims. Following this,
Mackenzie (2009 p242) depicts how international organisations and
development institutions began implementing a variety of peace, development
and reconstruction programs in Sierra Leone. The most notable rehabilitation
mechanism was the DDR program. The DDR aimed to help with the transition
from soldiers to citizens by retrieving their weapons and implementing
different rehabilitation mechanisms such as family tracing or psychosocial
therapy. Mackenzie (2009) provides a statistic that estimates that around
75,000 soldiers were received at 70 different disarmament centres. Although
this statistic seems vast, it is important to decipher the success in relation to
child soldiers. Mackenzie (2009) notes that The National Committee for DDR
reports that 6,904 children were demobilised. This is a substantial statistic and
one can certainly view it as a successful start to rehabilitate child soldiers.
Denov (2005 p8) notes that the DDR was “touted as having greatly increased
the countries security” and could be classified as a “model that others can
replicate.” The language used by Denov (2005), undoubtfully represents his
pessimism towards portraying the DDR as an overall success. It will thus be
argued that the DDR program reflects the ‘Tranquil Waters’, which
unfortunately try and hide the structural violence that continues in post-conflict
Sierra Leone.
By critically examining the DDR program, it is clear that the DDR neglected a
large amount of child soldiers that needed rehabilitation. Williamson and Cripe
(2002) highlight how the DDR’s criteria of catergorising who is eligible for the
DDR program restricted some child soldiers from participating in the program.
Firstly, the fact that child soldiers had to presented by their military
commanders provided an initial problem. Many child soldiers were still
dominated by coercive patron-client relations. If a military commander refused
to present their child soldiers to the program, the children would commonly
remain under their control. Those child soldiers who held supportive
capacities within the military also remained vulnerable, as they were also not
eligible for the DDR program. This reflects a form of structural violence as well
as the continuation of patrimonial networks. Solomon and Ginifer (2008)
8
estimate that 3000 child soldiers did not participate in the DDR. This is a vast
statistic that proves that the rehabilitation of child soldiers has been limited.
Through this statistic, it is clear that the largest group of children who have not
been successfully rehabilitated are girl child soldiers. Mackenzie (2009)
estimates that 92% of the statistics used by the DDR were boys and thus 8%
were girls. This statistic is unrepresentative of the extent of girl’s involvement
as child soldiers in Sierra Leone. Denov (2005) similarly argues that the lack
of attention to girls in rehabilitation programs has contributed to further
marginalisation that girls face in post-conflict Sierra Leone. Denov (2005)
explains how sexual exploitation of girl child soldiers was prevalent during the
conflict and due to this, when they returned home, they were often considered
as ‘unmarriagable’ due to the cultural beliefs about virginity and marriage.
Since rehabilitation mechanisms were often unavailable, it rendered them to
be even more vulnerable. Denov (2005) notes how due to the few viable
alternatives, often ex-combatants turned to drugs and crime in order to
survive. Moreover, aside from the structural constraints that the DDR and
other rehabilitation mechanisms faced in rehabilitating child soldiers, Shaw
(2005 p4) importantly portrays the discontent that was felt by many Sierra
Leoneans about the transitional mechanisms that were established. Many
individuals preferred to ‘forgive and forget’ rather than participate in the
transitional process enforced by the state and international organisations. This
reflects the new form of neopatrimonialism that dominates post-conflict Sierra
Leone as well as a lack of consideration in incorporating social and cultural
factors, which have further hindered the rehabilitation of child soldiers.
The transitional mechanisms established in Sierra Leone can thus be argued
to represent new systems of neopatrimonial networks. Cooper’s ‘gatekeeper
state’ is still evident due to the international aid that is being provided to the
country through these processes. Hanlon (2005) and Fanthorpe (2005) further
illustrate how chieftancy and therefore ‘big men’ remain prominent features in
Sierra Leone, which means that patron-client relations continue to persist.
Sierra Leone unfortunately remains a ‘weak shadow state,’ which has
evidently led to structural violence in the past and presents a problem for the
future too. Neopatrimonialism has thus replicated “economic stagnations, high
9
unemployment, lack of educational opportunities as well as a weak civil
society” (Denov 2005 p8), in post-conflict Sierra Leone. Similarly, The
International Crisis Group (ICG) states, “the conditions that spawned the
war… Have not disappeared” (ICG cited in Hanlon 2005). Maclure and Denov
(2006) argue that this has hindered the rehabilitation for child soldiers.
Solomon and Ginifer (2008 p15) explain how even those who participated in
rehabilitation, had high expectations of receiving jobs or education after the
program, however due to the persistence of neopatrimonialism and structural
violence, their needs were not met.
To conclude, neopatrimonialism introduced by Cooper (2002) and Berman
(1998) as well as Galtung’s (1969) theory of structural violence evidently
intertwines to provide a platform for why child soldiers became such a
prominent feature of the violence in Sierra Leone. Neopatrimonialism and
structural violence clearly impact on how structural factors such as lack of
opportunities and a lack of education can lead to the prominence of child
soldiers. Murphy (2003) illustrates how new forms of patronage are
established between child soldiers and their commanders which further
reinforces this prominence. The persistence of these two intertwining
concepts has evidently led to the rehabilitation of child soldiers to be very
limited. Galtung’s (1969) analogy of ‘Tranquil Waters’ can be perfectly
projected onto Sierra Leone. At first, it seems that the rehabilitation of child
soldiers has been successful by studying the different efforts of the DDR for
instance. However, if one critically examines the rehabilitation processes it is
clear, that structural violence and neopatrimonialism are prevalent factors that
remain a problem in Sierra Leone. Moreover, it is clear that structural violence
and neopatrimonialism led to the prominence of child soldiers in Sierra Leone
and further limited the efforts to rehabilitate child soldiers in a variety of
different ways.
10
Bibliography
ALLEN, C. 1999. Warfare, Endemic Violence and State Collapse in Africa.
Review of African Political Economy. 81(367), pp367-384.
BAYART, J F. 2009. Ed. The State in Africa. The Politics of the Belly.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
BERMAN, B. 1998. Ethnicity, Patronage and the African State: The Politics of
Uncivil Nationalism. African Affairs. 99. Pp305-341.
BOAS, M. 2001. Liberia and Sierra Leone-Dead Ringers? The logic of
Neopatrimonial Rule. Third World Quarterly. 22(5), pp697-723.
COOK, P and HEYKOOP, C. 2010. Child Participation in the Sierra Leonean
Truth and Reconciliation Commission. IN: PARMAR, S et al. eds. Children
and Transition Justice. Truth-Telling, Accountability and Reconciliation.
[online]. [Accessed 29/12/13]. Available from: http://www.unicefirc.org/publications/pdf/tj_publication_eng.pdf
COOPER, F. 2002. The Recurrent Crises of the Gatekeeper State. Africa
since 1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University, pp156-190.
DENOV, M. 2005. Child Soldiers in Sierra Leone: Experiences, Implications
and Strategies for Rehabilitation and Community Reintegration. Canada:
University of Ottawa.
GALTUNG, J. 1969. Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace
Research. 6(3), pp167-191.
FANTHORPE, R. 2005. On The Limits of Liberal Peace: Chiefs and
Democratic Decentralisation in Post-War Sierra Leone.African Affairs.
105(418), pp27-49.
11
FARMER, P. 2004. An Anthropology of Structural Violence. Current
Anthropology. 45(3), pp305-325.
HANLON, J. 2005. Is the International Community Helping to Recreate the
Preconditions for War in Sierra Leone? The Round Table. 94(381), pp459472.
MACHEL, G. 1996. Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. [online]. [Accessed
5/01/14]. Available from:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/51/plenary/a51-306.htm
MACHEL, G. 2010. Foreword. In: UNICEF. PARMAR et al. eds. Children and
Transitional Justice. Truth-Telling, Accountability and Reconciliation. Harvard:
Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School.
MACKENZIE, M. 2009. Securitisation and Desecuritisation: Female Soldiers
and the Reconstruction of Women in Post Conflict Sierra Leone. Security
Studies. 18(2), pp241-261.
MACLURE, R and DENOV, M. 2006. “I Didn’t Want To Die So I Joined
Them:” Structuration and The Process of Becoming Boy Soldiers in Sierra
Leone. Terrorism and Political Violence. 18(119), pp119-135.
MAMDANI, M. 2003. Making Sense of Political Violence in Post-Colonial
Africa. Socialist Register. Pp132-151. London: Merlin Press.
MONTAGUE, D. 2002. The Business of War and the Prospects for Peace in
Sierra Leone. Journal of Legal Studies. IX(1), pp229-237.
MURPHY, W P. 2003. Military Patrimonialism and Child Soldier Clientalism in
the Liberian and Sierra Leonean Civil Wars. African Studies Review. 46(2),
pp61-87.
12
PARK, A S. 2006. ‘Other Inhumane Acts:’ Forced Marriage, Girl Soldiers and
the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Social and Legal Studies. 15(315), pp315337.
PETERS, K and RICHARDS, P. 1998. Why We Fight: Voices of Youth
Combatants in Sierra Leone. Africa: Journal of International African Institute.
68(2), pp183-210.
RENO, W. 1998. Warlord Politics and African States. London: Lynne Rienner.
SHAW, R. 2005. Rethinking Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. Lessons
from Sierra Leone. [online]. [Accessed 11/01/14]. Available from:
http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr130.pdf
SHEPLER, S. 2003. Educated in War: The Rehabilitation of Child Soldiers in
Sierra Leone. IN: UWAZIE, E E. ed. Conflict Resolution and Peace Education
in Africa. US: Lexington Books.
SHEPLER. 2005. The Rights of The Child: Global Discourses of Youth and
Reintegration of Child Soldiers in Sierra Leone. Journal of Human rights. 4(2),
pp197-211.
SOLOMON, C and GINIFER, J. 2008. Disarmament, Demobilisation and
Reintegration in Sierra Leone. [online]. [Accessed 5/01/14]. Available from:
http://www.operationspaix.net/DATA/DOCUMENT/4024~v~Disarmament_De
mobilisation_and_Reintegration_in_Sierra_Leone.pdf
UN CRC. 1989. The United Nations Convention on The Rights of the Child.
[online]. [Accessed 28/12/13]. Available from:
http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publicationpdfs/UNCRC_PRESS200910web.pdf
UNICEF. 2013. Factsheet: Child Soldiers. [online]. [Accessed 28/12/13].
Available from: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/childsoldiers.pdf
13
UWAZIE, E. 2003. Educated in War: The Rehabilitation of Child Soldiers in
Sierra Leone. Ed. Conflict Resolution and Peace Education in Africa. US:
Lexington Books.
WILLIAMSON, J and CRIPE, L. 2002. Assessment of DCOF- Supported Child
Demobilisation and Reintegration Activities in Sierra Leone. UNICEF.
14