Map 1.1 Map of Mindanao and Ambon
Note: draft: C. von Lubke, cartography: K. Schmitt.
Copyright OpenStreetMap contributors (openstreetmap.org), Inkatlas.
Religious conflicts in perspective
The second half of the twentieth century has witnessed profound change in the nature of armed conflicts. Over time, the thrust of warfare and atrocious confrontations has shifted inwards, rather than outwards: intra-state wars have increasingly replaced inter-state wars. Indeed, since 1945, almost 90 percent of all recorded wars have been classified as civil wars. The ascent of state-internal conflicts and the fact that many of them have occurred in the Global South has given rise to the fashionable concept of New Wars (Kaldor 1999; Münkler 2002). Some of these confrontations may not be particularly “new” from a critical historical lens that transcends Eurocentric perspectives, not least because the complex interweaving of colonial interventions and embedded ethno-religious cleavages has always underpinned such conflicts. There is, however, a feature that is novel and worth noting: intra-state conflicts have lasted markedly longer and have inflicted levels of casualties that are six times higher than those in inter-state wars (Fearon & Laitin 2015: 141).
The question of what causes intra-state conflict remains an unresolved and ongoing topic of current research. Although existing studies point to a wide variety of causes,1 there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that ethnicity and, increasingly, religion play a significant role in intra-state confrontations. While religious and ethnic divisions often may not be the sole or even primary cause of conflict, they nonetheless constitute a powerful leverage for social mobilization and identity building, and hence a means to unite and galvanize groups along religious and ethnic lines, instill a feeling of belonging and solidarity, and justify violence against a stereotyped image of the “other” (Hasenclever & Rittberger 2000; Hasenclever & De Juan 2007; Krause 2011).
Indeed, the study of religion has thus gained increasing prominence in political and social discourses around the world. Existing studies and survey instruments – including the Bertelsmann Foundation’s Transformation Index (BTI) – highlight a rising influence of religious teachings and discourses on political and legal institutions over the last decade (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016: 6). Recent developments in Africa, the Middle East, and Central and South Asia lend themselves well to the conclusion that social conflicts “increasingly play out along religious cleavages,” and often include far-reaching demands for autonomy or even independence (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016: 6). The rise of extremist organizations such as Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State have further reinforced the notion that religious intolerance and divisiveness are at the core of the problem.
While existing research has studied religious groups as drivers and key actors in intra-state conflicts, much less insights have been offered regarding the extent to which and how religious groups – and here, in particular, Christian church actors – have contributed to the sustainable resolution of such conflicts (Baumann 2013). Existing studies focus on interreligious dialogue (inter alia, Abu-Nimer 1999, 2001, 2013; Neufeldt 2011; Cheetham, Pratt & Thomas 2013) or treat the topic from a predominantly theological perspective (inter alia, Appleby, Schreiter & Powers 2010). Methodologically rigorous, systematic, and comprehensive empirical studies are conspicuously absent and much of the knowledge on religious actors in post-conflict peacebuilding efforts remains confined to (mostly unpublished) evaluation reports commissioned by Catholic and Protestant Churches and other faith-based organizations. As most of these reports focus on immediate rehabilitation and relief measures in war-torn regions, few insights exist on church-based activities and their effects in the field of long-term conflict transformation, reconciliation, and sustainable peace. Moreover, as most of these interventions are the work of external actors, very little information is provided on the agency of the local partners of these church organizations.
Against this background, the central objective of this book is to take a closer look at religious actors and trace their roles and strategies in processes of conflict transformation. To this end, the study draws on comparative empirical analyses in two regions in Southeast Asian countries that stand out for their deep religious cleavages, waves of violence, egregious atrocities, and high death tolls: Mindanao in the Philippines and Maluku in Indonesia. While religious zealots fomenting violence have been part of the problem in both conflicts, religious actors have also played constructive and pivotal roles in reconciliatory efforts and post-conflict peacebuilding (Al Qurtuby 2016: 4).
This study thus sets out to shed new light on the post-conflict peace-building activities of religious actors in the Philippines and Indonesia that is methodologically rigorous and empirically grounded. The two central questions that inform this study can thus be summarized as follows:
Map 1.1 Map of Mindanao and Ambon
Note: draft: C. von Lubke, cartography: K. Schmitt.
Copyright OpenStreetMap contributors (openstreetmap.org), Inkatlas.
The study contributes to the debate on violent conflict and reconciliation by offering novel empirical and methodological vantage points. Our analyses are guided by a mixed-method approach that combines qualitative and quantitative research techniques. As the latter also bridges the epistemological hiatus between rationalist and reflexivist scholarship, the study comes close to what Peter Katzenstein has termed “analytic eclecticism” (Katzenstein 2007; Katzenstein & Sil 2008). Rather than concentrating on a single research tradition, “analytic eclecticism takes components of different research traditions and combines them to produce new analytical frameworks” (Katzenstein 2007: 397). It selectively adopts and reinterprets “concepts, causal mechanisms, explanations, prescriptions” – and, one may add, methodologies – “from particular research traditions” (ibid.: 398). In this book, different methodological vantage points are treated as compatible and supplementary perspectives that triangulate and complement each other (Fielding & Schreier 2001; Flick 2004; Lieberman 2005; von Lübke 2014a, 2014b). As such, they pave the way for explanatory efforts that combine micro and macro analyses as well as area-specific and area-transcending assessments (Keller 2011; Mayring 2001). Qualitative and interpretative research methods are often useful for delivering in-depth empirical insights into social settings and norms of human behavior, thereby enhancing “unit context sensitivity,” whereas quantitative perspectives make it possible to trace patterns across larger and more representative units of observation, thus contributing to greater “population context sensitivity” (Pepinsky 2014).
The conceptual and empirical discussions in this book are divided into ten chapters. Following this introduction, the second chapter reviews the literature on conflict and reconciliation, highlights key themes in the study of religious actors, and develops a conceptual framework for the assessment of church-based peacebuilding efforts. The third chapter outlines our multilayered mixed-methods approach. Chapter four applies a historical lens to the Mindanao and Maluku conflicts. Applying process tracing, it identifies the root causes of the two conflicts and discerns the social and political contexts that underpin local peacebuilding efforts. The fifth chapter adds further contextualization by tracing prominent themes related to religion in national/local discourses that permeate social arenas in the Philippines and Indonesia. The discussion highlights ideas, identities, and narratives that shape interfaith relationships and shows how the emergence of stereotypes can fuel violent conflicts. The sixth chapter takes a closer look at general empirical trends and reported attitudes in both conflict regions (i.e., Cotabato/Mindanao and Ambon/Maluku; see Map 1.1), including respondent perceptions of the roles of different church/state actors, the image of other religious groups, and possible pathways towards reconciliation. Chapter seven features counterfactual case comparisons that tackle the question of the extent to which church-based activities are associated with attitude changes that bode well for reconciliation and peaceful cohabitation. The eighth chapter presents the results of statistical regression analyses, which estimate the relationship of church-based activities and observable indicators of peaceful cohabitation and reconciliation. Chapter nine features a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) that highlights the ways in which specific economic, political, or social factors influence attitudes in local Indonesian and Philippine communities. The tenth and concluding chapter summarizes key findings and draws implications for future policies and church-based peace efforts.
1 See, inter alia, Hechter (1975); Rothschild (1981); Horowitz (1985); Collier & Höffler (2001, 2004); Fearon & Laitin (2003, 2015); summarizing the older literature, Ganter (1995).
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed (1999): Dialogue, Change, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed (2001): “Conflict Resolution, Culture, and Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding,” Peace Research 38(6): 685–704.
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed (2013): “Religion and Peace-Building,” In: Roger Mac Ginty (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding, London: Routledge, pp. 69–80.
Al Qurtuby, Sumanto (2016): Religious Violence and Conciliation in Indonesia. Christians and Muslims in the Moluccas, London & New York: Routledge.
Appleby, Scott, Schreiter, Robert J. & Powers, Gerard F. (eds.) (2010): Peacebuilding: Catholic Theology, Ethics, and Praxis, New York: Orbis.
Baumann, Marcel (2013): Kirchliche Beiträge zur nachhaltigen Friedenskonsolidierung in Post-Konflikt-Gesellschaften. Eine Literaturstudie, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (2016): Transformation Index BTI 2016. Political Management in International Comparison, Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Cheetham, David, Pratt, Douglas & Thomas, David (eds.) (2013): Understanding Interreligious Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collier, Paul & Höffler, Anke (2001): Greed and Grievance in Civil War, Washington, DC: World Bank, available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/998891468762911498/Greed-and-grievance-in-civil-war (accessed 15 March 2018).
Collier, Paul & Höffler, Anke (2004): “Greed and Grievance in Civil War,” Oxford Economic Papers 56: 563–595.
Fearon, James D. & Laitin, David D. (2003): “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War,” American Political Science Review 97(1): 75–90.
Fearon, James D. & Laitin, David D. (2015): “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War,” In: Tom Woodhouse, Hugh Miall, Oliver Ramsbotham & Christopher Mitchell (eds.), The Contemporary Conflict Resolution Reader, Malden, MA: Polity Press, pp. 141–143.
Fielding, Nigel & Schreier, Margrit (2001): “Introduction. On the Compatibility Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods,” In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, available at: www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-01/1-01hrsg-e.htm (accessed 13 January 2014).
Flick, Uwe (2004): Triangulation: Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Ganter, Stephan (1995): Ethnizität und ethnische Konflikte: Konzepte und theoretische Ansätze für eine vergleichende Analyse, Freiburg: Arnold-Bergstraesser-Institut.
Hasenclever, Andreas & De Juan, Alexander (2007): “Grasping the Impact of Religious Traditions on Political Conflicts: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Perspectives,” Friedenswarte 82(2/3): 19–47.
Hasenclever, Andreas & Rittberger, Volker (2000): “Does Religion Make a Difference? Theoretical Approaches to the Impact of Faith on Political Conflict,” Millennium 29(3): 641–674.
Hechter, Michael (1975): Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536–1966, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Horowitz, Donald L. (1985): Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley: University of California University Press.
Kaldor, Mary (1999): New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. (2007): “Regionalism Reconsidered,” Journal of East Asian Studies 7: 395–412.
Katzenstein, Peter J. & Sil, Rudra (2008): “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations,” In: Christian Reus-Smit & Duncan Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 109–130.
Keller, Reiner (2011): Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse. Grundlegung eines Forschungsprogramms, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Krause, Jana (2011): “Die Konstruktion ‘religiöser Gewalt’ im Kontext des Regimewechsels in Indonesien und Nigeria,” In: Simon Wolfgang Fuchs & Stephanie Garling (eds.), Religion in Diktatur und Demokratie: Zur Bedeutung Religiöser Werte, Praktiken und Institutionen in Politischen Transformation-sprozessen, Berlin: LIT Verlag, pp. 113–128.
Lieberman, Evan S. (2005): “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research,” American Political Science Review 99(3): 435–452.
Mayring, Philipp (2001): “Kombination und Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Analyse,” In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, No. 1, available at: www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-01/1-01mayring-d.htm (accessed 12 January 2014).
Münkler, Herfried (2002): Die neuen Kriege, Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Neufeldt, Reina C. (2011): “Interfaith Dialogue: Assessing Theories of Change,” Peace and Change 36(3): 344–372.
Pepinsky, Thomas (2014): “Context and Method in Southeast Asian Politics,” Pacific Affairs 87(3): 441–461.
Rothschild, Joseph (1981): Ehnopolitics: A Conceptual Framework, New York: Columbia University Press.
Von Lübke, Christian (2014a): “Modular Comparisons – Grounding and Gauging Southeast Asian Governance,” Pacific Affairs 87(3): 509–538.
Von Lübke, Christian (2014b): “Grounding Governance Research in Southeast Asia: A Framework for Controlled Multimethod Policy Analysis,” In: Mikko Huotari, Jürgen Rüland & Judith Schlehe (eds.), Methodology and Research Practice in Southeast Asian Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 213–232.