Image caption: A boat in blue waters near Akrema, northern tip of Atauro Island, around 1 hour by speedboat from Dili, the capital of Timor-Leste. Photo by Tanushree Rao on Unsplash.

The Working Paper Series, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp. 1–19
Published May 15, 2022
PDF Version

Historians of Modern Times: A Case Study of La’o

Hamutuk for Hybridity as Instrumental in Post-

Conflict Development

This is an excerpt. For the full version, please click here.

Alexandra Scrivner
Syracuse University (Social Science PhD Student) and Te Ao O Rongomaraeroa National Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies Otago University (Masters of Peace and Conflict Studies)

This paper has been edited from a practicum report fulfilling the requirements of a master’s degree in Peace and Conflict Studies from Otago University (2019). The internship taken for this report was accomplished at La’o Hamutuk, a non-profit institute for development, monitoring and analysis located in Dili, Timor-Leste. The author utilizes critical perspectives of liberal peacebuilding and reflexive methodologies to assess how hybrid mechanisms of international development are and are not being used at the organizational level and assesses how the moral superiority of the liberal ethic in development schemes potentially hinders individual organizations such as La’o Hamutuk at the local level.

Keywords: hybridity, Timor-Leste, liberal peacebuilding, international development, civil society

My leading research question for this paper is “Does La’o Hamutuk and its work encounter the same debates and dilemmas as Liberal Peacebuilding measures within and beyond Timor-Leste? If so, what are the compromises made which prevent both the macro (general initiatives lead under liberal peacebuilding sponsorship) and the micro (activities and investments made by La’o Hamutuk) from achieving their sought objectives?” To provide an appropriate purview for answering this question this paper has identified hybrid methods which have been more generally adapted into liberal peacebuilding standards, along with specific mechanisms utilized by La’o Hamutuk as a development NGO. This report provides new knowledge into the field of PACS while also serving as a reflection of my experience as inherently political, allowing questions of “who claims to know, and how, and the power relationship produced by this” to inform the writing process (Gillies & Alldred, 2012, p.43).

Increasingly since the 1990’s, a growing number of PACS scholars have theorized and critiqued the measures of international peacekeeping, democratization, and development interventions to countries in intrastate conflict or just coming out of such conflict (Alpaslan, Ozerdem & Lee, 2015; Chandler, 2004; Dzuverovic, 2018; Paris, 1997, 2010; Roberts, 2012). While many academics, activists, pracademics, and even journalists contend that it is the eventual outcome of western colonization which has undergirded many conflicts of the last two decades, very few argue that there should be no international involvement to ensure human rights and stabilization after conflict or occupation ensues.

Observers, and most importantly victims to conflict, have just cause to critique international interventions which claim to be imperative for peace at a global scale even while states in war and conflict are increasingly becoming customary. According to the UN-CPR Overview of Global and Regional Trends Report (1990-2013), there were 33 active intrastate armed conflicts worldwide and according for the Fund for Peace’s most recent Fragile State Index (2019) only 18 out of 178 countries were measured as stable or in a state of sustained peace.

These statistics could demonstrate the need for increased participation in democratization and development work in the still developing and post-conflict states or could just as easily illustrate inherent ontological aberrations by intervening ‘developed’ nations when it comes to gaging roots of conflict. There is still no proof on either of these conjectures, however there is very little literature found which does not promote some third party and/or international body involvement to either prevent or cease mass violence at both national and regional levels.

For the purposes of this report Liberal Peacebuilding is not constrained to measures orchestrated by leading International Agencies such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, WHO, etc. but also extends to local and international developmental NGO’s, civil society objectives and programs, and can also include initiatives out of local governments. When referring to Human Rights, I am referring to the conceptual understanding of human rights, with an ontological origin in enlightenment thinking and Post WWII initiatives which composed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The use of human rights here, as well as its general use from other staff members of La’o Hamutuk is as a signaling device to establish international legitimacy to a claim regarding social issues, protections, and welfare. When using the word ‘development’ in this report I am generally referencing the actions involved in the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals, as this was a common reference for my NGO in their research outputs as well as the type of work (whether directly linked to the UN or not) most referenced by the literature in this report. Though there are the parameters of these frequently used terms/subject area during my studies and more importantly during my internship with La’o Hamutuk, I attempted in this report to interpret how these generally accepted terms made meaningful interactions with people’s day to day lives.

The first chapter will give a brief history and review of putative definitions, critiques, and advances of LPB. Historically, some comparisons will be drawn to further illustrate how definitions have changed as a side-effect of certain conflicts or been adapted individually by different contexts and cultures. How civil society became legitimated pre-independence and post-independence will be introduced to better understand how La’o Hamutuk as an organization within civil society became an entrusted resource both nationally and internationally within the last 18 years since it has been operational.

In Chapter Two the history, mission/vision, and structure of La’o Hamutuk will be detailed. Here I will establish what I observed as LH’s theory of change, and where the impact is made, challenged and perhaps limited. The specificity of my own tasks and contract as a human rights and governance researcher within the organization has been withdrawn to better accommodate the guidelines for the NPACS working paper series. In Chapter Three I will synthesize Chapters One and Two to compare the key perplexities which I see as inhibiting LPB initiatives in various post-conflict cases and how this effects La’o Hamutuk in both the short and long-term scheme of achieving their objectives for citizens of a newly formed semi-presidential democratic government. From Chapter One I will utilize theoretical and practical gaps presented in LPB literature to assess my final internship outcomes and reflections, providing the groundwork for the ‘limits of liberalism’ for the work of La’o Hamutuk and how the organization could be a positive case study for hybrid development for further research. It will also reflect more personally on how the internship impacted my own practice and praxis within academia.

The Conclusion Chapter will summarize what was accomplished in this report, spaces for extension, and my personal aspirations of how to be in relationship with the organization La’o Hamutuk in the future. There will also be recommendations for La’o Hamutuk and other local organizations in developing post-conflict settings on how to engage with false and viable hybrid solutions within the development sector along with the potential long-term risks of not integrating democratic structures into the internal structure and external activities of the organization.

Alexandra (Alex) Rose Scrivner is a current PhD student in Social Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Her research focuses on international and grassroots correspondence in post-conflict democratization processes, particularly how justice claims shape political platforms and define national sovereignty at the local and international level. She received her Masters in Peace and Conflict Studies from the Te Ao Rongomaraeroa National Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies Otago University after working in the transitional justice sector in Southeast Asia. Her other research interests are transitional justice, environmental reparations, ontologies of human rights, and undergirding ideologies and principles steering UN peacekeeping and transitional governance mandates. With a bachelor’s in journalism and global studies from Azusa Pacific University, Alex has directly benefited from alternative educational experiences and seeks to contribute to integrated learning, popular education, and interdisciplinary programs.