A Comparative Perspective on the Role and Function of Civil Society Actors During Violent Transitions in Myanmar, Sri Lanka

What kinds of civic ties between different ethnic communities or individuals can contain, or even prevent, ethnic violence? How institutionalized and resistant are these ties especially in times of crisis and transition? Is violence more likely to be prevented in cities or in rural villages? Building on previous comparative work (Hein, 2011) I will first scrutinize the civil society concept and argue that civil society is not a neutral, pre-existing concept but itself dependent on contextual and situational variables that promote (illiberal civil society) or constrain violence (liberal civil society). These macro variables test the resilience of civil society in times when national elites face a crisis (economic crisis, international context, internal migration, liberation struggle, terrorism, etc) or uncertain transition prospects or a perceived challenge to their legitimacy. I propose then to test Varshney’s civic model of non-violent Hindu-Muslim relations (2001). It can be summarized as follows: “organized civic networks, when inter-communal, not only do a better job of withstanding exogenous communal shocks…they also constrain local politicians in their strategic behaviour.” Varshney’s work explains the resistance of civil society to mobilization efforts for ethnic violence in terms of “personal networks” in rural settings, and “associational networks” in urban ones. Based on case studies for Myanmar (Walton 2016) and Sri Lanka (Argenti-Pillen 2003) it is shown that, if the framing of the other is relationship and process oriented-displacing or overshadowing religious and ethnic bonds-, than violence may be prevented. I finally deduct insights and conclusions with regard to the contextual macro factors that constrain or empower civil society and the situational micro factors that directly influence the prevention of violence.