This paper investigates differences in indicators of trust, reconciliation, and community engagement between individuals who stayed in their communities during conflict (stayees) and those who were IDPs or refugees and returned home (returnees). The authors also examine how exposure to violence impacts these indicators for each group. The study focuses on Burundi, a country with a history of significant internal and international displacement due to conflict.
The analysis is based on data collected from a nationwide survey conducted between January and March 2015, covering 100 communities across Burundi’s 17 provinces. The data reveals significant differences in experiences during conflict. Stayees reported more land disputes, likely due to their prolonged presence in their communities of origin, while internal returnees experienced higher rates of deaths or disabling injuries among household members during the conflict.
Main findings:
- Returnees exhibit significantly lower levels of trust, reconciliation, and community engagement compared to stayees.
- This effect is particularly pronounced among internal returnees. After controlling for community effects and socio-demographic factors, internal returnees are 11 percentage points less likely to trust community leaders, 10 percentage points less likely to agree that justice has been served for wartime crimes, and 5 percentage points less likely to have a household member involved in a fishing association compared to stayees. The differences between international returnees and stayees are generally not statistically significant.
- Greater exposure to violence correlates with lower levels of reconciliation and community engagement among returnees compared to stayees. The impact on trust varies depending on the specific trust indicator. For instance, international returnees exposed to more violence are more likely to trust ex-combatants, whereas internal returnees with higher exposure to violence are less likely to trust community leaders.
Overall, returnees exhibit significantly lower levels of trust, reconciliation, and community engagement compared to stayees. This suggests that stayees maintain or even strengthen their community bonds in the face of adversity, whereas returnees have less opportunity to do so. Notably, this result is driven by internal returnees, likely because IDPs face worse material conditions and have less access to international assistance than both international refugees and stayees. The authors speculate that the adversity faced by IDPs does not foster the same preservation or formation of social capital as it does for those who remain in their communities or flee abroad. The authors recommend several policy responses, including tailoring support for returnees and the communities they return to, based on their views on trust and reconciliation. Additionally, they call for further efforts to examine the specific challenges faced by internal returnees and the reasons behind their lower levels of trust compared to other groups.