The frequently made argument that ‘youth unemployment causes armed conflict’ lacks nuance, because it fails to reflect both the multiple factors feeding young people’s frustrations and grievances in conflict contexts; and the multiple barriers young people face in entering the job market. It also glosses over the fact that “youth” is a highly heterogeneous group, divided along class, gender, political, and geographic lines. More emphasis is needed on country-specific exploration of the links between youth unemployment and other socio-economic and political factors that can contribute to marginalisation and discrimination that engender conflict and violence at a more structural level. It would be problematic to develop policy responses across different countries without such an understanding.
This is true in Sri Lanka where several policy initiatives in the past have not led to significant reforms or changes in dynamics that exclude young people from both political and economic spheres in society. Although there have been governmental and donor community efforts to tackle the issue of youth unemployment, these have for the most part not had much impact, given weak conceptualisation of the different drivers of youth exclusion, lack of coherent policy-making, and weak implementation of policy recommendations.
Several overall lessons from Sri Lanka may find resonance in other conflict contexts:
KEY LESSONS
Greater clarity is needed about the multiple factors causing youth participation in armed conflict: More research and analysis is required to better understand the causes and drivers of youthresentment, grievances, and whether and how these lead to unrest. Youth unrest cannot be seen inisolation from the context that has generated it, or as an inevitable characteristic of the biologicalor social category of youth. Young people’s grievances are not limited to unemployment, but includesocial, political and cultural issues as well.
Likewise, youth unemployment cannot be looked at as an isolated problem: Its roots lie deep in social, cultural, economic and political structures and dynamics, as illustrated by some of the issues emerging from the district-level research. Enhancing young people’s skills, while necessary in countries where educational curricula and job market requirements do not match, will not be sufficient to overcome these barriers.
Acknowledging youth heterogeneity: It is also important that heterogeneity among youth is recognised and the ways in which issues such as ethnicity, geography and class shape experiences of youth in different ways is understood. This also requires disaggregated data on youth by sex and age; as well as gender analysis of young people’s experiences and needs during conflict.
Different forms of youth militarisation: Viewing unemployed youth as “at risk” of joining armed groups is only part of the story. As is the case the world over, for many unemployed, often rural, youth, the comparatively good pay and prestige of the state armed forces make it an attractive employment option. And, far larger numbers tend to be part of the armed forces than insurgency groups. While some view this as a potentially positive form of socialisation,1 in countries affected by protracted armed conflict, the negative impacts are likely to outweigh possible positive ones. These different types of youth militarisation have implications, not only for “post-war” DDR efforts, but also Security Sector Reform (SSR).
Youth awareness of corruption and patronage breeds disillusionment and cynicism: The research carried out for this report illustrates that young people are very aware of and affected by the surrounding decay of political systems led by adults. In the case of the youth interviewed for this research, disillusionment with “the system” was coupled with a strong degree of cynicism and willingness to take advantage of the same structures, along the lines of ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’. This obviously has implications for bad governance being “learned” by young people and reinforced.
Youth apathy may hold as many risks as youth mobilisation: In many conflict contexts, collective mobilisation of youth for the purpose of armed insurgency or revolution is identified as a major conflict risk. However, another serious challenge for peacebuilding usually receives much less attention: an emerging disillusionment and resulting disinterest among many youth in social change and transformation. Two potential causes for concern follow: first, political currents with a tendency to establish and protect oppressive political regimes are likely to benefit from such youth apathy. Second, youth apathy in social and political issues does not mean young people will become less willing to turn to violence; the type and purpose may however change to include for example more random acts of violence for more individualist purposes.
Young people’s aspirations need to be recognised and reflected in policies and programmes: Instead of merely paying lip service to the potential of youth, genuine effort is needed to understandyouth aspirations and concerns and ensure their participation and leadership in community andnational policy-making and development. This means trusting youth and allowing them to define forthemselves aims for their own lives, but also for wider society.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Specifically, the study illustrates the key roles of both public and private sectors in tackling youth unemployment. Here, it generates the following recommendations:
Strong vision and leadership are needed to tackle youth employment and participation at national and district levels: At the national level, a fairly participatory, multi-stakeholder andinclusive process to formulate the National Action Plan for Youth Employment has been largelystalled since its Cabinet approval in December 2006. The momentum behind this initiative, whichprovides a potentially valuable platform for policy dialogue and change, needs to be rekindled, withactive involvement from government, civil society, the private sector and the donor community.At the district level, generating decent jobs in decent numbers will require strong local economicdevelopment planning, and a vision and strategies to attract investment in sectors where there is acompetitive advantage, as well as socially responsible business practice.
The multiple barriers to accessing private-sector jobs need to be understood, and addressed: At the risk of stating the obvious, the private sector needs to be in a position to create, not just newjobs, but new jobs in the places where it matters for the large majority of young people: acrossdifferent regions of Sri Lanka, importantly areas outside Western Province. For this, an enablingenvironment needs to be in place that facilitates and incentivises appropriate private-sectorinvestment in the regions, which is currently not the case. The private sector’s profit motive needsto be recognised by the state, local government and other actors that seek to attract investment tothe district level. Secondly, young people feel that many of the jobs created (often casual, or non-skilledlabour) do not match their own aspirations, and they are rather suspicious of private-sectorjobs, fearful of exploitation, and bitter about the discrimination they feel they would face in trying toaccess them.
The private sector needs to address real and perceived discrimination in its hiring practices: In order to start attracting young people more to private-sector jobs, businesses need to start getting their own house in order. Better understanding is needed by the private sector about the multiple challenges faced by young people on the labour market and in the private sector itself. For this, more dialogue is needed between private-sector bodies, youth organisations and youth leadership, and youth experts. The private sector also needs to reach out to educational institutes to forge partnerships to strengthen curricula that prepare young people for entry into the job market.
The public sector remains an important source of employment, but recruitment needs to be sustainable: As the National Action Plan for Youth Employment states, self-employmentand private-sector employment cannot be regarded as the only solution to tackling youthunemployment. However the current demand for government jobs, as opposed to other sources ofemployment, is not sustainable, and open to political manipulation. In the past, large-scalepublic sector recruitment drives have also been used as “stop-gap” measures, or to pacify youthdemands. Public-sector recruitment policies and procedures need improving to guard against theseproblems; and employment opportunities generated need to reflect the levels and kinds of humanresource needs of the public sector, and the services and development outcomes it aims to deliver.
