Current approaches to post-war state reconstruction are primarily dominated by the
liberal peace thesis. These approaches tend to ignore the indigenous institutions,
societal resources and cultural agencies of post-conflict societies, although such
entities are rooted in the sociological, historical, political and environmental realities
of these societies. Such universalised and `best practice¿ approaches, more often than
not, tend to reproduce artificial states. The Poro and Sande are the largest indigenous
sodality institutions in the `hinterlands¿¿a pejorative term attributed to rural Liberia
and Sierra Leone. Both the Poro and Sande exercise spiritual, political, economic and
social authority. In this thesis, I use critical realism and the case study approach to
investigate: a) the extent to which the liberal peace practitioners who are leading state
reconstruction in Liberia and Sierra Leone recognised the role and potential utility of
the Poro and Sande institutions; b) the extent to which the Poro and Sande were
engaged; and c) the implications for the quality and viability of the reconstructed
states. This evidence-based research suggests that the liberal peace project sidelined
indigenous institutions, including the Poro and Sande, in the post-war recovery and
rebuilding exercises. The disregard for indigenous and emerging resources in the
context of state reconstruction in Liberia and Sierra Leone has contributed to the
resurgence of 19th century counter-hegemonic resistance from the sodality-governed
interior of both countries. At the same time, the reconstructed states are drifting back
towards their pre-war status quo. Authority structures remain fragmented,
kleptocracy is being restored, webs of militarised patronage networks are being
emboldened, and spaces for constructive dialogues are shrinking. This thesis
underscores the need for indigenisation as a complementary strategy to help reverse
the deterioration, and to maximise gains from massive investments in peacebuilding
