The article proposes that the power of local government to design and deliver educational services contributing to long-term conflict transformation is mediated by two factors: the model of decentralisation adopted in the aftermath of conflict, and the decision-making model at the centre (power-sharing). It employs rich qualitative data collected during extensive fieldwork. It compares the design and delivery of education across three post-conflict societies with a particular focus on attempts to reform the Lebanese University in Lebanon, to establish an Education and Skills Authority in Northern Ireland and to rationalise the school network in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Local governments have been explicitly recognised in the suite of international agreements, collectively known as the post-2015 Development Agenda. However, in post-conflict, in-conflict or fragile situations, the role of local governments and decentralisation processes more generally becomes even more complex than ‘normal’ development contexts. In the best-case scenario, decentralisation can be a tool to empower local communities, rebuild trust and transform conflicts. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it can be an instrument of domination or a new avenue for extending and firmly entrenching rent-seeking behaviour, eventually exacerbating conflict. This paper applies a practitioner’s lens to the papers included in this collection. It also draws on the author’s own experiences, most recently in Myanmar, which is emerging from international isolation, witnessing a huge and rapid economic and physical transformation, yet battling conflicts on several fronts. The role of local governments in this complex landscape is dynamic and rapidly evolving. The paper concludes by summarising the challenges faced by local governments in conflict, post-conflict and fragile contexts, and acknowledges the remarkable mobilisation and sustained advocacy by several local government associations and networks, many of which also came together under the umbrella of the Global Task Force of Local and Regional Governments.

This paper explores decentralisation’s contribution to post-conflict state building in four Commonwealth countries: UK (Northern Ireland), Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone and Rwanda. Drawing on insights from senior local government officials, it explores post-conflict institutional arrangements and finds that decentralisation policy has made a significant, if varied, contribution to community cohesion, reconciliation and state legitimacy in each country. In Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent Sri Lanka, quasi-federal structures have enabled peace negotiations through greater autonomy and state legitimacy in the eyes of former separatists. This has however limited further devolution to sub-provincial local councils. In Sierra Leone and Rwanda, decentralisation has had a more developmental rationale. Greater equity in basic local service provision and more inclusive local governance has supported community cohesion and reconciliation in all four countries, though there are capacity gaps and coordination issues with central government agencies. There is evidence decentralisation has contributed to peace in all four countries although in Rwanda the restriction on pluralism has limited local government flexibility to address community needs. The case studies offer key lessons and signpost continuing challenges, which may help other governments to consider what features of decentralisation may work best for their post-conflict political settlement and the sociocultural dynamics of the communities they serve.

This collection is designed to partially address a gap in the academic literature. Whilst decentralisation is frequently included in peace agreements, the actual scope and role of local government is far less frequently discussed. This gap remains despite a considerable literature on local government in developing countries more generally, particularly with regard to decentralisation; but also despite a considerable and growing literature on post-conflict reconstruction. Despite this, very little has been written specifically on the politics of local government and post-conflict. This collection aims to fill that gap, providing a mixture of case study and conceptual material and also perspectives from both academics and policy-makers.