In the province of Lanao del Sur in the Philippines’ Bangsamoro region, peace is often discussed in official reports, agreements, and donor briefings. Yet for many residents, peace remains fragile, uncertain, and deeply contested. Although the 2014 Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) formally ended decades of armed rebellion, it did not end the everyday fear of violence.. In many communities, the presence of firearms continues to shape daily life, limiting movement, straining relationships, and undermining trust.
This prompts an important question: Why does insecurity persist in Bangsamoro despite signed peace agreements and implemented disarmament and reintegration efforts?
Our research on the political economy of firearms in Lanao del Sur suggests that the answer lies not simply in the failure to collect firearms, but in how firearms are embedded in local systems of power, survival, and social relations. According to a survey of 600 participants across four municipalities in the province, firearms are not just instruments of violence—they are part of a broader political and economic order that sustains everyday insecurity.
When Peace Agreements Don’t Reach the Ground
The CAB is widely regarded as a milestone in the Bangsamoro peace process. It created new institutions, paved the way for autonomy, and began decommissioning former Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) combatants. Yet for many communities, these reforms have not led to meaningful improvements in local security. The reason is straightforward: disarmament has been partial. While the normalization process focuses on former rebels, it largely excludes civilian-held firearms, private armed groups, and politically connected militias. As a result, a significant share of the arms landscape remains untouched.
This gap reflects a broader problem in peacebuilding: the assumption that ending vertical armed conflict automatically leads to peace. In reality, local dynamics, particularly clan conflict (rido), weak institutions, and patronage politics, still drive demand for firearms. As our study shows, the cessation of war has not dismantled the structures that sustain violence.
Power Dynamics
In Lanao del Sur, firearms are used not only for protection, but also to exert influence. During election periods, weapons are reportedly distributed to mobilize supporters, intimidate rivals, and secure political advantage. In this context, firearms serve as political capital. Even more troubling is the perception that firearms circulate among state and non-state actors. Community respondents frequently identified members of the security sector, armed groups, politicians, and informal dealers as key sources of firearms. This blurring of boundaries undermines the state’s legitimacy and complicates efforts to regulate firearms.
When the institutions responsible for security are perceived as part of the problem, public trust erodes. Citizens become less willing to rely on formal mechanisms of protection and justice, turning instead to self-help strategies, including the possession of firearms. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: weak institutions encourage gun ownership, and widespread gun ownership further weakens institutions.
The Reality of Everyday Insecurity
Despite common assumptions that firearms provide protection, most residents of Lanao del Sur view them as a source of insecurity. Survey findings show that firearms are widely perceived to undermine peace, disrupt social relations, and threaten family safety. These effects are evident in everyday life. People avoid certain roads, impose self-imposed curfews, and refrain from speaking openly in public. Even minor disagreements can escalate into violence, creating a culture of caution and silence. This is what we call “everyday insecurity”: a condition in which fear becomes normalized and shapes routine behavior. In such environments, the mere possibility of violence is enough to constrain social and economic activity.
Firearms also distort justice. In communities where access to firearms determines power, disputes are often settled through intimidation rather than through the law. This weakens both formal legal institutions and traditional conflict resolution mechanisms, making it harder to achieve fair and lasting outcomes.
Why Disarmament Programs Often Fail: Rido and the Social Logic of Armed Retention
Conventional disarmament programs often overlook social realities in Lanao Del Sur. Understanding why firearms persist requires attention to local cultural dynamics, particularly rido. These clan-based conflicts are deeply rooted in systems of honor, obligation, and retaliation. In this context, owning a firearm is not only about security; it is also about maintaining dignity and preparedness. As long as rido remains unresolved, disarmament is perceived as risky. Surrendering a firearm can signal weakness, leaving individuals and families vulnerable to attack. This helps explain why many households retain firearms despite recognizing the broader harm they pose. By ignoring these realities and treating firearms as purely technical or legal issues, these programs neglect the cultural and relational dimensions of violence.
The dominant disarmament model, often framed as Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR), is largely technocratic. It focuses on collecting weapons, reintegrating combatants, and strengthening state control. While these goals are important, they are insufficient. In Lanao del Sur and even larger Bangsamoro, firearms are sustained by a complex political economy involving elite interests, economic incentives, and social norms. Without addressing these underlying factors, disarmament efforts risk being superficial. For example, as long as political elites benefit from armed followers, there is little incentive to fully disarm. Similarly, when poverty and insecurity persist, firearms remain tools of protection and livelihood. In this sense, the problem is not simply the presence of guns, but the system that makes them necessary.
Rethinking Disarmament: From Control to Transformation
What would a more effective approach look like?
Community perspectives offer important insights. Rather than rejecting disarmament, many residents support it on different terms. They emphasize the need to address the root causes of violence, not just its symptoms.
First, resolving rido is essential. Peacebuilding efforts must invest in culturally grounded mediation to restore relationships and address grievances. Without reconciliation, disarmament will remain fragile.
Second, economic alternatives matter. Programs that provide livelihoods, skills training, and financial support can reduce reliance on firearms for protection or income. However, these initiatives must be carefully designed to prevent elite capture and ensure fairness and sustainability.
Third, rebuilding trust in institutions is critical. This requires improving the accessibility, impartiality, and accountability of the justice system and law enforcement. Communities must see that the law protects everyone, not just the powerful.
Finally, disarmament must be inclusive. It should involve not only state actors but also traditional leaders, civil society, the women and youth sector, and former combatants. Peace cannot be imposed from above; it must be negotiated from the bottom up.
Peace Beyond the Absence of War
The experience of Lanao del Sur challenges conventional understandings of peacebuilding. It shows that ending armed rebellion is only the first step. Without addressing the political, economic, and cultural drivers of violence, insecurity can persist even in “post-conflict” settings. For policymakers and peacebuilders, the lesson is clear: disarmament is not only about reducing firearms. It is about transforming the systems that enable violence. Until then, peace in Bangsamoro will remain incomplete, visible in agreements and institutions, but elusive in the everyday lives of its people.
Keywords: Philippines, Bangsamoro, guns, firearms, conflict, peace, conflict resolution, disarmament, DDR
Raihan A. Yusoph
Raihan A. Yusoph is a faculty member in the History Department at Mindanao State University–Marawi City, Philippines. He is currently pursuing a PhD in the International Peace and Coexistence Program at Hiroshima University in Japan as a MEXT (Monbukagakusho) Scholar of the Japanese Government. He has presented research at international conferences across Asia, Europe, and North Africa. His research focuses on Bangsamoro studies, peace and conflict studies, and biographical studies, with publications in Scopus-indexed, peer-reviewed international books, and journals.
Almahdi Alonto
Almahdi “Aldean” Alonto serves as the Director of the International Affairs and Linkage Office at Mindanao State University’s main campus. He is a committed peacebuilding scholar-practitioner with over twenty years of experience in conflict resolution and post-conflict recovery. As a Chevening Scholar, he earned an M.A. in Conflict Resolution from the University of Bradford’s renowned Peace Department, as well as an M.A. in Asian Studies and a B.A. in History from the University of the Philippines, Diliman. He is recognized for his expertise in Bangsamoro history and conflict resolution, and he has contributed significantly through his research and publications. Additionally, he teaches in the MA Peace and Development Studies program and the History Department as a faculty member.
