AGENTS FOR
PEACEBUILDING
H . M . O S H A D H I V. H E R AT H
SENIOR LECTURER (PEACE &CONFLICT RESOLUTION)
D E PA R T M E N T O F P H I L O S O P H Y
F A C U LT Y O F S O C I A L S C I E N C E S
U N I V E R S I T Y O F K E L A N I YA
Lesson Outcome
To identify different agents of a peacebuilding process
To discuss their roles in the process
Introduction
Peacebuilding is understood as an overarching term to describe a long-term process covering all activities with the
overall objective to prevent violent outbreaks of conflict or to sustainably transform armed conflicts into constructive
peaceful ways of managing conflict.
This definition, however, is only partial because it is not entirely clear on the scope and time frame of peacebuilding. In
the peacebuilding discourse, Galtung (1969) distinguishes two forms of peace—negative peace (end of violence) and
positive peace (peaceful society at all levels).
A narrow definition of peacebuilding based on the concept of negative peace is evident in the 1992 UN Agenda for
Peace where the aim of peacebuilding is defined as preventing large-scale violence or the recurrence of violence
immediately after wars or armed conflicts (1-3 years, maximum 5 years).
In this definition, all activities belong to peacebuilding that aims at achieving this goal directly.
The prevailing understanding of the end of peacebuilding in international practice slightly enlarges the above definition.
Here, peacebuilding ends when a post-conflict country is perceived by the international community to be able to guarantee
minimum security to its people (thus allowing outside peacekeeping forces to exit) as well as establishing working
democratic structures, usually understood as a national government legitimized through internationally observed and
recognized elections.
A wider definition sees the end of peacebuilding when a positive peace has been achieved. This notion, however, is too
wide to allow a clear definition of the end of peacebuilding, as it includes a range of activities and outcomes (e.g.,
negotiations, peacekeeping, trauma healing, poverty reduction, Prior to the outbreak of violence Armed conflict After the
end of armed violence democratization).
This study, therefore, uses a compromise definition between the two extremes: Peacebuilding aims at preventing and
managing armed conflict and sustaining peace after large-scale organized violence has ended.
The peacebuilding scope covers all activities that are linked directly to this objective over 5-10 years. Peacebuilding
should create conducive conditions for economic reconstruction, development, and democratization, but should not be
equated and thus confused with these concepts.
Corresponding to the three phases of conflict, there are three phases of peacebuilding: (i) the prevention phase aiming at
preventing armed conflict; (ii) the conflict management or peace-making phase aiming to end armed conflict and reach a
peace agreement; and (iii) the post-conflict peacebuilding phase, or post settlement phase. The term post-settlement would be
more appropriate as the term post-conflict is somewhat at odds with the notion that conflict is inevitable in any society and
can be constructive.
However, the problem with the term post-settlement is that in some cases there is no peace agreement in place, yet large-
scale organized violence has ended. This study uses the term post-conflict which, while recognizing its limitations, is widely
used in mainstream research and practice.
The post-conflict phase can be divided into two sub-phases, the immediate aftermath of armed conflict (1-5 years) and the
period after (5-10 years).
This newer distinction of the post-conflict phase is a result of post-conflict research that finds evidence that there is a high
risk (44%) of reverting to large-scale violence within the first five years after the end of hostilities. This risk falls
considerably after the first post-conflict decade (Collier et al. 2003)
Theoretical Approaches to Peacebuilding:
Different Schools of Thought
Four schools of thought can be distinguished within peace research. These schools use different terminologies and have
different conceptual understandings, approaches, and actors. The history of these schools of thought is closely linked to the
history and evolution of the field of peacebuilding. The different schools have had different influences on peacebuilding and
practice has adopted elements from different schools.
1. The Conflict Management School
2. The Conflict Resolution School
3. The Complementary School
4. The Conflict Transformation School
The Conflict Management School
The approach of the Conflict Management school is to The Conflict Management school has been criticized because
end wars through different diplomatic initiatives. mediators tend to concentrate solely on the top leadership of the
This is the oldest school of thought, closely linked to conflicting parties (Lederach 1997), are not always neutral in
the institutionalization of peacebuilding in internal conflicts (Ropers and Debiel 1995), and the approach
international law. The peacebuilders within the logic of overlooks deep causes of conflicts and thus cannot guarantee
this school are external diplomats from bilateral or long-term stability of the peace agreement (Hoffman 1995).
multilateral organizations (Paffenholz 1998, 2001).
Its theoretical approach is referred to as the outcome- Conflict Management approaches have recently moved beyond
oriented approach, which aims to identify and bring to an exclusive concern with securing a peace agreement and now
the negotiating table leaders of the conflict parties. Its also focus on the conditions for successful implementation of
main focus is on the short-term management of armed post-conflict peacebuilding.
conflict.
Recent examples include the Camp David agreement Thus it is now possible to distinguish between traditional and
and the Sudan peace accord. modern approaches to conflict management.
The Conflict Resolution School
The approach of the Conflict Resolution school is to solve the underlying causes of conflict and rebuild destroyed relationships between
the parties. Under this logic, relations need to be rebuilt not only between the top representatives of the conflict parties but also within
society at large.
This school was established in academic research in the 1970s, adopting strategies from socio-psychological conflict resolution at the inter-
personal level. In the early Conflict Resolution school, peacebuilders were mainly Western academic institutions carrying out conflict
resolution workshops (Fisher 1997).
The principle of these workshops is to bring individuals from the conflict parties together that are close to or can influence their leaders.
Workshops are designed to rebuild relationships between the representatives of the conflict parties and work with them to solve the causes
of the conflict.
As the approach evolved, additional participants entered the field, such as international or local NGOs, as well as individuals and
communities.
The common features are that all actors work to address the root causes of conflict with relationship-building and long-term resolution-
oriented approaches, and they do not represent a government or an international organization (Bailey 1985; Stedman 1993). Approaches
and tools used include dialogue projects between groups or communities, and conflict resolution training to enhance the peacebuilding
capacity of actors perceived as agents of change (Mitchell 2005).
The Conflict Resolution school has been criticized, especially by supporters of the Conflict Management school, because the
process is too lengthy to be able to stop wars and because improving communications and building relationships between
conflict parties do not necessarily result in an agreement to end the war (Bercovitch 1984).
Research has also found that while relationships between groups can be rebuilt, this need not necessarily spill over to other
groups or the leadership of the conflict parties.
An interesting example comes from the assessment of the Norwegian-funded People to People Peace Program following the
Oslo peace agreement between Israel and Palestine in 1994.
The Program funded many dialogue projects between various Israeli and Palestinian groups, which while they improved
relations between participants, had no impact on the peace process at large (Atieh et al. 2004).
The Complementary School
This school focuses on the complementarity of the conflict management and resolution schools, with three different approaches. The first
is Fisher and Keashly’s (1991) ‘Contingency model for third party intervention in armed conflicts’, which aims to identify the appropriate
third party method and the timing of interventions. Based on Glasl’s (1990) conflict escalation model, the approach is to de-escalate the
conflict from phase to phase.
The escalation phase is the appropriate time for resolution-oriented approaches, while power mediation should be used when the conflict
escalates.
The third strand of this school is the Multi-Track Diplomacy approach by Diamond and McDonald (1996), which while recognizing that
different approaches and actors are needed to reach peace, it seeks to make a clearer distinction between the different approaches and actors
by adopting a ‘track’ concept Track 1 involves diplomatic peacebuilding initiatives by governments and is in line with the Conflict
Management school. Track 2 represents the original conflict resolution school, while the other tracks try to cluster other relevant actors.
The Complementary School has not been subject to a broad critique nor has it resulted in major debates within mainstream research. This is
likely due to the evolution of the Conflict Transformation school that absorbed the results of the Complementary school and was taken over
by mainstream research and most of all by practitioners.
Multi-Track Diplomacy approach by Diamond and McDonald (1996)
The Conflict Transformation School
This approach focuses on the transformation of deep-rooted armed conflicts into peaceful ones, based on a different
understanding of peacebuilding.
It recognizes the existence of irresolvable conflicts and therefore suggests replacing the term conflict resolution with the
term conflict transformation (Rupesinghe 1995).
John Paul Lederach (1997) developed the first comprehensive transformation-oriented approach. Building on the
Complementary school, Lederach also sees the need to solve the dilemma between short-term conflict management, and
long-term relationship building and resolution of underlying causes of conflict.
His proposal is to build ‘long-term infrastructure’ for peacebuilding by supporting the reconciliation potential of society.
In line with the Conflict Resolution school, he sees the need to rebuild destroyed relationships, focusing on reconciliation
within society and the strengthening of society’s peacebuilding potential.
Third party intervention should concentrate on supporting internal actors and coordinating external peace efforts
Sensitivity to the local culture and a long-term time frame are necessary.
A key element of this approach is to focus on peace constituencies by identifying mid-level individuals or groups and
empowering them to build peace and support reconciliation.
Empowerment of the middle level is assumed to influence peacebuilding at the macro and grassroots levels. Lederach
divides society into three levels, which can be approached with different peacebuilding strategies.
Top leadership can be accessed by mediation at the level of states (track 1) and the outcome-oriented approach. Mid-level
leadership (track 2) can be reached through more resolution-oriented approaches, such as problem-solving workshops or
peace-commissions with the help of partial insiders (i.e., prominent individuals in society).
The grassroots level (track 3), however, represents the majority of the population and can be reached by a wide range of
peacebuilding approaches, such as local peace commissions, community dialogue projects or trauma healing.
Building on a decade of work in the Horn of Africa, the conflict transformation approach of the Swedish Life and Peace
Institute adopts a community-based bottom-up peacebuilding approach (Paffenholz 2003), expanding Lederach’s mid-level
approach to the grassroots track 3 level.
This approach also combines in-country peacebuilding with peacebuilding advocacy at the international level and thereby
conceptually links to the debate on global civil society (Kaldor 2003).
The Conflict Transformation school has not been subject to fundamental critique. On the contrary, it has
become the leading school of thought in the field.
Top Level
The top-level elite leadership comprises the key
political, military, and religious leaders in the conflict.
They are the primary representatives of their Top-level approaches to peacebuilding aim to achieve a
constituencies and are therefore highly visible. negotiated settlement between the principal high-level
leaders of the parties involved in the conflict. In these
By virtue of this high profile, they are often locked into high-level negotiations, elite leaders are brought to a
positions regarding the conflict's substantive issues. bargaining table and attempt to work toward new
solutions.
They must maintain an image of strength, which makes
it difficult for them to accept anything less than their
publicly stated goals. In many cases, they find it difficult
to maneuver.
Middle Level
The middle-range leadership, including leaders of mid-level NGOs (non-government organizations) Middle-range leaders are the
key to creating an
and GOs (government organizations), comprises those who function in leadership positions but are infrastructure for achieving
not necessarily connected with formal government or major opposition movements. and sustaining peace.
These middle-range actors are far more numerous than top-level leaders, and their status and
Three important mid-level
influence derive from their relationships with others. approaches to building peace
Leaders in sectors such as education, business, agriculture, and health are likely to know and be are problem-solving
known by top-level leadership, and yet have significant connections to the constituency that the top workshops, conflict
resolution training, and the
leaders claim to represent. development of peace
They serve as an important connection between the top and grassroots levels. commissions.
In addition, because these middle-range leaders have lower visibility, they tend to have more
freedom to maneuver than do top-level leaders.
Grassroots Level
The leadership at the grassroots level includes those involved in local
communities, members of indigenous NGOs carrying out relief projects, These grassroots-level programs are
health officials, and refugee camp leaders. crucial in helping people deal with the
violence associated with war and
These grassroots leaders represent the masses, those who often experience repairing damaged relationships.
a day-to-day struggle to find food, water, shelter, and safety in violence-
Grassroots approaches bring together
torn areas.
former enemies at the village level and are
Because local communities are often split into hostile groups, grassroots a crucial part of moving toward
reconciliation.
leaders witness firsthand the deep-rooted hatred and animosity associated
with conflict.
Questions and Answers
