Author Archives: EDITOR - Majken

While the recognition of the significance of mental health grows within the peacebuilding domain, there still is a tendency to overlook how important it is to address traumas before engaging in peace processes or national dialogues. As a part of our work to accompany religious leaders in Tigray, Ethiopia, Inclusive Peace recently helped organise a retreat focused on trauma healing. In this blog, Rainer Gude, our Peace Process Support Advisor, shares his insights and experiences.

“You walked with us, helped us recognize our own trauma, stayed with us in our pain, and helped us to drink from our own well and restore our ‘hilina.’”

Hilina is a word found in Tigrinya and Amharic and means both ‘conscience’ and ‘humanity’ and is both individual and collective. The words are from one of the participants in a recent trauma healing workshop with religious leaders in Tigray that I helped facilitate at the beginning of November. But what is Inclusive Peace doing in a trauma healing workshop and what does all this have to do with our work to support the national dialogue in Ethiopia?

A year on from the “Pretoria Agreement” that stopped the guns in Tigray, northern Ethiopia, many questions remain about how to move forward. One of them concerns trauma healing. Wars always leave wounds, visible or not, that take time to heal and sometimes those unhealed wounds stand in the way of what comes next.

In May of 2023, I went with a colleague to Mekelle, in Tigray on a listening tour to visit Religious Leaders. While at Inclusive Peace we specialize in national dialogues and peace processes and are doing what we can to support the Ethiopian National Dialogue in various ways, we also know from comparative experience that you have to meet people where they are. What came from that trip to Mekelle was that a national dialogue simply seemed too distant amid the religious leaders’ pain and trauma. Subsequently, we were explicitly asked to organize a trauma-healing retreat for religious leaders. And a few months later that is exactly what we did.

The retreat was held in the beginning of November in collaboration with our partner, the African Council of Religious Leaders (ACRL), an organization with expertise in trauma healing. ACRL has designed trauma healing retreats tailored specifically for religious leaders who are often traumatized on various levels: first as victims of a conflict themselves, then by hearing all that their communities have suffered as many people come to them seeking comfort, and lastly as they feel their powerlessness in the face of widespread trauma that they were not even necessarily “trained” to deal with.

What else can I say about those intense, sad, powerful, beautiful retreat days? Certainly, I am not the same person I was before. But besides that, I have seen the power, and necessity of trauma healing and how it is a gate-opener to dealing with other broader issues related to peace.

“First you deal with people’s pain, where they are, then you can move forward from there.” Trauma-healing expert, Alfred Kibunja, African Council of Religious Leaders

In my work with Inclusive Peace, I had come to understand our approach of accompanying actors in peace and political transition processes as an act of accompaniment, of “walking with” others. But I had not quite realized where that journey could begin. The retreat participants saw no interest or connection in speaking about the National Dialogue process at the beginning of the retreat. But after a week of collectively sitting with their pain and co-creating spaces for healing, they were ready.

In a process that can only be described as accompanying, walking with, and creating a safe shared space, different religious leaders of various ages and religious backgrounds, male and female, were finally permitted to share their pain. They could safely realize that it is OK to talk about it, OK to cry, and OK not to be OK. They also found that healing was within their reach and indeed in their hands. An analogy of the healing body came to me: Any doctor will tell you that doctors do not heal anyone, the body heals itself, and as a doctor, you can only help it along the way.

Speaking about peacebuilding or political solutions or even trying to mention national dialogue when people are not ready, even with all its positive potential, would be like trying to get a plant to grow by pulling it up from its stem: You risk unrooting it. You can nourish the plant’s roots where it is and give it the sunlight of hope.

No matter how urgent or necessary the peacebuilding and national dialogue and anything else may be, sometimes the best thing to do is pause and take a step back. Trauma healing in this context gave the participants a new perspective and new energy to move forward, to heal, to even imagine what their religious communities could contribute to a national dialogue, but even more importantly, what they could contribute to a better future.

During the retreat, the participants and I experienced that while the truth may not be relative, it is relational, and in restoring relationships with themselves and their community, they were on the path towards restoring the wounded relationships with their neighbors. They understand that healing (and even peace for that matter) is a journey, not a destination, and it is a journey that is better walked together. I, and we at Inclusive Peace, are honored to walk with them.

New scientific article from Inclusive Peace’s Phillip Poppereuter, Nick Ross and Thania Paffenholz argues that the role of international actors in peacebuilding needs to be redefined in order to advance a truly transformative localisation agenda. Read the abstract from the article here and dive into the full read below.

Localization in peacebuilding, development, and humanitarian work is grounded on the claim that principles of both justice and effectiveness demand a transfer of power from international to local actors, and thus a change in the current donor–recipient relationship and the way international cooperation works and is structured.

Like any transfer of power, this creates opportunities and provokes resistance. This article conducts a structured analysis of secondary literature and publicly available contributions from Southern practitioners to identify obstacles to localization in peacebuilding and explore concrete entry points for mitigating them. The mitigation strategies seek to rectify persistent power imbalances between international and local actors in the peacebuilding field.

The article’s focus on practical steps toward localization helps to overcome the stuckness of the debate in the peacebuilding literature and move beyond the mere criticism of neoliberal peacebuilding. The article paves the way toward a third local turn in peacebuilding, which concentrates on how to achieve localization in everyday peacebuilding, focusing on its more radical, decolonial implications and avoiding the neutralizing effects of the incumbent, technocratic approach to peacebuilding.

Read the full article here

A few years back, we started research on the role of religious actors in formal peace processes in collaboration with colleague S. Ayse Kadayifci-Orellana at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. The report is now out with important results to help our understanding of the opportunities and challenges for religious actors when wanting to contribute to peace processes. Read the summary of the report for important highlights.

Despite the significant impact—both real and potential—that religious actors and communities can have on formal peace processes, there is little research on or analysis of their engagement as part of these processes. This report aims to remedy this deficit by examining whether, when, how, and to what extent religious actors have been engaged in formal peace and political transition processes.

SUMMARY

Religious actors can make a significant contribution to formal peace and political transition processes. These actors have considerable influence not only within their own constituencies but also over public opinion generally. As seen in peace processes and political transitions over the past 30 years, this influence can both enhance and undermine peacemaking and peacebuilding efforts and formal negotiation processes. At present, however, this potential for peace is underutilized.

Religious actors can be involved in all phases of formal peace processes or political transition processes, participating in a wide array of modalities and performing a variety of functions. Religious actors are most likely to engage in formal peace activities when their own communities are affected by a conflict. They also can be involved externally, often as mediators.

Many cases in which religious actors are involved in formal peace and political transition processes are not conflicts directly over religious issues or differences but conflicts in which the parties are divided along ethnoreligious lines. In these contexts, religious actors have been highly trusted and respected by the parties involved, and religious values and ideas have proved important in political mobilization toward peace.

The inclusion of religious actors can generate greater buy-in and increase the likelihood of reaching a negotiated settlement, and in turn, increase the chances of achieving sustainable positive peace. When opposed to a particular peace process, religious actors can mobilize themselves, their constituencies, and public opinion in opposition to it.

Factors that enhance the peacemaking and peacebuilding effectiveness of religious actors include their legitimacy, their status as representatives of powerful and often well-resourced societal organizations, and their relationship to the state. In light of these advantages and the influence religious actors can exert, peace process mediators, facilitators, support actors, and donors should systematically identify and engage key religious actors who are or can be mobilized for peace and support their efforts. At the same time, it is important to be aware of religious figures and groups who could be potential spoilers and to explore ways to mitigate that danger.

About the Report
This report presents a qualitative analysis of whether and how religious actors can influence formal peace processes. Originating from a collaboration between the United States Institute of Peace, Inclusive Peace, and the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, it draws on Inclusive Peace’s database, academic and policy research, and a series of regional consultations with religious actors involved in peacemaking and peacebuilding and other peace practitioners.

About the Authors
Alexander Bramble is a researcher and analyst at Inclusive Peace. S. Ayse Kadayifci-Orellana is a research affiliate at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. Thania Paffenholz is the executive director of Inclusive Peace and a senior fellow at the Centre on Conflict, Development, and Peacebuilding at the Graduate Institute in Geneva.

Report,

Religious Actors in Formal Peace Processes

This report presents a qualitative analysis of whether and how religious actors can influence formal peace processes. Originating from collaboration between the United States Institute of Peace, Inclusive Peace, and the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, it draws on Inclusive Peace’s database, academic and policy research, and a series of regional consultations with religious actors involved in peacemaking and peacebuilding and other peace practitioners.

November 2023|Thania Paffenholz, Alexander Bramble,

Download Pdf

Author: Thania Paffenholz

The localisation agenda has reached the peacebuilding field. In this blog I am asking the question if the localisation agenda can be the next local turn in peacebuilding. Is it an agenda that offers truly transformative change or is the agenda mainly moving us towards technical questions about aid delivery to local organisations?

When I first started working on our latest research article Toward a Third Local Turn: Identifying and Addressing Obstacles to Localization in Peacebuilding, with my colleagues Philip Poppelreuter and Nick Ross, I was not aware how prominent the localisation topic is in the development and humanitarian sector. It is only recently that we have begun to talk about it in the peacebuilding field.

What we see happening now are slow openings towards a localised approach to peacebuilding: We see that donors are emphasizing localisation – not only by paying lip service to the countless normative frameworks that have embraced the agenda, but by trying hard to find ways to practise the agenda in particular when it comes to finding modi to funding local actors more directly. However, a truly transformative localisation agenda is still far away. So, how come implementation is so hard?

In essence, what is slowing down implementation, is the tension between a technical, a localisation sensitive and a localisation transformative approach.

A technical approach to localisation centers around how aid can be directly delivered to local organisations without reducing accountability mechanisms. While this is an effective way of reaching local stakeholders, it risks becoming a technical undertaking about delivery modi without changing the underlying causes of why the aid system is in need of localisation in the first place.

The next level is a localisation sensitive approach that goes further and wants to address some of the systemic issues, namely to change the way funding flows from international to locals have been institutionalised in a colonial way of power and control. We already see steps in the right direction: Philanthropies and some bilateral donors have started to give direct support (institutional and project ) to local organisations bypassing the international intermediaries.

A sensitive approach to localisation is a great step in the right direction, however it is still not a sufficient transformative approach that addresses all dimensions of the colonial way the aid system is built and structured.

In our new article we discuss these obstacles and present ideas for alternatives. We come to the conclusion that small progress has been made with some concrete and effective projects and practices, however true progress on a transformative localisation agenda is still far away.

Here are a couple of insights from the article shedding light on why that is and what a truly transformative localisation agenda might look like.

→ The production of peacebuilding knowledge mimics old patterns of colonial relationships. Local researchers typically carry out data collection and are mentioned in acknowledgements, while international researchers set the agenda, publish and receive credits.

A transformative approach would entail that peacebuilding academia embraces new partnerships and research designs and enforces Global South research corporation. For example, the Open Society Foundations network connects think tanks in Africa, with the goal of developing African research agendas that contribute to addressing African challenges by African scholars as well as global challenges from an African perspective. The Carnegie Foundation has a programme to enhance African scholarship.

→ The fundings streams for peacebuilding are still controlled by a small number of international actors. Local peacebuilding actors continue to depend on external donors and this incentivizes local peacebuilders and development practitioners to tailor their practices, missions, and activities to what they think international actors want to hear.

Adapting a transformative localisation agenda would mean to promote access to flexible, long-term institutional funding. This would help to mitigate the competition for financial support among local actors, curtail the prevalence of short-term, project-based funding and guarantee local actors planning security.

→ Very strict accountability requirements, with which local actors often struggle to comply, is still the norm in funding for peacebuilding. This promotes homogenized tools and language as well as uniform technical knowledge that international peacebuilders apply in all contexts. Accordingly, organizations and practitioners from the Global North have developed several peacebuilding handbooks meant to be applicable for all contexts.

However, local actors’ participation in donors’ service provision initiatives does not automatically enhance local agency. Rather, local actors will only develop feelings of ownership, dignity, and fair treatment when they experience their inclusion as meaningful, that is, when they have access to resources and are able to influence decision-making processes.

So far, the localisation agenda still remains to bring transformative change to the power structures within peacebuilding. A truly transformative agenda calls international actors to abandon their dominance when it comes to agenda setting, research, funding and monitoring activities, and to embrace a new role as accompanying partners to local actors.

Read the full article here and get in touch for more information about our work on a localised approach to peacebuilding.

Inclusive Peace’s ED, Thania Paffenholz, here reflects on her recent participation in the Shaping Feminist Foreign Policy 2023 Conference in The Hague.

After an intense WPS week in New York, I arrived exhausted in The Hague ahead of the Shaping Feminist Foreign Policy 2023 Conference. However, I eventually left the city energized by all the wonderful encounters with friends and colleagues and the rich and critical discussions before, during and after the conference. In this blog I reflect on the conference as such and share my observations emerging from the formal and informal discussion and debates at the conference.

In short my five takeaways are:

1. 1. 1. - The conference was excellently organised with a diverse participant group and a conference organization that allowed for critical debate
      - There is a gap between a gender-inclusive and gender-transformative FFP
      - Gender budgeting and making funding mechanisms fit for purpose is central
      - The tension between FFP and militarisation was not sufficiently addressed
      - FFP seems to be a useful label

# 1: Diverse participant group and a conference organization that allowed for critical debates

The organisers, The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, brought together a wonderful diverse group of people from all around the globe and they organised the conference in a way that placed activists from challenging contexts at the centre of the event. The organisers also resisted to only showcase successes or to repeat simplified complaints on why women are not included in various processes. Instead, we saw honest exchanges with very practical reflections on next steps to address the existing gaps in FFP and we saw honesty about stark realities. One of them being that dismantling patriarchy is a major objective for a FFP, but that it is not realistic that this will be achieved easily.

Connecting and reconnecting with the many activists, experts and supporters was simply wonderful. Prior to the conference, the Dutch WPS and Feminist INGOs organized a Feminist Community Festival that allowed for more informal exchanges, practical conversations which prepared us participants well for the conference.

# 2: The gap between a gender-inclusive and gender-transformative FFP

FFP is at the very beginning in trying to implement more gender-inclusive programming but still must come a long way before being truly gender-transformative. While specific funds mostly focused on support to local women organisations in the Global South have been set up for gender inclusion, donors are also asking themselves how to move beyond and address power asymmetries through programming. This might work in specific cases, however, there are many obstacles such as incoherent programme budget lines; lack of joint country or regional planning in sector protective aid programmes; tensions between development , trade and diplomacy, and the challenge that most big funds go to humanitarian aid that is less open for transformative approaches.

The gap between a gender-inclusive and gender transformative FFP is also related to a lack of progress on the localisation agenda. This particularly means a lack of an explicit feminist localisation agenda that openly discusses not only funding mechanisms but also who distributes the funds, who employs whom for what in the aid industry and how these post-colonial power imbalances can be addressed as part of a broader inclusive FFP. Philanthropy donors seem to be a step further ahead as some give either high overheads or non earmarked institutional funding with less bureaucratic hurdles and explicitly focus on support to feminist movements.

# 3: Gender budgeting and making funding mechanisms fit for purpose is central

Many debates at the conference focussed on funding mechanisms as a precondition for changed programming and enabling support to feminist movements. This is a good start and we heard interesting examples from smaller and bigger donors like development banks, new modalities such as the Women Peace and Humanitarian Fund that brings INGOs and local organisations into partnerships and should allow for quicker and more flexible disbursement and donor funds that include Southern actors in a some decision making bodies. However, activists criticised the funding mechanisms of being still far too colonial with upwards accountability persisting and overburdensome administrative hurdles that make the dependency on the INGO intermediaries here to stay and discourage equal partnerships between Global South and Global North.

#4: The tension between FFP and militarisation was not sufficiently addressed

Government representatives at the conference were challenged throughout by activists that vividly pointed to the tension between the anti-militarised FFP normative frames and current practices. The call for a humanitarian ceasefire between Israel and Hamas dominated the scene culminating in a walk out of many activists during the speech of Hugh Adsett, Ambassador of Canada to the Netherlands and Permanent Representative to the OPCW (Canada voted against a ceasefire resolution) as well in shouting at the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hanke Bruins Slot, during the closing ceremony (The Netherlands had obtained the resolution). These current debates need more space in the future and should be moved from these expressions of frustration and informal conversations to public debates on how to deal with these tensions and ultimately overcome them.
.

# 5: FFP seems to be a useful label

My last takeaway is more of a question of whether FFP is a useful label. The case of Sweden is telling here: With the change in government last year, the new government instantly abolished the label and made substantial financial cuts for civil society, peace and development policies and programming with the result that the entire sector is suffering from these financial cuts. Nevertheless, gender equality is enshrined in the Swedish constitution and the years of FFP in Sweden have not only inspired other countries, but have shown how to more effectively practise inclusive policies and programming. This was echoed by government representatives of countries like Germany, Mexico or the Netherlands who find themselves in more vivid, concrete and results-oriented discussions in their respective ministries about how to implement gender-transformative policies which creates a more conducive environment for civil society action.

I am grateful to have been a part of these rich discussions and I look forward to the Shaping Feminist Foreign Policy Conference 2024 in Mexico.

As part of Geneva Peace Week 2023 Digital Series, Inclusive Peace has collaborated with Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund (WPHF) to host five podcast episodes where women peacebuilders from around the world discuss and exchange their experiences in promoting women’s participation and influence in shaping local and national peace processes.

Each episode brings forward two women peacebuilders from very different parts of the world. Their compelling conversations highlight the shared experiences of women navigating the field and what that looks like in different social and political contexts and across different cultural norms. They also discuss the challenges they face and what strategies and mechanisms they have adopted to overcome and ameliorate the situation for local women.

In Episode 1 of the podcast series, Thania Paffenholz, Executive Director of Inclusive Peace, sets the stage for the series as she discusses the changing nature of formal peace processes from the early 90s which have shifted from being comprehensive and intergovernmental to national dialogue processes, which are more broad-based and participatory. She also talks about the implications of women’s participation within the peace processes since the dissipation of the so-called ‘peace table’.

In Episode 2 of the series, Breifni Flanagan from WPHF is joined by Sophie Giscard d’Estaing, Program Coordinator at WPHF, where they discuss how current trends in peace processes affect the work at WPHF and provide examples of women’s initiatives that the Rapid Response Window has supported more recently.

In Episode 3 of the series, moderator Breifni Flanagan from WPHF is joined by Salwa Elsdaik who has managed projects on women, peace and security for the Dutch National Action Plan for resolution 1325 on Sudan and Vimbai Kapurura, Executive Director of Women Unlimited Eswatini. They discuss the linkages between protection and participation of women peacebuilders in contexts where protection needs recently have become more acute.

In Episode 4 of the series, moderator Breifni Flanagan from WPHF is joined by Hilda Issa who is a Palestinian activist working on empowering young women to advocate for women’s rights and with Concy Louis who works in rural communities in Uganda and South Sudan. They discuss how young women and girls are affected by armed conflict and the importance of and challenges to women’s inclusion in peace processes. They speak about the marginalisation that Palestinian women face and how this landscape makes them more susceptible to violence as well as how the shrinking of civic spaces in South Sudan limits young people’s ability to participate.

In Episode 5 of the series, Sartu Shemsuddin, Founder of Fratello Humanitarian Organisation and former member of the interreligious council of Ethiopia and Natalia Brandler who is the founder of Asociación CAUCE, dedicated to training and empowering Venezuelan Women leaders, exchange on the challenges and opportunities of women’s participation in national dialogues, focusing particularly on the role and situation of women’s civil society organisations.

Author: Thania Paffenholz

Inclusive Peace’s Executive Director reflects on her recent engagements during WPS week 2023 in New York.

I just got back from New York where I attended the WPS week and I am full of good vibes, hope, and new ideas for how to move the WPS agenda forward. During the week in New York I was involved in a variety of events, exchanged with so many wonderful colleagues from around the globe and observed interesting debates – and looking back on all these amazing engagements it stands clear that the WPS participation agenda needs a profound reconceptualisation.
,
During the week, I heard many of the familiar statements like: “ Where are the women? We are missing the women at the high level peace talks.” These statements relate to all kinds of contexts from Afghanistan to Sudan, DRC to Colombia. The question I kept on asking was: Where is that famous peace table? Which processes are you talking about that women should be part of? When I got answers especially from local women peacemakers like from Sudan or DRC or Colombia, it became clear that women are already at the centre of processes in their countries. When we for example discussed the situation in Afghanistan, I was wondering which table the international community wants to prepare Afghan women for?

The familiar advocacy rhetoric of the need to include women seems to be outdated and not fit for purpose in a changing peace and security world. The UN is no longer the leader in peace processes, Comprehensive Peace Agreements are vanishing and new coalitions of states are entering the peace meditation space like Qatar, South Africa, Kenya, China or Turkey. Furthermore, extreme closed authoritarian spaces like Afghanistan or Myanmar are far from entering a process in the near future. In these closed spaces the inclusion question is a very different one. It is not about the peace table, it is rather about how to break down the authoritarian wall and how various women and men can contribute, for example with creative ideas and coalition building among influential stakeholders from the regions.

Aside from all these frustrating developments for civic engagement in peace processes, we also see hope: There are more and more formal civilian lead political processes like National Dialogues. Ethiopia, DRC and soon Sudan are great examples of processes where the inclusion question is turned upside down. It is no longer a question of women or civil society inclusion but a question of how armed actors can be included in a meaningful way and not spoil or co-opt the civilian led political processes. These developments lead to new role definitions for supporting states and the UN. What is needed are powerful alliances of states that help to shape and protect the new civilian spaces not only by supporting them politically and financially, but most of all by helping to manage armed actors and their supporters.

During WPS week, I was particularly impressed by stories of the spectacular resilience of
women peacemakers who take action in the midst of chaos and crisis as well as the progress for women inclusion especially in international and national institutions through the collective efforts of women mediators networks. Years ago, women in positions of mediation and negotiations in peace processes were alone – but now there are networks to support women mediators and negotiators all around the world. The networks have shown sisterhood in practice by connecting women, building capacities of women mediators across the globe, creating high-level career opportunities for their members and connecting strategically in support of processes. The conversations also demonstrated that women and men leaders contribute different things to peace and political processes: Even though these gender binaries are very stereotypical, some stereotypical perceptions of what women bring to the table have worked in favour of women-led processes, like empathy, trust, peace orientation, care and motherhood.

What I missed at WPS week were conversations about political protection of women peacemakers. I kept thinking about the many activities of the WPS community to bring women together to unite, strategies or training for peace – and the acute lack of protection of these women from physical and social media aggression when they leave the ‘activity’ arena and come home to their families.

What is the way forward then?

The WPS participation agenda needs a reality check in order to adapt to the different contextual situations. It cannot be a harmonised advocacy and action playbook geared towards the so-called peace table that in effect is vanishing or transforming
There is furthermore a need to redefine the roles of most actors within the peace and security space
There is a need for research on how the changing paradigm is playing out in different contexts to adapt strategies;
The entities ‘counting women’s participation’ need to embrace new units of analysis. Only counting UN led or UN co-lead or supported processes will not provide us with the right statistics.
Every single activity with (women) peacemakers need to include a protection strategy and always put their safety before other goals
In light of a changing world we need more creativity that allows us to identify opportunities and strategies against resistances to the change that is needed

Let us all join together in the movement #WomenForPeace 🙏🏿

Marking the end of #October1235, we here bring reflections from our Peace Process Support Advisor Dr. Ayak Chol Deng Alak on why supporting women peacebuilders is fundamental to promoting peace and security.

About Ayak
Ayak has a background in medicine, surgery, communications and peace and security. She has previously worked as Deputy Chairperson for civil society, South Sudan during the peace process, and as the head of Research at the Strategic Defence and Security Review Board.

Q: Hi Ayak, thanks for taking the time to meet and reflect on your important work supporting ´women peacebuilders and women coalitions. First of all, do you consider yourself a women peacebuilder?

A: Peacebuilding Is definitely bigger than just security. It involves every other thing that uplifts and empowers you and makes you a positive contributor to society in one way, shape or form. I happen to be in this space and I consider myself a peacebuilder based on the work that I do locally, with local South Sudanese initiatives and wider civil society movements regionally as well as different youth groups and networks like the African Women Mediators and the Afrikki platform, which is a Pan-African citizen engagement network for movements and other such initiatives.

I feel the efforts of the work I do, however working like this you are not just plugged into one space, it is more of an octopus effect. You are plugged into multiple spaces at the same time and so you become like focal person for exchanging ideas, contacts, networks, and sharing experiences and mentoring the right people meet the right you know are paired with the right type of mentors they need, the type of funding they need the type of experience or skill they need that type of work.

Q: Thank you! And also here to start with, could you describe Inclusive Peace’s approach to supporting civilian-led peace processes in three words?

A: Sure. I would say intentional, to empower and to accompany. We are intentional in every aspect of the work we do on inclusion. I would say, empower, because we allow whoever we are working with, to become themselves and not try to speak for them, not to occupy their space and not to be their voices, but to create the spaces that they need for this process to happen.

And I would say accompany, because we are there when and if needed. This also means to realise when the time comes to step back and allow the actors that we are supporting to do their thing. Each context is different and we are only there to accompany them.

Q: Could you give any recent examples from this work that stands out to you?

A recent example that stands out, would be the Ethiopian space with the formation of the women’s coalition on national dialogue that was birthed in the presence of Inclusive Peace in an environment that was facilitated by Inclusive Peace.

In this space we shared research based comparative examples, and these allowed the Ethiopian members of civil society to envision their active role in the national dialogue. And as it stands, the women coalition is a leading civil society entity that has its ducks in a row when it comes to its engagement in the national dialogue. They are not asking for permissions or prompts, they are working to create a conducive space ensuring the women’s agenda and they have become some sort of reference group, when it comes to engendering.

In this example it also stands clear that women have always known how to lead. I always say, if you go to the smallest village in any community, and you say: “Who is the leader here?” You might not find, you know, any organised leadership structure, but a woman will always tell us who is the women leader here because women have always had some sort of innate organisational structure, even at a micro level of society. So it is very easy for women to organise and to be proactive, and to take initiative and to start envisioning, preparing for the future or for what a process might look like. It’s something that’s innately a part of who we are as women. And so when it comes to engaging, peace and security it just comes naturally.

Q: Why are women peacebuilders so powerful?

A: There is no competition in this space. And if they are, they are not overshadowing the intention of their unity. In wider civil society, male dominated spaces often are still struggling to overcome their egos to agree to reach consensus, to compromise on so many issues, everybody wants to be the leader of this committee or that organisation. The women have transcended that. And to me, it’s, it doesn’t come as a surprise, but these are things I would like to highlight, because usually when people think leadership, when people think organisation and organising there is this inclination of gravitating towards the mid formulated spaces, there’s this inclination of always the leader, you’re looking at the male figures.

Here is a live example of women taking the lead, always organising better, always. And being better prepared, always, not waiting to be prompted. And it does not matter which context we are talking about. If women are faced with circumstances, they rise to the occasion and transcend their divisions in the easier, faster, and even start envisioning plausible scenarios and how they can intervene.

In my own backyard in South Sudan, the women’s coalition organised very quickly and was leading in terms of demands. In no time they had dissected what type of security arrangement they thought would work, they had engendered an entire peace process before anyone else. They envisioned what hurdles they might face, how they would engage and had mapped out allies. And so youth groups and the wider civil society started simulating what the women are doing, looking to them as front runners of the peace process.

Q: Can you pinpoint exactly what it is that women bring into peace processes?

A: Yes. There is the human aspect of peace processes. This is only brought about by women’s participation. Warring generals move in circles, they push and pull, because it is about power. It is about division of responsibility. It is about governance, it is about who takes the biggest share of the cake.

When women come into the space and they flip the script. It becomes about people, it becomes about service, it becomes about reform. It becomes about accountability, but also it becomes about transformation. There is a whole different ball game, when very informed women in civil society come into peace spaces, the conversation changes and becomes more human.

Deaths and wars don’t just become statistics, they become about how to end them. Women flip the script, especially in context, like the East African region, where women have, inherently very powerful cultural roles. In my own backyard, in my village, if a woman removes her clothes, no man will go to war. It’s a curse. They call it the curse of the womb. And if a woman urges men to go to war, men will obey. There is this power that transcends having soldiers, it is a power that comes by being a woman and knowing how to navigate power. This power can make warring generals listen.

Authors: Thania Paffenholz and Nick Ross

Violent conflict in Sudan continues to escalate with the country teetering on the brink of fragmentation. While attention within and outside of Sudan is understandably focused on the disastrous armed conflict between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the roots of violence run deeper. This blog outlines pathways to a civilian-lead peace process in Sudan that focus on addressing the root causes of the conflict.

The 2019 civilian revolution testified to the powerful democratic aspirations of the Sudanese people and brought an end to decades of authoritarian rule. However, the civilian political transition was short lived as the military staged a coup in 2021. The attempts by many international actors to form a coalition government between military and civilian forces failed, and mainly further empowered the armed actors. The conflict between the RSF and SAF is a consequence of this failed model of peacemaking as it further reinforced the message that the pathway to power, either in Khartoum or in the regions, is through violence.

A comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) that aims to persuade the RSF and SAF to end their war in exchange for the chance to share in lavish rents extracted from natural resources, control of key infrastructure, export concession, or the treasury, has a compelling humanitarian logic in Sudan. Every day the war continues, more lives are lost, more people are displaced, and more vital infrastructure is destroyed. But, a settlement of this type – a CPA that centers around the two major armed forces – inadvertently strengthens the prevailing notion that violence is the primary means for achieving political legitimacy in Sudan. How long will it be before this deal breaks down? How long before another ambitious general in the SAF or the RSF, or in one of the regional militias, tries to capture a share of this wealth through a new rebellion or coup in Sudan? Sudan’s own history, and the history of similar kinds of CPA elsewhere, tells a rather foreboding tale.

The African Union’s (AU) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development’s (IGAD) recent announcement offering support to a civilian-led Intra-Sudanese dialogue has the potential to change Sudan’s trajectory. These parties recognise that the only path to prosperity and stability is through supporting an inclusive, democratic process in Sudan. The primary challenge to such a process is how to ensure that the armed actors will not spoil or control the process. For the RSF and the SAF much is at stake: their own security if they demobilize, and the potential loss of control over a major part of Sudan’s national wealth. So, the key process question is, how can the armed actors be ‘tamed’ in such a way that the civilian led process can be viable and durable?

Considering this, the civilian led process cannot be influenced by the logic of the 1990s international peacemaking model. This approach has persistently involved bringing armed factions to the negotiating table to broker a CPA (often based on a power-sharing deal among these same armed actors) to quell violence and establish a new government. Civilian actors have usually not been part of these processes or at best, have been added to the process in extra spaces without decision making power (despite the accumulation of normative commitments to inclusion of women, youth, alongside longstanding rights to political participation).

The so-called ‘inclusion challenge’ for many mediators has been how to best include and support civilian actors without harming the process with the “guys with the guns”. The current, AU/IGAD suggested, civilian led process can turn this problem on its head. From numerous lessons learned, such a process must start from the premise that only a civilian-led, all-inclusive process can lead the country on a pathway to peace and political transition. The ‘inclusion challenge’ thus becomes how to include the armed actors in a way that they will not harm the process.

Comparative experience on parallel and inclusive negotiation formats suggests a few modalities for such a “composite” process that can integrate the concerns of the RSF and SAF, with the need for a democratic outcome and an ultimately civilian political order. First, the US/Saudi led negotiations with the RSF and the SAF must be committed to and focused on ceasefire, security, and humanitarian access: setting political questions aside for a more legitimate forum. These negotiations could continue to serve as a parallel security track, the results of which would be fed into the civilian-led process, the Intra-Sudanese dialogue. Second, a focus should be placed on strategically engaging the armed actors in such a way that they do not dominate the Intra-Sudanese Dialogue process? The dialogue should be run by civilian actors and strategically focused on identifying and discussing the key priorities for the country to get back onto a pathway towards a democratic transition.

There are several options for how to best engage the armed actors in the process. One option is to engage armed actors each or jointly in a separate delegation that would be bound by the same rules and procedures applied to all other delegations (e.g., inclusion representation quotas along gender, age, and geographic lines). This would mitigate the risk of armed actors dominating the process. Decision making procedures would be thoughtfully established so that no delegation would have special privileges over another. Another option would be that the armed actors only take part in the Jeddah process as a separate security track, the results of which would contribute to the political process, possibly supported by SAF/RSF having observer status in the Intra-Sudanese dialogue. Another option could be a proxy representation at the Intra-Sudanese Dialogue via political actors that are close to the armed actors as seen in the Northern Irish peace talks with Sinn Féin acting as proxy for the IRA, the armed actor.

The proposed options could only work with the support of the states and regional bodies within the region including Egypt, the AU and IGAD, as well as the Gulf states and the United States. Of course, there will be many opportunities and challenges along the way – what counts now is that the new peacemaking model that puts the civilian-led process at its centre will be whole-heartedly supported by all relevant regional and international actors. Creating consensus among these actors will be a diplomatic balancing act that must happen as soon as possible to ensure lasting peace in Sudan while generating broader stability in the region.

Inclusive Peace has been supporting women’s coalitions in a range of contexts since its founding. Our latest work includes convening leaders of women’s coalitions from Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Yemen. Get an overview of why this work is important and what it implies in this blog.

What is a women’s coalition? A women’s coalition is a term used to describe alliances of women-led organisations, women activists and women rights defenders that come together to work towards a common goal. Coalition’s typically involve civil society actors, though in many instances also cross sectoral boundaries, bringing together women engaged in politics, business, religion, and cultural fields.

Why are they important in transforming gender dynamics in peace and security? Women’s coalitions play a key role in advocating for women’s rights and ensuring that issues important to women are included in peace agreements and political policies. In many contexts, women’s coalitions have had a key role in ensuring gender inclusive mechanisms, including quotas and delegations, while also ensuring more effective and inclusive implementation of peace agreements.

Why do women’s coalitions need to convene? Women’s coalitions can benefit greatly from sharing comparative insights and experiences in relation to their respective efforts to meaningfully influence and engage in peace and political transition processes. Comparing notes on strategies for coalition-building, countering elite resistance, and on ensuring protection are just a few examples of issues which can be valuable to share experiences and lessons learned around.

Why is Inclusive Peace’s expertise needed? IP has expertise in facilitating these exchanges that allows members of the coalitions to get inspired, recharge on motivation and collective energy and strategize together for future actions.

What happened during the peer exchanges: IP convened women from seven African countries in December 2022 and May 2023 to share their experiences of forming and working in women’s coalitions during different political, transition, and peace processes. Inclusive Peace provides ongoing accompaniment, including technical and strategic advice, to women’s coalitions before, during, and after these engagements.

Where has IP supported women’s coalitions? Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan and Yemen

At our latest convention of women’s coalitions from seven African countries in May 2023, we caught the founder of Women in Mediators Network (WiMNet), Uduak Udofia and asked her for her insights on the importance women’s coalitions, why she is motivated to do the work she is doing and why gender-responsive laws and agreements are so important.