Category Archives: highlight home

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The familiar advocacy rhetoric of the need to include women seems to be outdated and not fit for purpose in a changing peace and security world.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?

  1. 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
  2. There is furthermore a need to redefine the roles of most actors within the peace and security space
  3. There is a need for research on how the changing paradigm is playing out in different contexts to adapt strategies;
  4. 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.
  5. Every single activity with (women) peacemakers need to include a protection strategy and always put their safety before other goals
  6. 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.

Our latest policy paper outlines pathways to ending the violence and creating an inclusive Sudanese society. Read a summary of the paper and four key takeaways here and dive deeper into the paper linked below.

Since the escalation of the conflict in Sudan in April 2023, the state has been on the brink of collapse. Fighting has killed an estimated over 600 people, wounded 11,796, and evicted more than 2.8 million from their homes as of June estimates by the UN.

Ending the fighting and giving the Sudanese people’s access to humanitarian support should be the highest priority for all national and international stakeholders. At the same time, the current collapse of Sudan’s governing system creates opportunities to rebuild the political system towards a civilian led inclusive governance system. As the Jeddah talks convened by Saudi Arabia and the United States continues to stumble without any meaningful progress, our policy paper reflects on alternate pathways to ending the violence and creating an inclusive post-conflict settlement.

Sudanese civilian actors might want to start preparing such a civilian led inclusive political transition process. Preparing to push for a civilian-led political transition will be key for creating an inclusive, sustainable peace in Sudan. This preparation includes among other aligning visions for Sudan’s political future and establishing strong civilian leadership.

African governments should now start collaborating towards ending the violence and supporting the installation of a civilian led inclusive government. The international community should stand ready to support such an African led initiative as well as enable civil society to contribute.

To guide this preparatory phase, this policy paper analyses the drivers of the current conflict and identifies entry points for Sudanese civilian actors, particularly women and the international community.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • The conflict in Sudan is not only caused by the power struggle between two armed factions, but as well the result of a dysfunctional state and a long history of divide and rule. Understanding the underlying constraints to a peaceful political transition in Sudan process is key in order for civilian actors to strategize
  • There is a need to be more complementary across the various diplomatic efforts at regional and international level to date, and to be more creative in how inclusivity is pursued (both in process and outcome). The international community needs to put aside traditional approaches to ending the violence and peacemaking in Sudan – many of which have largely been tried in Sudan before over the past three decades, and many of which have contributed to the point the country finds itself at. Different outcomes require fundamentally different processes, including support to civilian-led pathways.
  • Evidence suggests that local ceasefires with limited scope can be effective in halting violence and enhance the population’s access to humanitarian support. Civil society actors and women could push for such local ceasefires wherever possible, ensuring that the ceasefires are both substantively and procedurally inclusive.
  • Next to pushing for civilian inclusion into ceasefires and formal negotiation processes, Sudan’s civil society and other civilian actors could establish their own civilian led peace process to end the violence and lead the country back on a pathway to an inclusive democratic civilian led transition

 

Photo: UNAMID – Olivier Chassot

Policy Paper,

Entry Points Towards Ending Violence, Inclusive Peacemaking, and Democratic Transition in Sudan

The escalation of armed hostilities between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on 15 April 2023 have pushed Sudan to the brink of collapse. This policy paper considers potential scenarios for the country's political development in the short- and medium-term and identifies seven entry points for furthering inclusive peacemaking in Sudan.

July 2023|Philip Poppelreuter, Thania Paffenholz, Alexander Bramble,

Download Pdfview document

Transitional justice processes play a pivotal role in addressing past wrongs, holding perpetrators accountable, and providing reparations to victims. The processes are complex and challenging, which require the cooperation and commitment of various stakeholders.

In this Inclusive Peace learning we have outlined the seven most common constraints and how civil society organisations and faith-based actors can work on the mitigation of these challenges with country examples. These learnings are based on our comparative knowledge from peace processes worldwide.

The seven constraints to inclusive transitional justice processes include (but are not limited to)

→ conflict party resistance
→ disagreement on adequate forms of punishment and reparation
→ recording and documentation
→ internal divisions among victims
→ instrumentalisation and victimisation
→ victims’ exclusion
→lack of resources

Seven constraints to inclusive transitional justice processes

Conflict Party Resistance
Resistance from parties involved in the conflict is one of the major constraints of transitional justice processes. The resistance can manifest in various forms, from attempts to obstruct accountability mechanisms, the unwillingness to cooperate with investigations to actively undermining the truth-seeking efforts. The lack of cooperation from key actors can make it difficult to achieve justice and reconciliation.

Disagreement on Adequate Forms of Punishment and Reparation
Transitional justice processes often encounter challenges in determining the appropriate forms of punishment and reparation for perpetrators and victims, respectively. Stakeholders may have different opinions on what constitutes justice, leading to tensions and disagreements. For example, societies may be divided on issues like capital punishment, amnesty, or alternative forms of justice such as truth commissions or community-based reconciliation. Likewise, disagreements may arise regarding the extent and scope of reparations, creating tensions among stakeholders seeking to achieve justice while promoting societal healing.

Recording and Documentation
After a period of conflict, evidence may be lost or destroyed, making it difficult to identify perpetrators and bring them to justice. Insufficient documentation can undermine the credibility of a transitional justice process. Accurate and comprehensive documentation is vital to any successful transitional justice process.

Internal Divisions among Victims
It is common for conflict situations to fracture societies and result in victims belonging to different ethnic, religious, and social groups being siloed. As a result of these divisions, the solidarity necessary to pursue justice collectively can encounter barriers. Furthermore, some victims would prefer retributive justice, which seeks harsh punishment for perpetrators, while others would be interested in restorative justice, which emphasises healing and reconciliation.

Instrumentalisation and Victimisation
Transitional justice processes can be manipulated for political gain by elites and others with vested interests. These actors may use the justice system to target political opponents or avoid accountability themselves, while victims may face further victimisation such as through re-traumatisation or stigmatisation if they participate in justice-seeking initiatives.

Victims’ Exclusion
In many cases, marginalised groups, such as women, minorities, or indigenous people, are excluded from transitional justice processes, which poses a significant challenge to its legitimacy and effectiveness. This can lead to the continued marginalisation of these groups leaving them feeling helpless and unsatisfied, which would hinder efforts to achieve a comprehensive and inclusive reconciliation.

Lack of Resources
Transitional justice processes are time-consuming, requiring adequate funding and infrastructure. Many countries emerging from conflict may lack the necessary financial and human resources to establish and sustain effective justice mechanisms. This limitation can result in delayed or compromised justice outcomes, furthering the frustration of victims and impeding the path to lasting peace.

Want to learn more about transitional justice?

In our blog series, PEACEBUILDING LESSON, Transitional justice and reconciliation expert Tecla Namachanja shares her experience of the use of various mechanisms found in Kenya to provide support to those who suffered violent conflict and human rights violations.

 

Top featured photo: “Enhancing Relationships in The Gambia” by Diplomatic Security Service is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.

In the framework of our “Enhancing Women’s Leadership for Sustainable Peace in Fragile Contexts in the MENA region” project in collaboration with UN Women, over the past two years Inclusive Peace has been working on an overarching body of research exploring how to make peace and political transition processes more meaningfully inclusive and gender-responsive, and how this in turn can increase the likelihood that these processes give rise to sustainable inclusive outcomes. This work has resulted in a series of publications ‒ a research report, a policy brief and four research papers ‒ that are summarised below:

The report Transfer from Track Two Peacebuilding to Track One Peace-making: A Focus on Yemen and Syria and its companion policy brief present insights about transfer from track two peacebuilding to track one peace-making activity in Yemen and Syria. They discuss five main obstacles and barriers to transfer between track two and track one and encourage researchers and practitioners to rethink, refine, and clarify the concept of transfer to promote participatory, homegrown peacebuilding and peacemaking.

The paper Reaching an Inclusive Truce: Gendering Ceasefires reviews and edits gender provisions drawn from ceasefire texts around the world to provide both language and an approach to render ceasefire texts and their constituent provisions more gender inclusive, and examines existing literature on gender and ceasefires. The overall analysis results in 15 concrete strategies, which promote inclusive ceasefire negotiation processes and inclusive, gender-responsive outcomes.

The paper A Practical Guide to a Gender-Inclusive National Dialogue fosters understanding of how to make a National Dialogue truly inclusive of women and gender responsive. It describes process design and context factors that can affect women’s opportunities in a dialogue as well as strategies to counteract resistance to the meaningful inclusion and influence of women and gender. A spectrum is introduced to differentiate between levels of gender-inclusiveness.

The paper Protection of Women Peacebuilders in Conflict and Fragile Settings in the MENA Region identifies the offline and online risks and threats that women peacebuilders and activists from the MENA region encounter in their daily work. A thorough review of the gaps and best practices in existing protection regimes points to twelve entry points for enhancing women peacebuilders’ protection.

The paper Using Temporary Special Measures for Inclusive Processes and Outcomes examines the capacity of temporary special measures (TSMs) to render peace negotiation processes more gender inclusive and to promote political, economic, and social gender equality in the post-agreement phase, including ways to counteract patriarchal backlash and transform patriarchal norms. The analysis gives rise to thirteen lessons on how to design effective TSMs, which can help to foster sustainable inclusive outcomes.

 

“_D3S9439” by U.S. Embassy Jerusalem is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

The latest instalment in March 2023 of our National Dialogue peer-exchange series explored the somewhat overlooked potential of faith-based actors to influence National Dialogues. Here are five key takeaways from the discussion led by expert National Dialogue practitioners.

Faith-based actors can significantly influence formal peace and political transition processes, including initiatives such as National Dialogues, playing a range of roles across modalities and phases. In many countries, faith-based actors have considerable influence not only among their own constituents but over the public in general, meaning they are well-placed to support – or indeed undermine – processes like National Dialogues. While supporting key faith-based actors who are or could be engaged in peace efforts can increase the chances of sustainable peace, their potential often remains largely untapped.

This discussion touched on a broad variety of country contexts, with a particular focus on Ukraine, South Sudan, and Colombia, and was grounded in a series of framing questions:

  • In what ways can faith-based actors be involved in National Dialogues? What factors enhance or hinder their participation and influence?
  • Why do faith-based actors choose to engage in National Dialogues, and why do other actors seek to engage faith-based actors in National Dialogues?
  • When and why do faith-based actors support or obstruct a National Dialogue?
  • What opportunities and challenges emerge from the inclusion of faith-based actors?
  • What differentiates faith-based actors from secular actors? What can faith-based actors uniquely contribute to National Dialogues?

The event sought to provide options and ideas to inform faith-based actors’ involvement in upcoming and ongoing National Dialogues and other actors’ engagement of faith-based actors in and around National Dialogue processes.

Five key takeaways

Takeaway 1: Faith-based actors do not exist in a vacuum but are grounded in context and can influence that context

While certain characteristics of faith-based actors – notably their communion with the spiritual and the sacred – set them apart from other societal actors, they do not exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, they are very much anchored in the national, regional, and local political and social context. The politicisation of religion and faith is a key factor shaping the space in which faith-based actors operate, but it is important to remember that politics is also inherently intertwined with religion; some (or even plenty of) faith-based actors are deliberately engaged in politics. Many faith-based actors – beyond those with overtly political ambitions – facilitate contact between their constituents and political leaders. But in many contexts, they could be more proactive in shaping democracy and society rather than reacting to pressure from the state.

Nevertheless, as for all societal stakeholders, the level of civic space – especially in terms of divergence of opinion – is predominately determined by the state. For initiatives such as National Dialogues, this means that – as for other societal stakeholders – faith-based actors’ ability to meaningfully influence a National Dialogue is largely dependent on the political will of the regime in power: do ruling elites want a true “dialogue” or just a “national monologue”?

Takeaway 2: A high level of popular trust in FBAs means they can lend legitimacy to initiatives like National Dialogues, but this trust cannot be taken for granted

While many faith-based actors have built up high levels of trust among both their constituents and the broader population, simply because an actor is faith-based doesn’t automatically make them the most trustworthy member of the community. A high level of trust in faith-based actors is thus not a universal phenomenon that can be taken as read. Where faith-based actors do enjoy a high-level of trust from both the broader population and elites, this trust allows them to exert influence over and confer legitimacy on initiatives like National Dialogues.

Takeaway 3: inclusivity and representativeness are two of the determinants of the level of popular trust in and therefore legitimacy of faith-based actors

While faith-based actors can in many cases be ‘close to the people’, that is not always necessarily the case and a number of critical questions regarding inclusivity and representation can be asked of faith-based actors: do they fully represent their whole faith community? Do they only represent their own faith community? How are they collaborating with other faith-based actors? Are they also meaningfully engaging with women and youth? What is their relationship to ruling elites?

A particularly pertinent issue relates to contexts of majority/minority faith-based actors, which account for by far the most common instances of faith distribution around the world. In such contexts, faith-based leaders from the majority often consider they should have the principal say in which faith-based actors are involved and how. But the majority status of such faith-based actors only serves to enhance their responsibility for inclusivity.

Takeaway 4: The power of unity in diversity

Faith-based actors’ credibility and authority is dependent on a number of factors, chief among which is unity. This unity can be multifaceted. Firstly, it concerns unity within faiths, as divided communities find it harder to engage in and influence processes such as National Dialogues. But it also concerns unity across faiths – given the power of communities from different faiths working together in a spirit of inclusivity for the greater societal good – unity among faith-based and secular actors, and even among civilian and military actors (a divide bridged by faith-based actors like military or medical chaplains).

The kind of holistic unity that can elevate faith-based actors’ ability to work for the greater societal good can thus best be described as a unity of purpose that respects, embraces, and leverages diversity. This power of unity in diversity rests on faith-based actors’ capacity for pluralistic dialogue – within their own faith community, with actors from other faiths, with civil society, the military, and the government – which many faith-based actors see as grounded in scripture.

Takeaway 5: The vital importance of inter- and multi-faith cooperation

As with politicians who are willing and able to ‘cross the aisle’, working across the inter-religious community, rather than only within their own religious community, is a very different mode of operation for faith-based actors, which requires particular characteristics that set such actors apart from the majority. These kinds of faith-based actors who see each other as equals in the civic space and are willing to work together inter- or multi-religiously to serve society at large are imbued with social cohesion. Such faith-based actors are best placed to positively influence initiatives like National Dialogues and help to shape societies’ pathways to lasting peace.

Our approach to the peer exchange series

In hosting this event series, Inclusive Peace and our ND practitioner partners aim to contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of National Dialogues and explore strategies to improve their effectiveness.

Our approach puts the experience and lessons of ND practitioners at the heart of the discussion, by having peers from different country contexts lead the exchange. Country experts and international experts then have the opportunity to listen and learn from these experiences, but it is the peer exchange that is the main focus of the event.

The previous instalments in the event series, looked at the role National Dialogues can play in helping chart a way towards consensus in tough political environments, the challenges relating to politicisation of National Dialogue processes, the interaction of National Dialogues and elections, and the interplay of National Dialogues and peace talks. Read more about our work on National Dialogues here.

“Kinshasa,DR Congo:As part of activities marking the International Peace day in Kinshasa, MONUSCO organized a forum for religious leaders to meet the Public and discuss Peace in the DR Congo” by MONUSCO is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Report,

What Makes or Breaks National Dialogues?

This report is based on the National Dialogue research project and its comparative analysis of 17 cases of National Dialogues (1990 – 2014). It aims to contribute to a better understanding of the functions of National Dialogues in peace processes.

October 2017|Anne Zachariassen, Cindy Helfer, Thania Paffenholz,

Download Pdfview document

This week marks the 25th anniversary of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (GFA) in Northern Ireland, which was signed on 10 April. The specific peace process that gave rise to the GFA, as well as events during the 30 years before the GFA and in the 25 years since are an excellent illustration of how building peace is a perpetual, non-linear process, involving constant negotiation and re-negotiation of the social and political contract, marked by a mixture of progress, resistance, and setbacks.

Paving the way for the GFA: Northern Ireland’s protracted official peace process(es)

During the 30 or so years of conflict known as “the Troubles”, there was a series of formal attempts at reaching a constitutional settlement to reconcile loyalist (unionist) and republican (nationalist) divides. While they did not resolve any major substantive issues, they did lay the groundwork for the GFA process by improving and institutionalising Anglo–Irish cooperation at the inter-governmental level, and reaching a consensus on the main topics and discussion strands future negotiations would address, including devolved democratic institutions in Northern Ireland, formal bodies dedicated to North–South relations (Northern Ireland and Ireland), and structures dedicated to institutional East–West cooperation (the United Kingdom and Ireland). The two Governments outlined these themes in a comprehensive set of proposals, the “Frameworks Document,” which served as a blueprint for the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.

The GFA process itself was also far from plain sailing. The IRA’s attack in London in February 1996, ending its ceasefire, meant that while Sinn Féin still contested the election to the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue it was initially barred from attending the multi-party talks. Elections in the UK in May 1997 and in Ireland in June 1997 catalysed the peace process: the new Labour Government in the UK was better placed to temper the suspicions of nationalists in Northern Ireland about the UK Government’s commitment to the process, and it had a more solid parliamentary base for engagement in the process; the new Irish Fianna Fáil government was in a better position to deal decisively with the republican movement due to its traditional association with the ideals of republicanism. In July 1997, the IRA announced the renewal of its ceasefire, prompting an invitation to Sinn Féin to join the multi-party talks. Despite a brief withdrawal of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), substantive negotiations began in October 1997. After all-night discussions and a 17- hour extension of the deadline, the talks resulted in the signing of the GFA on 10 April 1998.

The political Rubik’s Cube: navigating the post-GFA political landscape

The GFA is a multifaceted agreement dealing with issues relating to sovereignty, governance, decommissioning and security, policing and the judiciary, and discrimination. In addition to establishing formal institutions across these thematic areas, it also established a devolved system of government in Northern Ireland comprising a legislature – the Northern Ireland Assembly (“Stormont”), and a power-sharing executive – the Executive Committee – run by a duumvirate appointed by the two largest parties in the Assembly.

Yet, the political settlement ushered in by the GFA has proved highly contested; Northern Irish politics has remained extremely polarised, and there have been multiple collapses of the executive (which has now not functioned for over a third of its lifespan) and suspensions of the Assembly since 1998. Renewed talks in 2006 attempted to provide a road map (the 2007 St Andrews Agreement) towards addressing the major bones of contention, chiefly the acceptance of devolved policing and the rule of law for Sinn Féin, and the acceptance of power sharing for the DUP. The power-sharing arrangement subsequently was slightly more stable, until circumstances – notably the result of the referendum in June 2016, on the United Kingdom leaving the European Union – once again muddied the constitutional waters. The power-sharing arrangement was suspended for three years in 2017 following a crisis over a renewable energy payments scandal, before being uneasily restored. Brexit provoked another collapse in early 2022 that is yet to be resolved; whether the February 2023 Windsor Framework for post-Brexit trading arrangements can do so remains to be seen.

Healing a divided and changing society

The inherent weaknesses in the power-sharing arrangement are both rooted in and reflect the fact that societal tensions are yet to be fully reconciled. While efforts at peace-making and peacebuilding in Northern Ireland have significantly attenuated generations of violent inter-communal division in Northern Ireland, ongoing sectarian tension – including a lack of integration and cohabitation amongst communities and, in recent years, disputes over the use of flags and symbols, parades and marches that showcase sectarian identities, welfare and police reforms, the arrest of Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams in 2014, and the Irish National Language Act – is both a symptom and a cause of ongoing distrust between loyalists and republican communities.

Caption: The persistence of about 60 peace walls, which physically separate loyalist and republican neighbourhoods in various cities, bear witness to the ongoing divisions in Northern Irish society.Yet, there has also been a marked recent shift in political and societal attitudes and priorities beyond sectarianism. The electoral success of both Sinn Féin and the non-sectarian Alliance Party in the 2022 Stormont elections are the manifestation of the Northern Irish population attaching greater importance to (universal) issues like education, healthcare, the welfare system, and economic considerations – chiefly inflation and the cost-of-living crisis – than to sectarian issues and Northern Ireland’s constitutional status. Polls in 2022 found that 21% Northern Ireland’s citizens consider themselves as “Northern Irish” rather than “British” or “Irish”.

This can partly be explained by a (natural) generational shift; younger people in the country who didn’t grow up during the Troubles seemingly view their aspirations and the challenges they face through other lenses than a purely or even principally sectarian one. All of this shows that what peace means and looks like in a specific context is a constantly moving target.

Building lasting peace is a society-wide endeavour

Northern Irish society during the Troubles has been widely referred to as a state of “armed patriarchy” underpinned by conservative, masculinised values and discourse of nationalism and religion.

In spite of that, women were heavily involved in civil rights and particularly local community work during the Troubles, advocating for peace and social change. Women’s groups succeeded in securing the participation of a dedicated women’s caucus – the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition – in the track one negotiations. Women successfully advocated for the inclusion of language and provisions in the GFA on equal opportunity, women’s rights to equal political participation, social inclusion, reconciliation and the needs of victims of violence, integrated education and mixed housing, and for a Civic Forum to engage with a broad range of stakeholders on the implementation of the GFA. Women were also included in official consultations, played a key role in the “yes” campaign that succeeded in ratifying the GFA by referendum, and were involved in GFA-mandated commissions.

Faith-based actors have also made a major contribution to building peace in Northern Ireland. During the Troubles, in spite of the sectarian divide, which was partly both crystalised around and perpetuated by socio-cultural religious organisations like the Orange Order, a number of Protestant and Catholic actors mobilised for peace. This included organising large scale Peace Marches, acting as mediators between militants, and advocating for and facilitating ceasefires. They also worked to build trust and understanding within and between different sectarian groups through hosting meetings between paramilitary leaders on both sides of the conflict. Faith-based actors have been involved in the implementation of the GFA and have continued efforts to foster social reconciliation and healing, including through creating and facilitating spaces where people who identify as loyalist or republican can come together and have uncomfortable, but necessary conversations to humanise one another.


Caption: Peace walls decorated with hopeful murals are just one example of the myriad ways in which communities in Northern Ireland are trying to reconcile their differences and build a shared peaceful future

We know from evidence and experience that society-wide involvement in building peace is crucial to making peace inclusive and sustainable. Bottom-up initiatives and spaces for societal involvement take on even greater importance in contexts like Northern Ireland, where the formal political arena is deadlocked. Recent and current examples, ranging from consultative bodies the Civic Forum and the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, to existing inter-sectarian civic spaces such as the Suffolk and Lenadoon Interface Group or the 174 Trust provide a blueprint to consolidate and expand. Doing so is a crucial aspect of reimagining and diversifying the ways we understand and undertake peacemaking and peacebuilding, which is essential to making sure these processes are an integral part of – rather than separated from – the arc of a society’s changing development, and to ensuring that that arc bends towards a peaceful, just, and inclusive future.

————————————————————-
This blog post was written by Alexander Bramble and Philip Poppelreuter

Check out our case study and our infographic on women in the 1996-1998 Northern Ireland peace process, our digital story on faith-based actors’ peacebuilding work in Northern Ireland, and our blog post on Perpetual Peacebuilding.

 

Photos: “File:Nothing with us.jpg” by Michael Lovito is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, “Peace in Northern Ireland – geograph.org.uk – 3551004” by Oliver Dixon is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. “Belfast Murals – Sandy Row (5702530038)” by William Murphy from Dublin, Ireland is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. “File:Peace Line, Belfast – geograph – 1254138.jpg” by Ross is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Case Study,

Women in Peace and Transition Processes: Northern Ireland (1996–1998)

This case study analyses women’s influence in Northern Ireland’s Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (1996-1998).

December 2018|Alexander Bramble,

Download Pdfview document

Infographic,

Infographic: Women’s role in Northern Ireland’s Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (1996-1998)

This infographic analyses women’s influence in Northern Ireland’s Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (1996-1998).

December 2018|IPTI,

Download Pdfview document

Faith-based actors can have a fundamental influence in relation to peace and political transition processes. Given the legitimacy, influence, and public platform they possess, religious leaders (and institutions) can either sow the seeds for peace, or fan the flames of war.

In the course of a joint project with The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and The International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD), Inclusive Peace have produced a forthcoming report that draws on 71 case studies of peace and transition processes assessing the involvement of faith-based actors. The report lays out a series of comparative findings examining why, the extent to which, and how faith-based actors have been engaged in formal peace processes over the last 30 years. Despite significant differences in terms of conflict dynamics, recent experiences from Ukraine and Ethiopia illustrate the significant bearing faith-based actors can have on the trajectory of a conflict as well as a strong influence on any rapprochement, dialogue, and reconciliation attempts. Our comparative research also explores a number of factors which either enable or constrain faith-based actors’ influence.

This blog explores a few of these factors that may be particularly pertinent to consider with regard to the current dynamics at play in relation to Ukraine and Ethiopia.

Unity: Internal unity of faith-based actors has a pronounced effect on the influence they can exert on peace and political transition processes. This can often be a gargantuan task, given that cleavages within or between faith communities often mirror conflict lines. In Sri Lanka, polarisation within the Catholic Church prevented it from adopting a clear anti-war message. Such divisions are not uncommon, and in some contexts can also be used to demonstrate a commitment to internal dialogue and reconciliation, as was seen in the Catholic Church in Guatemala, where internal divisions were addressed through dialogue. By demonstrating and seeking to peacefully manage divisions, the Church’s legitimacy was actually bolstered, which then positioned the Church to play a central role in the country’s peace process. Similar kinds of dialogue – initially informal grassroots dialogue – are currently happening amongst Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UCO-MP) and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), including through public joint prayers. It remains to be seen the extent to which religion will become a central point of contestation in the conflict itself, which could fundamentally shift conflict dynamics (and how broader parts of society and the international community are mobilised to support, or not, military objectives). In Ethiopia, recent tension within the Orthodox Tewahedo Church has threatened to create new waves of instability (both at national and community level), and it remains to be seen to what extent a reconciled Orthodox Church can now play an active role in advancing dialogue and reconciliation efforts more broadly in the country.

Coalition building: Faith-based actors’ ability to build coalitions among different actors of different faiths and other stakeholders, particularly those likely to have an influence over conflict parties, strongly contributes to their ability to influence peace and political transition processes. In some instances, these coalitions are formal mechanisms or institutions, such as Inter-Religious Councils. The Inter-Religious Council in Liberia played a critical role in bringing together Muslim and Christian leaders (and communities), who in turn pushed for an end to the civil war, and who subsequently were deeply involved in the country’s pathway to reconciliation. In other contexts, such as the Philippines, faith-based actors worked with civil society and business actors to increase public mobilisation and support for a peace process, while also using the breadth of the coalition to influence main actors in the implementation process and to engage with political leaders.

Resources and organisational capacity: Faith-based actors, particularly when members of large powerful social organisations such as churches, have important material, infrastructural and political resources that facilitate both their inclusion and influence in peacemaking and peacebuilding efforts. The fact that these organisations have their own resources rather than being dependent upon others increases their independence and, in turn, their legitimacy. In Afghanistan, the ulama councils of religious scholars supported outreach and public mobilisation in the Constitutional Loya Jirga process, increasing their influence in and around the process. Yet this influence was also exploited by certain Mujahideen leaders (claiming religious leadership) to take a stance against transitional justice, which made more moderate clerics and mullahs fearful of supporting such an initiative. Because they have the necessary financial and human resources, faith-based actors can invest in long-term involvement both in mediation efforts among conflict parties but also within communities. Many religious groups remain involved in the post-agreement phase and help parties heal, build social institutions, and seek justice. In Sierra Leone, the Inter-religious Council of Sierra Leone (IRCSL) was involved in reconciliation, relief, human rights training, democratisation, and reintegration programs, especially of child combatants. In this way, the resources and organisational capacity of faith-based actors can lend themselves to sustained engagement and involvement overtime as conflict dynamics change, and the potential for peace processes (and their implementation, including through reconciliation) also evolves over time.

Early involvement: Early involvement of faith-based actors in dialogue efforts establishes a precedent for their continued involvement and increases its legitimacy. While the conflict dynamics may not lend themselves to overt engagement (or even in the use of rhetoric around “negotiation” or “reconciliation” given the political sensitivities and the realities of the violent conflict “here and now”), finding ways to engage with conflict parties (and the wider community/ society) can ultimately create the conditions for faith-based actors to play a meaningful role in peacemaking efforts. This can be true of faith-based actors within a particular context, as well as faith-based actors from neighbouring countries or at the international level. In the case of the Beagle Channel dispute between Chile and Argentina, early Papal mediation was key to preventing further escalation. On the other hand, Buddhist actors in Sri Lanka strongly opposed the Norwegian-led peace process, which served as a major “spoiler”. In Ethiopia, the Inter-Religious Council and a number of individual faith communities made individual and joint statements calling for violence in the north of the country to be avoided during the early period of the internal conflict. While these calls weren’t headed, they have subsequently conferred a degree of legitimacy on the Inter-Religious Council (and national faith-based bodies such as the Orthodox Church, Catholic Church and the Islamic Supreme Council) as the country now looks ahead to a National Dialogue process.

 

Photo source: Dimitris Avramopoulos/Flickr

We’ve put together a selection of readings and podcasts that we think you might enjoy in December.

READING

Yemen’s Incomplete National Dialogue: Insights on the Design and Negotiations Dynamics by Ibrahim Jalal

An analysis of Yemen’s National Dialogue, identifying a number of lessons learned and the legacy and implications of the National Dialogue for peacemaking efforts in the country going forward.

Recommended by Alex Shoebridge

All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque

It is a classic on describing the horrors of war and the dangers of hyper-nationalism and propaganda. It is beautifully written and also manages to find a deep humanity in the chaos that humans can bring upon one another. It follows a young German who enthusiastically enlists in WWI and then is soon mired in the atrocity of the trenches. A story of great humanity and still extremely timely. There is also a film out on Netflix now.

Recommendation by Rainer Gude

Ideology and Mass Killing: The Radicalized Security Politics of Genocides and Deadly Atrocities by Jonathan Leader Maynard

Maynard’s book, Ideology and Mass Killing: The Neo-Ideological Motivation behind Genocide and State Terror, advances an alternative ‘neo-ideological’ perspective which systematically retheorises the key ideological foundations of large-scale violence against civilians. By combining cutting-edge research from multiple disciplines — ranging from political science and political psychology to history and sociology — to demonstrate how ideological justifications for violence shape such violence in ways that go beyond deep ideological commitment. Most disturbingly of all, the key ideological foundations of mass killings are found to lie, not in extraordinary political goals or hatreds, but in radicalized versions of those conventional, widely accepted ideas that underpin the politics of security in ordinary societies across the world.

Recommended by Nick Ross

PODCAST

Crisis Group “Hold Your Fire” Season 3, episode 12: Football and Politics in the Gulf

In honour of the self-styled Greatest Show on Earth™, Crisis Group’s “Hold Your Fire” series has an episode on Football and Politics in the Gulf. One of the respondents is Dina Esfandiary, an extremely astute observer of all-things MENA and particularly Iran (with whom I had the pleasure to work in a previous professional life).

Recommended by Alex Bramble

Into Africa (produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington D.C.

This bi-weekly podcast discusses security, political, economic, and cultural themes that occupy the continent. An exciting and enjoyable opportunity to stay updated on and better understand the multi-faceted change that African countries are currently undergoing individually and/or collectively, including the opportunities and challenges that they are encountering.

Recommended by Philip Poppelreuter

Seeking Peace podcast

The Seeking Peace podcast, produced by the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security in partnership with UN Peacekeeping and Our Secure Future, explores women’s roles in bringing lasting peace to communities—whether it be through grassroots activism, peace negotiations, journalism, politics, or as uniformed peacekeepers. The podcast has covered themes such as the role of women in negotiations , building peace , defying gender norms , leadership and allies , and more. Interviewees range from grassroots activists and peacebuilders to scholars and academics to UN officials.

Recommended by Wairimu Wanjau