Category Archives: highlight list

In a new partnership, we explore options for moving forward the Yemen peace process in collaboration with UN Women Yemen and Yemeni civil society actors.

Inclusive Peace has in partnership with UN Women and the Yemeni civil society, namely the Group of Nine +1 Coalition, recently kickstarted the first in a series of local consultations on the Yemen peace process. The consultation that took place on Sunday November 21 focused on envisioning a Yemeni Women’s Peace Process that can move along the current peace efforts.

In this first set of local consultations conducted by the Southern Women of Peace, the Youth Advisory Council and the Women for Yemen Network, approximately 25 members of each group came together to envision new options for Yemen. In a hybrid environment participants reflected on what a women’s peace process might entail in their local environments and to explore a women’s agenda with a menu of options for creative and feasible new actions and initiatives.

The aim of the local consultations was to collect in-depth information on participants’ visions of a Yemeni Women’s Peace process – as well as enhancing the knowledge of Yemeni civil society on different approaches and strategies to move along the current ‘stuck’ process in Yemen.

The consultation is the first in a series of eight and we will follow up with key findings later on, but here are a couple of quotes from the participants that all showed great enthusiasm and willingness to collaborate around a common agenda in order to make their voices heard and engage in the political transition processes.

Today there are a number of challenges and obstacles that hinder women’s meaningful participation in the peacebuilding process. During the war, the priorities constantly change, and the livelihoods of many Yemenis are deteriorating. Therefore, we need women to work together, join forces and think about alternative ways which will lead the road to peace.
Amna Shehabi (Member of the Yemeni Women’s Union, Abyan)

Involving women in the political process requires unifying efforts and implementing the outcomes of the national dialogue which stipulates that at least 30% women should be involved at least 30% in the peacebuilding process. Thus, efforts must be joined in the interest of involving women in the peacebuilding process”
Dohaa Al Ahdar (Member of the Youth Advisory Council)

Women are more likely to agree on a common agenda despite their different views and perspectives. Therefore, women need to play a key role in the peace building process. Through women, different parties can find common ground to unify efforts.”
Maha Awad (Founder & Coordinator of the Feminist Summit, Abyan)

Read all news

It’s event season and at Inclusive Peace, we jumped right into November with a well-attended online session at Geneva Peace Week 2021 on building and sustaining perpetual peace. Thanks to both our speakers, moderators, participants and co-organizers, it became everything we intended it to be: a profound, broad-based discussion on the need to rethink and reshape peace processes towards locally-owned solutions.

In case you missed the event – or attended it and need a recap – this blog details 3 key takeaways from the session which share insights into modern, perpetual peacebuilding tactics, as well as some clips and highlights from our session.

If you want to dive deeper, the recording of the full session here or read more about how to change the way we think about and make peace in this blog post written by Inclusive Peace’s Executive Director.

Additionally, we had the pleasure of having the talented Iulia Zolotcov join the session as our graphic recorder, and have compiled a great video timelapse of the graphic recording which shows how the discussions evolved. Let’s have a quick look at key points on the current barriers to perceptual and inclusive peacebuilding for international communities.

TAKEAWAY 1: ACKNOWLEDGING AND ADDRESSING TOKENISM

A key insight from both our panelists and the discussion in the breakout rooms, is that tokenism is still widespread when it comes to inclusion in peacebuilding and peacemaking. It is, therefore, critical to ensure that inclusive efforts are comprehensive and effective.

Possible solutions to explore should

  • focus on leveraging governance and accountability systems that are already in place and also creating new ones
  • take advantage of synergies for local groups to enhance their capacity and agency
  • include thinking about how elite inclusion can have a positive knock-on effect for broader inclusion rather than conceiving them as antithetical

TAKEAWAY 2: BALANCE BETWEEN LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL ACTORS & ACTIONS

Another insight derived from our workshop was how international, regional and local actors should change their modes of engagement. A central theme in the discussion was the need to strike the right balance between local and international actors in terms of involvement with, actions for and ownership of solutions for peace processes.

This “right” balance should entail

  • Improved coordination between internal and external actors, and among external support actors with a particular and a focus on eradicating competition
  • An inversion of current top down prejudices that are prevalent in certain contexts, including problematizing what we mean by the international community (i.e. not just Western or large power interests)
  • Avoiding romanticizing the local and by extension demonizing the international. In reality, there is tremendous range in the types of actors, approaches, and ways of collaborating which defy the binary (local/international).

TAKEAWAY 3: DEFINING AND IDENTIFYING “THE LOCAL”

A third insight from the session focuses on the need to define what we mean by local actors and then to identify who are (all) the relevant local actors in a given process. It is absolutely clear that creating active local engagement and fostering a sense of local ownership creates agency for local stakeholders and ensures that the needs and priorities of local actors are channeled into national processes.

Hamzat Lawal, one of the speakers, and an activist and founder of Follow The Money – the largest Pan-African grassroots data-driven movement – gave some more insight into how civil agency and integration are key to solving communal issues, such as vandalism in Nigeria.

Taking these insights into account, peacebuilding strategies should focus on creating a sense of ownership amongst key community members and leaders, as well as connecting them with governmental actors in influential positions.

Initiatives should consider

  • A thorough needs assessment of local community members and focus on creating spaces for them to air their grievances with the promise of being heard and taken seriously
  • The diversity of perspectives from within the community and not assume that everyone relates to the same problem or requires the same peacebuilding solution
  • Well-designed channels and structures for communication ensuring information flow not only from community members to government officials, but also back again

SUM UP – WHAT’S NEXT?

At Inclusive Peace, we incorporate these insights into why we need to rethink peace processes and what solutions might look like into our ongoing work on transforming the way we think about and make peace.

For 2022, we are cooking a couple of very exciting events and projects on rethinking peace processes – so keep an eye out for more initiatives from us and our partners on rethinking peace processes. In the meantime, we give the last word to one of Inclusive Peace’s senior advisors, Youssef Mahmoud, former UN Under-Secretary General.

Read all news

November marks fifteen years since the Nepal Peace Agreement was signed. We reflect on the anniversary in this first instalment in our series of inclusive peacebuilding lessons.

This peacebuilding lesson is based on our case study on women’s participation in Nepal’s constitution-making process 2008-2012. In this lesson we break down two key strategies that Nepali women’s groups applied to advance inclusion in the process.

STRATEGY 1: introduce a quota

APPROACH: target/effect policies and policy makers to influence direct decision-making

PROBLEM/BACKGROUND: Historic and deep-seated gender inequalities led to women having never comprised more than six percent of Nepal’s parliamentarians until 2007.

MOTIVATION: Pushing for progressive inclusion mechanisms in a peace process can help to jump-start and institutionalize more inclusive governance beyond the peace process itself.

OUTCOME: The quota ensured that women made up 33 percent of the members of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly was the most representative body of its kind in Nepal’s history in terms of gender, caste, and minority inclusion and provided a critical juncture to shifting some of these structural barriers. This precedent set by the peace process has created momentum and attention to permanently enshrine inclusion, including in relation to women’s participation in governance. The new Constitution passed in 2015 has ensured a 33 percent representation of women in national and state Parliaments and 40 percent in local legislatures.

THREE KEY TAKEAWAYS: In relation to this strategy, here are some lessons learned – both positive and less positive – that can be applied by or relevant for peacebuilders in other contexts and peace processes.

  1.  Identify the right allies: It is key to identify those actors who are well-placed to help achieve your objective by leveraging their position or influence. In this example, if the objective is to establish a quota in governance mechanisms, who in the parliamentarian landscape is strategically wise to approach to introduce the quota strategy? Peacebuilders should also consider if there are any external/non-governmental organisations you can bring in to support your initiative. Likewise peacebuilders should consider if there are women politicians and peacebuilding practitioners available that would be suitable for positions within the political system and if these could be mobilised to push for a quota.
  2. Back up with evidence: When you have identified which parliamentarians, external/non-governmental organisations and women politicians or peacebuilders to approach, consider what evidence can you bring forth to support the effectiveness of a quota in general and for your specific situation.
  3. Consider protection issues: As many as 70 percent of all women Constituent Assembly members in Nepal were confronted with some form of violence. Women also faced legal action due to their political involvement, and routinely struggled with men politicians’ negative attitudes towards them. Knowing this it is important to consider what measures need to be taken to ensure that women’s participation and uptake in political decision-making bodies does not result in additional safety risks and violence towards the women after the quota has been introduced.

STRATEGY 2: mass action

APPROACH: mobilise civil society and create spaces for influencing indirect decision-making by targeting delegations instead of mediators

PROBLEM/BACKGROUND: In many peace processes, civil society advocacy exclusively focuses on the mediating or convening entity, roles sometimes played by the UN or the AU, for example. However, targeting the mediator or convenor may lead to some gains in terms of inclusion in the process, but are often limited in their ability to influence and change behaviour of the conflict or negotiating parties themselves.

MOTIVATION: mass action can lead to direct political representation at the negotiation table, and beyond the negotiation process itself

OUTCOME: By targeting delegations, mass action in Nepal led to direct representation at the negotiation table which in turn carried over into the Constituent Assembly. This did not simply involve public advocacy and mass action, as women’s groups strategically engaged with the 23 parties to prepare lists of potential female candidates.

THREE KEY TAKEAWAYS: In relation to this strategy, here are some lessons learned – both positive and less positive – that can be applied by or relevant for peacebuilders in other contexts and peace processes.

  1. Think seriously about communication: Identify delegations and individuals to address and create a system for sustainable, long-term communication and think about how this communication will be most effective. Consider channels, length, frequency, engaged members, women group representatives etc.
  2. Identify political allies: Consider how you can create ties with political relations which influence and penetrate indirect decision-making (these are often still male and elite-driven even after the inclusion of women in decision-making bodies). These allies will help you further in mobilising mass action.
  3. Focus on meaningful inclusion: In order to engage as many women’s groups as possible, think about how to advance past paternalistic or crony politics where most of the women in politics are there by virtue of their family relations and undermines the ability to pursue a common and distinct agenda for women in a particular country. Sure, such individuals may be well-placed as champions to help advance the broader cause, but one needs to be clear-eyed and continuously seek to broaden the definition of inclusion. Set a strategy for cultivating and managing a meaningful inclusion agenda and preventing cosmetic and superficial inclusion.

Infographic,

Infographic: Women’s role in Nepal’s constitution-making process (2008–2012)

This infographic analyses women’s influence in Nepal’s First Constituent Assembly (2008-2012).

June 2018|IPTI,

Download Pdfview document

Case Study,

Women in Peace and Transition Processes: Nepal (2008–2012)

This case study analyses women’s influence women in Nepal’s First Constituent Assembly (2008-2012).

July 2017|Estefanía Charvet,

Download Pdfview document
Read all news

On Sunday the 5th of September, the newly-appointed UN Envoy, Hans Grundberg, officially assumed his duties. Next week will mark six years since the Huthis first entered the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, precipitating a civil war which had been simmering for years, and which persists to this day. Have we reached a critical juncture in Yemen? At Inclusive Peace, we suggest that Yemenis and their supporters must seize this moment to rethink the peace process and move towards a culture of perpetual peacebuilding.

When outgoing UN Special Envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffiths, delivered his final briefing to the UN Security Council on 15 June 2021, he spoke with concern and resignation.

‘Yemeni men, women and children are suffering every day because people with power have missed the opportunities presented to them, to make the necessary concessions to end the war’, he declared, later stating that ‘only a negotiated political settlement can truly turn the tide in Yemen’.

The flaws of the current UN approach were unwittingly revealed in his statement. The idea that the only path forward involves gathering together members of the political elite to reach an accord represents an outdated and narrow view, and contradicts the reality of peace processes.

The flaws of the peace process in Yemen

Griffiths’ words find us at a time of desperation. Having endured over a decade of unrest and violence, the COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying economic crisis have further entrenched the challenges facing Yemenis.

In his first foreign policy speech in February 2021, US President Joe Biden pledged to end the war by cutting support for offensive operations in Yemen. In March, Saudi Arabia released a peace initiative, proposing a nationwide ceasefire overseen by the UN. In recent months, Oman has attempted to bring the Huthis and Saudi Arabia together for talks. A new UN Special Envoy to Yemen, Hans Grundberg, enters office. Nevertheless, violence persists.

The efforts made by the UN and other members of the international community to promote peace in Yemen following the escalation of the conflict in 2015 have struggled and stalled. Official, high-level negotiations have rarely produced results and on the few occasions on which agreements have been reached, they have barely been implemented.

It is not only in Yemen that international peacemaking is failing to set societies on pathways to peace. In Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan and elsewhere, belligerents in peace talks remain locked in conventional, linear formats; negotiations have floundered; and any attempts at broadening inclusion are all-too-frequently shallow and cosmetic.

The people of Yemen urgently need the space to transform the peace process and to determine the role of regional and international actors. It is time for Yemenis and their supporters to reflect on the process to date and to develop ideas for fundamental change.

Possibilities for a transformed peace process in Yemen: provocative questions and strategic options

Innovation and courage are required in Yemen. At Inclusive Peace, our comparative research offers glimmers of hope, and a range of strategies by which Yemenis and members of the international community could begin to rethink the peace process.

A new UN Resolution, or multiple mediators?

In Yemen, the UN is constrained by UN Security Council Resolution 2216, an agreement reached in 2015 which characterises the war as a contest between the Huthis and the internationally recognised government led by President Hadi. However, Yemen is now profoundly fractured and fragmented. Military, economic and ideological power is so diffuse that analysts write of ‘multiple Yemens, tiny statelets and zones of control held by an expanding number of armed groups, all of which have different goals and trajectories’.

Can the UN adapt to this reality? If not, who else could the Yemenis turn to for supplementary mediation and facilitation? Multiple mediators, working in concert or sequentially, is not without precedent.

In Mozambique, two Italian members of the Communità di Sant’Egidio, a Mozambican Roman Catholic archbishop, and a representative of the Italian government brokered the Rome General Peace Accords of 1992. Regional governments and business professionals also brought pressure to bear upon the warring parties before the UN entered the stage to oversee the implementation of the treaty.

The peace process in Aceh, as a second example, was first mediated by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue between 1999 and 2004 before the Crisis Management Initiative oversaw dialogue in 2005.

Both Saudi Arabia and Oman have already made forays into the process and Yemenis must consider which mediators are best-equipped to work in harmony to grapple with the fluidity and intricacy of the conflict. Yemenis could also consider whether all these mediators do indeed need to be external.

 

The region as part of the solution

The conflict in Yemen is both regionalised and internationalised. Yemen’s neighbours, together with states further afield, hold culpability for the chaos and tragedy in Yemen. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in particular, are tightly enmeshed in the fates of predominant Yemeni factions, and the war in Yemen must be considered in the context of regional and international rivalries and alliances.

How might a reimagined peace process grapple with this complexity? The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has spearheaded peaceful resolutions and restored constitutional governments in Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire and Gambia, offering multiple cases of effective, regional cooperation in search of peace.

And while its efforts were fruitless, in the early years of the Syrian crisis, the Arab League attempted to defuse the conflict and monitor a ceasefire.

Those along Yemen’s border may have provoked and exacerbated the pain of Yemenis but it is not inconceivable that they may also need to play a prominent and, crucially, collective role in any reconstructed peace process.

Making way for a home-grown, inclusive process

The National Dialogue Conference, convened between 2013 and 2014, has been condemned as unwieldy, unrepresentative and unrealistic. The Dialogue did, nevertheless, succeed in gathering together Yemenis from across the country to deliberate the future of the state.

Following the seizure of Sanaa by the Huthis in 2015, however, the peace process has dramatically narrowed. Consultative mechanisms involving women, such as the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), have been sharply criticised as being superficial while, as a forthcoming Inclusive Peace report will show, the array of unofficial, peacebuilding initiatives which have emerged over the course of the conflict have struggled to influence the high-level talks.

However, the ways in which those traditionally marginalised and excluded from peace negotiations can be included within peace processes are wide-ranging and flexible.

More fundamentally, peacebuilding can take a multitude of different forms and titles, involving myriad actors, organisations and spaces.

In Kenya, for instance, a state which has contended with recurring election-related violence since the mid-1990s, peacebuilding has taken the form of mass movements, constitutional amendments, anti-corruption initiatives, civil society campaigns, dialogues overseen by the regional body the African Union (AU), transitional justice commissions, bargaining between members of the political elite, and attempts at national dialogue. These diverse efforts have all taken place in the context of light-touch international support.

Our most crucial suggestion, therefore, is that Yemenis must be afforded the space to rethink the peace process in its entirety. In doing so, they could reflect upon the following:

  • What are the flaws of current approaches to peacebuilding and peacemaking in the state?
  • What do the Yemeni people, in all their diversity, seek? How do they envision their future state? What relationship do they seek with their neighbours in the region?
  • How might Yemenis begin along a pathway towards this vision? What shape should any future peace process adopt?
  • Which pre-existing initiatives – from traditional peacebuilding to more unconventional efforts, including mass movements, campaigns, dialogues, disputes and local mediation – could be preserved, developed, fortified and capitalised upon in pursuit of this vision?
  • What form should any regional and international support take?

And by expanding the very definition of peacebuilding to encompass locally-owned, formal and informal processes, peacebuilding in Yemen will inevitably come to encompass greater swathes of society together with a broader range of themes and challenges.

While peacebuilding, in this conception, may also become more messy and prolonged, it will nevertheless represent a leap forward from the deeply frustrating, ineffectual and stubbornly conventional efforts which currently dominate the conflict resolution process.

Towards perpetual peacebuilding: time for change in Yemen

Peacebuilding is a perpetual endeavour: it does not only take place at a formal, negotiation table, and cannot be detached from the broader arc of a society’s development. Peace is negotiated and re-negotiated incessantly and pathways to peace must be home-grown. The time has arrived for third parties in Yemen and elsewhere to adapt to this reality.

In his final briefing, Griffiths concluded that his efforts over the last three years have been ‘in vain’, remarking that Yemenis deserve more than a life of ‘perpetual war’. If the newly appointed UN Special Envoy to Yemen is not to repeat these words when he leaves the position, we must see a radical shift in approach.

Read all news

At Inclusive Peace we are thrilled to have welcomed two new researchers to the team over the summer. This means that our research capacities are getting even stronger and enables us to provide the latest evidence-based advice in peace processes. Meet our new team members here.

New Head of Research: Sarah Clowry

Sarah Clowry is our new Head of Research. She leads the research team in managing and expanding Inclusive Peace’s knowledge base and will co-develop our broader research agenda in partnership with our Executive Director, Thania Paffenholz. Sarah also shares Inclusive Peace’s evidence-based research with practitioners, policy makers and academics.

Sarah recently submitted her PhD thesis at Durham University. Her doctoral research was funded by the UK Government Economic and Social Research Council, and examined identity construction through international third-party peacemaking, focusing on the conflicts in Syria and Yemen. Prior to her PhD, Sarah worked in international development – she spent two years working in Nablus, Palestine before returning to the UK to manage global grants programmes for the British Council.

Sarah holds a First Class BA (Hons.) from the University of Oxford and an MA with Distinction from Durham University. She is also a trustee of the British-Yemeni Society.

New Researcher: Kaitlyn Hashem

Kaitlyn Hashem is our new researcher, and she will support the Inclusive Peace team in research, knowledge management and peace process support. Kaitlyn’s background is in Middle Eastern politics and conflict resolution and, before joining Inclusive Peace, she most recently worked as a researcher for the Inclusive Peace Processes and Reconciliation team at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington DC.

As a student, Kaitlyn worked as a research assistant at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security where she supported programming focused on advancing the WPS agenda and broadening inclusion. She also worked as a research intern on the Yemen and Sudan portfolios at an international law firm that provides pro bono legal advice to parties involved in peace negotiations.

Kaitlyn holds an MA in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University. She completed her undergraduate studies at Georgetown, graduating magna cum laude with a BA in International Relations and Arabic.

Read all news

Inclusive Peace has partnered with the Women Peace and Humanitarian Fund Rapid Response Window – a funding mechanism that addresses the funding gap on women’s participation in peace processes.

What is it?
The Rapid Response Window is a funding mechanism that supports the participation of women peacebuilders and women’s civil society organisations in national, subnational and international formal peace processes and the monitoring and implementation of peace agreements.

Why the Rapid Response Window?
Women have a right to meaningful participation, yet financial barriers still exclude them from peace processes worldwide. The Rapid Response Window supports urgent services and initiatives that facilitate women’s access and influence on peace processes and the implementation of peace agreements.

What’s Inclusive Peace’s role?
As a partner of the Rapid Response Window, we provide technical expertise and advisory support to local and grassroots civil society organisations to ensure women’s access and influence in track 1 and track 2 peace processes. The costs for our experts and advisors are covered through our partnership with the Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund.

Who can apply?
This Rapid Response Window is open to peace processes in all ODA eligible countries with a track 1 or track 2 peace process. Organizations applying for support do not require legal registration.

What else?
This new funding mechanism addresses the gap for financial support for women’s participation in peace processes that has been lacking for decades. Now it is about getting the word out to eligible women-led civil society organisations that seek to have an impact on peace in their countries through this new mechanism.

How can you help?
Share what the Rapid Response Window is and how to apply with your network on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook or send directly to people or organisations that can benefit from this mechanism.

To find out more about the fund, please send us an email: info@inclusivepeace.org

Infographic,

Factors Enabling and Constraining Women's Influence in Peace Processes

This infographic provides an overview of 19 factors enabling and constraining women’s influence in peacebuilding and peace processes.

December 2019|IPTI,

Download Pdfview document

Report,

Making Women Count - Not Just Counting Women: Assessing Women's Inclusion and Influence on Peace Negotiations

This report is based on the multi-year research project “Broadening Participation in Political Negotiations and Implementation”. It examines women’s inclusion and influence in peace processes.

April 2016|Steven Dixon, Anna-Lena Schluchter, Jacquie True, Thania Paffenholz, Nick Ross,

Download Pdfview document

Briefing Note,

Making Women Count in Peace Processes

This briefing note summarises key findings on women's inclusion and influence in peacebuilding and peace processes. It is based on the “Broadening Participation in Political Negotiations and Implementation” research project.

February 2016|IPTI,

Download Pdfview document

Briefing Note,

Fresh Insights on the Quantity and Quality of Women’s Inclusion in Peace Processes

This briefing note summarises expert views on women's inclusion in peace processes. It is based on findings from the “Broadening Participation” and “Civil Society and Peacebuilding” Projects.

May 2013|Antonia Potter Prentice, Cate Buchanan, Thania Paffenholz,

Download Pdfview document
Read all news

In a recent Inclusive Peace event, we explored the inherently political nature of National Dialogues with peers or practitioners from Africa and Southeast Asia. Read an excerpt of their recounts or dive into key takeaways from the discussion.

There is no way around it – National Dialogues will always be political. Our peers and fellow practitioners, who are experts in National Dialogue processes in their respective contexts, know this very well and all find strategies to manoeuvre this fact at the local and country level.

To bring practitioners and experts together to share experiences, we recently convened a peer exchange on National Dialogues and politicisation as a part of our National Dialogue peer exchange series. As with our first exchange in the event series, our approach was to have peers from different country contexts lead the exchange, while international experts had the opportunity to listen and learn from these experiences. Read a summary of the participants’ recounts here.

“An unfinished business with a long way to go for inclusive conflict resolution”

Cameroon’s ‘Grand Dialogue National’ took place in 2019 and is a highly relevant example of how much politics influence a National Dialogue process. According to the exchange experts, the 2019 National Dialogue process was organised, run, and managed by the government. In reality this meant that the dialogue could be described as a government monologue.

The government succeeded in imposing their agenda on the proceedings, and left almost no room for other stakeholders’ input into the process. A few pre-consultations were held, but they functioned as more of a smokescreen as everything had already been decided in advance. The participants also said that the situation in Cameroon could benefit from a new genuine all-inclusive National Dialogue process, but the government is still not willing to engage in a genuinely inclusive dialogue.

There is potentially scope for bilateral discussions with some armed groups or opposition actors, but not a polyphonic discussion. The situation may alter with a change in the country’s political landscape with the current president’s term ending in 2025.

“The National Dialogue was a process to try to work out a vision for Myanmar”

In Myanmar, the overarching peace process, the Union Peace Conference (UPC), can be compared to a National Dialogue. It involves representatives of Myanmar’s ethnic armed organisations (EAOs), political parties, and the government. The agenda is a comprehensive peace settlement to Myanmar’s more than 70-year-old armed conflict. The framework of the UPC encompasses a plan for nationwide consultations on ethnic, regional, and civic issues. These consultative forums are also called “National Dialogues”.

There was agreement that at least 30% of the representatives of the National Dialogue participants should be women, but unfortunately this did not play out. The UPC process has been ongoing since 2015, but its future following the military coup in February 2021 is now uncertain. Since the coup, there has been ad hoc dialogue among some political parties and ethnic armed organisations focused on continuing civilian elected government.

The event participants estimated that currently the political tension is too high to even discuss the possibility of a new National Dialogue process. But there are hopes to move towards renewed dialogue once all actors in the country get to an understanding that the complexity of the political transition in Myanmar can only be addressed through truly inclusive dialogue.

“A culture of dialogue is key, but hard to cultivate”

South Sudan has only been a country for the past 10 years, and the post-independence conflict has taken a major toll on the hopes of the country, underlining the difficulty of the shift from fighting for independence to state-building.

The Christian churches have been involved in a number of dialogue initiatives, and, among other Church leaders, met in Addis in 2015 to discuss a National Dialogue. This happened in parallel with the president announcing the formation of a National Dialogue Committee which was largely a government-controlled initiative.

The Churches felt that they could not be a part of such an initiative and convened a meeting among a diverse set of stakeholders that concluded that the National Dialogue process was important in and of itself, but for it to be meaningful, it requires input from a broad range of stakeholders, including the general public.

The situation in South Sudan is currently unstable with outbreaks of violence and food shortages in many parts of the country, which halts any dialogue process to move forward.

“We are still looking for a genuine, transformative dialogue process”

The situation in Zimbabwe is characterised by the unfinished business of the 2008 Global Political Agreement (GPA), and specifically issues stemming from contested electoral outcomes. As long as this situation remains unchanged any dialogue process will be discontinuous. The 2007-2008 GPA process was far from inclusive – both civil society, the churches, and the public were excluded in the dialogue process.

The latest dialogue – the Political Actors Dialogue (POLAD) in 2019 – involved the president and some other political leaders, but was seen by participants as an endeavour of the president talking to himself. Zimbabwe is still looking for a genuine, transformative dialogue, and a series of parallel initiatives – led by the Church and civil society – are trying to build an inclusive, non-politicised process.

There is now a deadlock, as the ruling party has not only monopolised the running of the official process but has appropriated all national institutions to direct the process in their favour. As such, a broad, inclusive process is currently unlikely.

“It was an elite-driven dialogue to buy time”

In Sudan, the post-independence landscape has been characterised by a period of prolonged autocratic rule succeeding a military coup, followed by a series of popular uprisings, conflicts, and political instability – including the civil war in, and conflict with, South Sudan, and the conflict in Darfur.

During this period there have been several dialogue attempts: some have focused on conflict resolution, some on governance and economic reforms, and others tried to draft a constitution. However, most dialogues have been elite-driven and underpinned by conflict dynamics.

The most recent National Dialogue took place from 2015-2016 and had more than 100 political parties and 30 armed groups taking part. However, only a very small number of the participating parties had real political influence and the envisaged timespan was too short for genuine input of a variety of voices. In conjunction with the Dialogue, the government cracked down on the opposition and continued its offensive against armed movements and civilians in Darfur, Blue Nile, and South Kordofan.

After the next round of public uprising in 2018-2019, Sudan has started a democratic transition. However, in the current context many of the same questions still prevail such as constitution-making process, governance modalities, resource management, decentralisation. There are currently multiple endeavours to address them, but these remain fragmented, elite-driven, and lack public participation and ownership.

Key takeaways
So what to take from these experiences onwards? Here is a brief sum up of the five key insights that our peer exchange revealed:

Expectation management is key
National Dialogues often occur in complex contexts with multiple competing processes and problems that they are expected to address. But National Dialogues are not a cure-all solution. Instead, they should be seen for what they are – which is just one instrument among others in a country’s political transition. Managing expectations about what a National Dialogue can achieve is key to generating faith, trust, and buy-in for the process.

Trust is essential
Trust between the facilitators of a National Dialogue process and the public is a condition for the Dialogue to achieve meaningful outcomes. If this trust is not established, then it can cause frustration that discredits both the current and most recent National Dialogue process, and can also create a lasting distrust that may influence future processes.

Outcomes are determined by who’s in control
Outcome and legitimacy of a National Dialogues process is determined by who organises, runs, and controls a process. Dialogues that have been co-opted are designed and undertaken in an exclusionary manner, and are also more likely to be unfinished. It requires some degree of genuine and meaningful inclusion of political parties, armed groups (if relevant), civil society, and the public for a National Dialogue to reach sustainable outcomes.

National Dialogues should take place on multiple levels
The political space in a country is not confined to one level and National Dialogue processes should reflect that and take place on multiple levels. Whether these multiple processes are parallel or sequenced depends on the context and each process should be tailored to the unique context in which it occurs.

Dialogue processes do not occur in isolation
National Dialogue processes are constant renegotiations of the social and political contract and are by no means linear – instead, they are characterised by progress and setbacks. Seen in this light, National Dialogue processes cannot exist in isolation, and are instead just one dialogue within a series of dialogues. This makes a certain degree of unfinished business inevitable, as one dialogue process cannot fix the underlying causes of conflict. Seeing National Dialogue processes in the context of political transitions also means identifying progress and opportunities from a process that can be picked up again by another process at a later stage.

About our work on National Dialogues

Inclusive Peace contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics of National Dialogues and explores strategies to improve their effectiveness with our partners in different contexts.

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

Briefing Note,

What Makes or Breaks National Dialogues?_BN

This briefing note summarises the findings of a research project on National Dialogues and inclusive peace processes commissioned by UNDPA. It is based on a comparative analysis of 17 cases of National Dialogues (1990-2014).

April 2017|IPTI,

Download Pdfview document

Infographic,

Infographic: Women's role in Tunisia's National Dialogue (2013-2015)

This infographic analyses women’s influence in Tunisia’s Constituent Assembly and National Dialogue (2013-2015).

December 2019|IPTI,

Download Pdfview document

Video Brief,

Key Findings on National Dialogues

This video brief gives an overview of how National Dialogues can facilitate inclusion in peace processes and serve as an instrument of political change.

January 2018|IPTI,

Open Videoview document
Read all news

The mediation and peacebuilding community is stuck in traditional approaches to peace and conflict that need a fundamental rethink. Our ED’s new peacebuilding paradigm offers brand new ideas and solutions for more effective and sustainable mediation and peacebuilding.

Our Executive Director, Thania Paffenholz has just published her new peacebuilding paradigm Perpetual Peacebuilding that aims to influence the peace and security field fundamentally. Key in her thinking is that current approaches to violent conflict are unsuccessful and in order to move towards peaceful and inclusive societies, we need to reframe our understanding of peacebuilding and peace processes. These processes can’t be separated from the arc of a society’s changing development and as a consequence peacebuilders should take up new roles. 

Dig deep into the article and you’ll find the ideas that lie at the core of our work as well as concrete actions you can take to adapt your own mediation and peacebuilding practices. But if you don’t have time to dig deep, here are the three must-knows about Perpetual Peacebuilding: 

  • Current approaches to manage violent conflict don’t work 
  • We need to change the way we think about and do mediation and peacebuilding
  • Mediators and peacebuilders should play new roles as critical friends

Current approaches to manage violent conflict don’t work 

Looking at today’s complex crises playing out in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan or elsewhere,  it is obvious that international approaches and tools used to end wars and support peace aren’t having much success. Conflicts rage for decades and humanitarian crises and great suffering for millions follow. And even though most official high-level peace processes are stalled or completely stuck, there has been little to no sign of a change in practice to address ongoing conflicts or work to prevent new security threats – despite the many international policy frameworks that lay the groundwork for a different approach. 

We need to change the way we think about and do mediation and peacebuilding

More than ever, the world needs innovative and creative outside the box ideas to ensure sustainable political transitions and, ultimately, pave the way towards peaceful and inclusive societies. In essence, there is a need to change both the way we think about and the way we do mediation and peacebuilding. 

The first step towards changing our practice in peacebuilding, is to recognise that peace processes do not follow a straightforward path that starts with pre-negotiations followed by negotiations, a peace agreement and its implementation. On the contrary, peace processes are non-linear and take place in different spaces and formats, and across different periods of time. 

The reality is that peace processes are better understood as a series of negotiations and renegotiations of the social and political contract in a society. There are plenty of recent examples of these constant re-negotiations, but instead of referring to the usual conflict zones, why not look to Europe? 

France, for example, has  experienced internal conflict and increased segregation in the past few years. Recently groups of soldiers and semi-retired generals sent open letters to the French government warning of civil war and accusing the government of granting concessions to Islam. The letters were backed by one of the country’s main opposition leaders, Marine Le Pen, though condemned by the current government.

France is not the only context showing us that peace is not an end stage, but needs constant dialogue and efforts of inclusion to be maintained. In Kenya, despite a successfully mediated peace deal in 2008 that led to a new constitution and hope for a sustainable settlement of election related violence, the country finds itself still in a polarised political climate on the brink of violence in every election cycle. 

And if we take a bird’s eye view of the political developments in the past decades in  Europe and the United States, we see an eruption of anti-immigrant and anti-minority rhetoric and discourse, growing popularity of nationalism and nationalist parties, and an increasing democratic disconnect between populations and the governments that are supposed to represent them. 

What can we conclude from this? That peace is a perpetual undertaking that all societies – not only those experiencing war or violent conflict – need to actively engage in to thrive. In other words, we can’t separate peace processes from the arc of a society’s development; and peace is built perpetually along this  development. 

Mediators and peacebuilders have new roles as critical friends

The fact that peace is built perpetually means mediators and peacebuilders need to get beyond talking about ‘success’ and ‘failure’ and instead find new terms and language which capture the perpetual nature of the process. Traditional concepts like “tracks”, “peace agreements” and even “peace processes” also need a rethink.  

International actors should also rethink how they support mediation and peacebuilding processes. Short-term stabilisation and long-term inclusive outcomes are two sides of the same coin and need to be promoted simultaneously. International peacebuilding actors and donors should refocus their role to offer discreet assistance, providing an array of ideas, options, and possibilities for their partners.

Instead of showing up with ready-made solutions and frameworks, peacebuilders should act as critical friends, and be prepared to ask questions that empower people and organisations to build home-grown processes to create pathways to more peaceful and inclusive societies. 

The essential questions that mediators and peacebuilders need to ask are:

  • How can we take immediate action to support strategies that further pathways to peaceful and inclusive societies end or prevent violence?
  • How can an understanding of inclusion be embedded within processes in such a way that it becomes the starting point of long-term, self-reinforcing efforts to build inclusive societies instead of transitory cosmetic add-ons? 
  • What are the multilateral, regional, and/or national-level political opportunities that can be leveraged for change? 
  • How do we work to identify, mitigate against, and overcome resistance to change, assessing power relations and interests systematically and realistically?

Changing the way we think about and the way we do mediation and peacebuilding requires courage and creativity. At Inclusive Peace, we do our best to be courageous and creative across our various work streams working hand in hand with our partners. But we can’t do it alone. We need you, your colleagues, and the rest of the mediation and peacebuilding community on board to spread the word and mainstream perpetual peacebuilding practices across the field. 

Want to join the conversation on how to move perpetual peacebuilding forward? Follow us on our social media channels or send us a message. 

Article,

Rethinking peace processes: Preventing electoral crisis in Kenya

This article reflects on the periods before and after the 2017 elections in Kenya. It illustrates how National Dialogues and inclusion can help forge pathways towards an inclusive society and prevent violence.

September 2020|Prisca Kamungi, Florence Mpaayei, Thania Paffenholz,

Open Linkview document

Report,

Reimagining Peacemaking: Women’s Roles in Peace Processes

This report discusses women’s influence in peace and transition processes. It offers insight into how a rethinking of the traditional approach to peacemaking can offer pathways to sustainable peace.

June 2015|Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Marie O’Reilly, Thania Paffenholz,

Download Pdfview document
Read all news

Inclusive Peace not only has a new name and brand, but also a changed approach, objectives and priorities. Get to know the “new” Inclusive Peace here. 

A little over a year after Inclusive Peace transitioned from the Inclusive Peace & Transition Initiative (IPTI) at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, what has changed? 

Quite a bit, it turns out.  And the changes are more than cosmetic. Yes the name, logo, and website have changed, and Inclusive Peace is now an independent think and do tank – but there are others less obvious at first glance. Here are the 5 main ways Inclusive Peace sets itself apart from IPTI.

Collaboration is key 

Inclusive Peace partners with multiple stakeholders to create and share impact in peace and policy processes and through research. 

As a predominantly research organisation, IPTI’s approach was largely driven towards applying its research knowledge. In 2017, IPTI began to experiment on how to make more of an impact in the mediation and peacebuilding field. This included undertaking a series of collaborative ventures. Such experiences revealed just how impactful we could be in partnership with others.  

Inclusive Peace has mainstreamed these learnings not just in our operational work, but also in our core objectives and approach. In our peace process support we acknowledge local contexts and leadership by playing the role of a critical, trusted friend from a discrete, back seat vantage point. We also work collaboratively on research projects with academic institutions across the world and are co-creating an interactive online knowledge platform with national and international peer organisations. 

Setting the inclusion agenda

Inclusive Peace takes an active approach to shift the peace process field as a whole to integrate inclusive outcomes within all aspects of work, understanding that peace is an ongoing process, built over time.

When IPTI began experimenting with how to make more impact in the mediation and peacebuilding field, it  grew out of frustration towards the traditional approach of the field. To appease conflict actors, local and international-led processes either took no notice of inclusion frameworks or made artificial attempts to meet them. However, being a predominantly research-focused organisation held IPTI back from taking too much of an active role in agenda setting.

Now, Inclusive Peace’s independent setup allows a more strategic  approach. We strive to change the traditional linear peace process approach, working with our partners to systematically and creatively rethink how they work for peace. For us this means working from the belief that peace is a perpetual process that all societies need to actively engage in to thrive. The challenge now is how to get our whole field to systematically rethink how peace processes are conducted for inclusive outcomes.

Broadening public awareness of inclusion

We work to make societies more peaceful and inclusive. To achieve this we need to work not only with actors from the peace process field alone. 

IPTI’s size and research-focus meant there was little appetite and limited resources to take an active, strategic approach to public awareness raising. This is no longer a barrier at Inclusive Peace, where our global and agile team have broader inputs, networks, and reach. Non-profit organisations in other sectors (environmental, humanitarian) have long used social media and communications tools to gain supporters and influence change. But for the peace process sector it’s still early days. 

Inclusive Peace wants to change this, at first by making systematic use of its communications channels and The Open Peace portal to increase visibility and broaden awareness. By creating inspiring #campaigns on our social media channels we contribute to build broader inclusion understanding beyond expert circles. 

A balanced organisational setup 

Inclusive Peace is an independent think and do tank with balanced priorities in research, policy and practice. In reality, this means a leaner research team in-house and more collaborations with external institutions.

As a research programme housed within an academic setting at the Graduate Institute, IPTI was inherently research-focused and resourced. In contrast, Inclusive Peace is an independent association with a broad mandate that does not solely focus on research. We have an ambitious vision and mission, which makes it clear that research is important but requires transfer into action. We’re staffed by a balanced team of individuals with diverse talents, strengths, and interests to work across peace process support, agenda setting, and knowledge creation projects. 

What’s in a name?

Inclusive Peace has a new brand since transitioning from IPTI, including a shorter name, a new logo, and a recently launched website with a new look and feel. 

The name change from IPTI to Inclusive Peace raises the obvious question: why keep “inclusive peace” but drop “transition initiative”? The new name differentiates the new organisation while at the same time retaining the institutional memory and experience of IPTI. Political transitions of course remain an important area within the scope of our work, but this no longer needed to be spelt out. Our name now reflects an organisation working to support inclusive outcomes in peace processes while at the same time setting the discourse on inclusion in peace research and policy.

The new logo and branding is likewise designed to reflect our vision, mission and approach. Our claim – setting change in motion – reflects our discrete back-seat approach inspiring at critical junctures. Our brand, website and social media channels are all built around our core values and focus areas and play a vital role in our strategic agenda setting work reaching both the expert community and wider public with our message of inclusion. 

Read all news

Over the last decades, women’s crucial role in effective peacebuilding has increasingly been recognised. But women’s participation in formal peace processes remains at unacceptably low levels. Here’s our take on how to better counteract patriarchal structures and discourses in a smart and effective way. 

March has been a busy month at Inclusive Peace. Among myriad other tasks, we have been moderating and giving inputs to a series of events related to Women, Peace and Security. In the beginning of the month, Executive Director Thania Paffenholz led the event launching Germany’s new Women, Peace and Security strategy. Two days later, Director Sarah Taylor gave expert input for a GIZ panel discussion on women’s leadership in peacebuilding, giving food for thought to high level stakeholders. Read her input here:

Identify patriarchal backlash as a reality
Put simply, patriarchy is generally unimpressed by norms and evidence. Despite established evidence, policy, and the fact that women comprise more than 50% of the global population, arguments are often put forward to show or ‘prove’ that women’s inclusion in peace processes is not necessary, or is even harmful to a process: ‘Right now we need to get armed parties to sign a ceasefire – women’s inclusion can come later.’ ‘There is not sufficient evidence that women’s inclusion really brings more peace’. ‘Women do not know enough about the subjects discussed at the table.‘ ‘Women are not sufficiently representative’. In response, WPS champions are instead often drawn into producing counter-arguments, rather than challenging the premise of the questions: ‘We need to ask Envoys to consult with women’ instead of demanding a 50% gender quota for all negotiation delegations; ‘We need more evidence’, instead of pointing to the bulk of existing evidence. Finally, ‘We need to train the women’. i.e. the need to ‘fix’ the women, not patriarchy, as being the cause of the problem. We should support women to better understand how to push for peace processes to succeed, and how to push their way in rather than waiting to be invited.

Overcome conceptual confusion: What constitutes meaningful participation of women in peace processes?
General – and thus unspecific – calls for women’s inclusion often manifest as a conflated agenda that does not distinguish between different goals. In his 2018 annual report on Women, Peace and Security, the UN Secretary General differentiates between gender parity, gender mainstreaming and meaningful participation and women’s influence throughout his report, a clearer framing that helps to make women’s inclusion more real and understandable. For example, women’s representation can be achieved with a gender or inclusion quota across all bodies in a peace process – from negotiation delegations to consultative bodies or implementation bodies and constitutional commissions. Gender mainstreaming in all outcome documents of a ceasefire or peace deal – as the Colombian case exemplifies – can be achieved with formally mandated gender commissions or gender focal points. Women’s influence over the peace process needs multiple strategies, ranging from discrete lobbying to presenting targeted proposals to mass action or campaigns.

Work for inclusion in multiple roles and bodies in peace processes
In many UN-led peace processes in recent years, women’s inclusion has been characterised by prioritising separate, women-specific tracks, advisory bodies, technical committees or consultations over the direct inclusion of women at the negotiation table or in key implementing bodies. This does not mean that women cannot be simultaneously included in multiple bodies and functions in a peace process; but this is not a replacement for direct equal participation. The SG confirms as much in his 2018 report: ‘In some cases, this has taken the form of parallel processes or advisory bodies that are unable to contribute to main processes and outcomes’.

Prevent reduction to “women’s demands”
The language and strategies used to lobby for women’s inclusion can contribute to the narrative that women have to justify their place at the table and at other crucial forums. This can happen through qualifying or justifying women’s inclusion (something men never need to do), exaggerating the need for training to build women’s capacity, focusing on women’s needs rather than strengths, or advocating for quotas that are below parity.

Change the rules of the game, not just the players
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the traditional approach of inviting key armed actors to the negotiation table and signing a peace deal no longer works. Official peace negotiations in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Cyprus are continually stalled, or essentially not working. The objective cannot be to just add more women to an evidently malfunctioning system. We as a community need to focus instead on fundamentally rethinking our approach to peace, recognising the entire ecosystem in which these processes develop, and recognising that these processes do not end with a signed agreement.

Rethinking our approach to peace with inclusion at its core, with women’s leadership fundamental at every step, will help us build more resilient communities.

Briefing Note,

Beyond the Normative: Can Women’s Inclusion Really Make for Better Peace Processes?

This briefing note summarises key findings on the effects of women’s inclusion and influence in peace processes. It is based on the multi-year research project “Broadening Participation in Political Negotiations and Implementation”.

April 2015|Thania Paffenholz,

Download Pdfview document

Infographic,

Factors Enabling and Constraining Women's Influence in Peace Processes

This infographic provides an overview of 19 factors enabling and constraining women’s influence in peacebuilding and peace processes.

December 2019|IPTI,

Download Pdfview document

Briefing Note,

Fresh Insights on the Quantity and Quality of Women’s Inclusion in Peace Processes

This briefing note summarises expert views on women's inclusion in peace processes. It is based on findings from the “Broadening Participation” and “Civil Society and Peacebuilding” Projects.

May 2013|Antonia Potter Prentice, Cate Buchanan, Thania Paffenholz,

Download Pdfview document

Report,

Making Women Count - Not Just Counting Women: Assessing Women's Inclusion and Influence on Peace Negotiations

This report is based on the multi-year research project “Broadening Participation in Political Negotiations and Implementation”. It examines women’s inclusion and influence in peace processes.

April 2016|Steven Dixon, Anna-Lena Schluchter, Jacquie True, Thania Paffenholz, Nick Ross,

Download Pdfview document

Briefing Note,

Making Women Count in Peace Processes

This briefing note summarises key findings on women's inclusion and influence in peacebuilding and peace processes. It is based on the “Broadening Participation in Political Negotiations and Implementation” research project.

February 2016|IPTI,

Download Pdfview document
Read all news