Peace processes after civil war: choosing the right tools for the job

18th April 2016

Why, despite the best of intentions and the investment of significant resources, do peace processes so often fail to lead to a stable and lasting peace after civil war?

‘Neither war nor peace’ is an all too familiar scenario in many post-war contexts, and it looks as if Syria may be about to join countries such as Liberia, East Timor and Iraq in this unenviable state of limbo. If Syria’s peace talks do lead to an agreement, a major peacebuilding operation will follow. So how does the international community make sure that any attempt to build peace does not inadvertently lead merely to the absence of all-out war? Are there any examples of ‘positive deviance’ that can point the way?

Dominant international approaches to peacebuilding focus primarily on technical fixes that ignore the unique political contexts … that often play key roles in sparking and perpetuating conflict.

A big part of the challenge is that the dominant international approaches to peace processes and peacebuilding focus primarily on technical fixes that ignore the unique political contexts of post-conflict societies. They fail to acknowledge the deeply embedded power dynamics that often play key roles in sparking and perpetuating conflict.

Essentially, peace itself is depoliticised by these peace processes: civil conflict is understood primarily as the result of a dysfunctional state, and peace is pursued through a set of mechanisms that attempt to “fix” the state to return order and security to its population.

Even where there is not a full-scale resumption of war, individuals and communities continue to be beset by violence, insecurity, instability and mistrust in many post-conflict societies. For the last six years I have investigated this puzzle, drawing on case studies from across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and it seems there are two key challenges facing peace consolidation.

First, practical challenges undermine the consolidation of peace in many post-conflict states. These range from the delayed deployment of peacekeepers to poorly designed programs for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) and security sector reform (SSR); from insufficient funds and resources for peacebuilding activities to the bad faith or lack of commitment to peace among those who are supposedly engaging with the process. The good news is that practical challenges have practical solutions, and the international community seems to be getting better at finding them.

However, my research suggests a second and more intractable challenge: many peace processes are undermined because they do not ask what factors motivate individuals or groups to use violence – or to buy into the peace. If no effort is made to understand these dynamics, there can be no response. This is a systemic problem, a symptom of the deeply technocratic and bureaucratic way the international community engages in peace processes.

This approach makes a set of assumptions about what a post-conflict state and society should look like and how it gets there, regardless of context. Peace is taken to be a fundamentally uncontested idea. Yet the realities of peacebuilding illustrated by a wide range of highly contested peace processes suggest exactly the opposite.

Civil wars are deeply political affairs. They are about how a society’s power and authority are embodied and exercised. Divorcing a peace process from this produces a hollow peace: the institutions and structures of security, governance, and transitional justice become disconnected from the dynamics of politics and social organisation. It is hard to see how those new institutions can consolidate peace if this is so. It is more likely that the ‘peace’ will be captured and manipulated by elite interests, helping to perpetuate the insecurity and instability that the end of conflict was supposed to resolve.

There are examples of peace processes that have deviated from the dominant model and responded more effectively to the dynamics of conflict-affected communities.

Yet there are examples of peace processes, or elements of peace processes, that deviate from the dominant model and which have more effectively responded to the dynamics of conflict-affected communities. For example, an innovative approach to DDR in Mindanao in the Philippines in the mid-1990s recognised that the deeply embedded gun culture and a volatile security situation would make it impossible to disarm and demobilise the Mindanao National Liberation Front  – and so DDR was done without the ‘D’s.

In Nepal, after the 10-year Maoist insurgency, the usual typical ‘heavy footprint’ peacekeeping operation was discarded – after some resistance from the UN establishment – in favour of a ‘light footprint designer mission’ with a very small contingent of unarmed military officers. This made international intervention acceptable to both the local parties and regional actors, and meant that the process remained locally owned and driven.

Both cases show that alternatives to the dominant approach can be highly effective and avoid the pitfalls of template-based peacebuilding. It is worth noting, however, that responsiveness to local context can’t simply be added to the existing model. Peace processes need to be bespoke and flexible. They need to:

  • tailor the form of each process to suit the specific functions of the process, the context in which it operates, and the needs of the local population;
  • regularly assess the interaction of these factors and the constituent elements of the peace process so that shifts can be made in response to changing conditions, outcomes, and challenges.

I’m not suggesting we start over in each post-war context with deep musings on the nature of peace and conflict. But the evidence clearly suggests that the options in the peacebuilding toolbox would work better if they were selected after a genuine consideration and discussion of their utility, and of their likely impact in each individual context.

 

Image: Detail from the Monument for Peace and Unity, Davao City, Mindanao, Philippines  (Bro. Jeffrey Pioquinto, SJ/Flickr).

See more commentary and resources from the DLP conference on Power, politics and positive deviance.

0 Comments

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Documents

Author

Jasmine-Kim Westendorf

Jasmine-Kim Westendorf

Dr Jasmine-Kim Westendorf is a Lecturer in International Relations at La Trobe University, Melbourne. Her research interests include negotiated peace processes, international approaches to peacebuilding, and the role of women in peace and war. She is the author of the 2015 book 'Why Peace Processes Fail: Negotiating Insecurity After Civil War' (Lynne Rienner).

Read more

Related items

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

What's so 'African' about African leadership?

Does a focus on 'African' leadership obscure the rich and diverse nature of Africa's many states and get in the way of useful lessons from other parts of the world?

Opinion by Suda Perera1st April 2014

Neither 'good guys' nor 'bad guys': Positive engagement with armed groups

The final post in our short series on 'Power, Politics and Positive Deviance', the theme of our 2016 Annual Conference at La Trobe University, Melbourne, on Monday (8 February).

Opinion by Suda Perera5th February 2016

DLP political settlements workshop: reflections

A practitioner considers how the intangible nature of power can be discussed and included in a policy framework. 

Opinion by Astrid Jamar22nd July 2015

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's resource management transparency process has joined government, business and civil society actors in collective action for the first time.  

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

The Developmental Leadership Program will host its 2016 Annual Conference at La Trobe University in Melbourne on 8 February. Its theme is Power, politics and positive deviance.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Our money, our projects: Demand-driven community development

Emerging lessons from the Central Land Council’s community development program to strengthen Aboriginal people’s participation in mainstream Australia.

Opinion by David Ross15th April 2016

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included?

DLP hosted a day-long high level introductory workshop on political settlements in June. This post introduces a series that showcases the contributions of researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

Politics, risk and development: three takeaways

Reflections from last week's Australasian Aid Conference and DLP’s 2016 Annual Conference, both hosted at Australian universities. 

Opinion by Chris Roche19th February 2016

Positive deviance and Myanmar's telecoms revolution

A DLP research project looks at the politics of economic reform through the lens of Myanmar's remarkable transformation of its telecoms sector.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi3rd February 2016

Shuffling the decks: quick fixes versus long-term stability

(First published as a guest post for the ODI's Development Progress blog)

Opinion by Suda Perera22nd January 2015

The practicalities of change: Positive deviance and land reform in Vanuatu

Anna Naupa's 2016 Adrian Leftwich Memorial Lecture discussed where most transformation happens - in drafting the rules, or in putting them into action.

Opinion by Anna Naupa13th April 2016

Development - getting our story straight

Replacing the traditional aid narrative with a more grown-up - and more inspiring - development story. 

Opinion by Alex Frankel20th April 2016

‘Crows who come in search of dollars’: NGO legitimacy in conflict zones

Do political dynamics affect NGO legitimacy more than performance?

Opinion by Oliver Walton19th August 2014

Being 'there': Bermuda Triangulation

Fieldwork in fragile places - Part 2: Data difficulties. Adapting methodology to 'messy' contexts.

Opinion by Suda Perera6th November 2014

Being 'there': Reflections on fieldwork in the DRC

Fieldwork in fragile places - Part 1: The security dilemma. Staying safe while collecting the data that matters. 

Opinion by Suda Perera5th November 2014

Colombia's women, tried by war, find new power

Women suffered most in Colombia's long civil war - but they also found a voice. Article in Foreign Policy

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal15th October 2015

Peace processes after civil war: Choosing the right tools for the job

Why, despite the best of intentions and the investment of significant resources, do peace processes so often fail to lead to a stable and lasting peace after civil war?

Opinion by Jasmine-Kim Westendorf18th April 2016

Developmental leadership: putting inclusiveness first

Only through putting inclusiveness first can fragile states begin to break the dysfunctional societal and institutional patterns that hold back change.

Opinion by Seth D. Kaplan24th September 2015

Forgotten South Sudan tangled in factionalism and failed politics

A toxic blend of complex historical identity politics and short-term elite politicking

Opinion by Jonathan Fisher4th September 2014

Fiji's Roshika Deo - outlier, positive deviant or simply feisty feminist?

Priya Chattier will speak at DLP's 2016 Annual Conference. Her post here begins a short series on the conference theme of Power, politics and positive deviance.

Opinion by Priya Chattier 1st February 2016