Inclusive of Whom, and for What Purpose? Strategies of Inclusion in Peacemaking (original) (raw)

Daring to differ? Strategies of inclusion in peacemaking

Security Dialogue, 2020

'Inclusion' has emerged as a prominent theme in peacemaking. However, its exact meaning remains vague, as do assumptions about the relationship between inclusion and peace. This article seeks to problematize the research, policy and practice of inclusion. Focusing on United Nations (UN) peacemaking, we ask how the object of inclusion has been framed, and based on what strategies and underlying rationales. We do so against the backdrop of emerging debates about an agonistic peace, which suggest that violent antagonistic relationships can be overcome if peace processes enable contestation between adversaries. This requires that peacemakers recognize the constitutive role of difference in political settlements. We identify three distinct strategies for inclusion, with corresponding framings of the included. Firstly, inclusion can be used to build a more legitimate peace; secondly, to empower and protect specific actor groups; and thirdly, to transform the sociopolitical structures that underlie conflict. The first strategy frames the included in open terms that can accommodate a heterogeneity of actors, the second in closed terms pertaining to specific identity traits, and the third in relational terms emerging within a specific social, cultural and political context. In practice, this leads to tensions in the operationalization of inclusion, which are evidence of an inchoate attempt to politicize peace processes. In response, we argue for an approach to relational inclusion that recognizes the power relations from which difference emerges; neither brushing over difference, nor essentializing single identity traits, but rather remaining flexible in navigating a larger web of relationships that require transformation.

Inclusive peace processes – an introduction

Development Dialogues, 2015

One of the principal reasons groups resort to violence and protest is to contest their exclusion from social, political or economic power. A wide range of research has found that more inclusive societies are generally more stable, harmonious and developed. Research has also found that the inclusion of additional actors or groups next to the main conflict parties (such as civil society or political parties) in negotiation processes is crucial in making war-to-peace and political transitions more sustainable. However, policy-makers and international donors continue to struggle to respond adequately to calls for greater inclusion. Mediators and negotiators may resist inclusion for a variety of reasons. They may fear that including additional actors alongside the main negotiating parties will lead to a multiplication of positions at the table, making effective compromise more difficult. Included actors may band together (or ally themselves with negotiators) to form polarised coalitions, further inhibiting compromise. Pressures of ongoing violence, or limited funding, may mean that the negotiation timeframe cannot be extended to encompass the significantly increased numbers of positions, leading to reduced opportunity for dialogue and compromise. Inclusion may also not be compatible with the requirements of secrecy that are often the precondition for negotiators to come to the table. In addition, selecting a small sample of people to make decisions on behalf of an entire population presents huge challenges of representation, which can lead to accusations of corruption, bias or illegitimacy. The negotiating parties may view themselves as the legitimate …

Tools of Change: Long-Term Inclusion in Peace Processes

The literature on conflict resolution has devoted a great deal of time and resources to the study of inclusion in peace processes. Yet concentration has focused mostly on inclusion within the framework of a peace agreement and has not paid sufficient attention to the long-term aspects of inclusion that affect sustainable peace after the implementation of the peace agreement. This study addresses this gap in knowledge by investigating the effects of long-term inclusive strategies on sustainable peace. To do so, this study makes a conceptual differentiation between short-and long-term inclusion, followed by a comparative analysis of three cases where a set of exploratory variables will help scrutinize the effects of long-term inclusion on sustainable peace. It concludes that long-term inclusion has an effect on sustainable peace, but that this effect differs based on the type of inclusive strategy an agreement proposes.

Inclusiveness and Peacebuilding: Operational Perspectives

There is a broad normative agreement in the international community that inclusiveness is important and desirable. However, in great contrast to such normative agreement, the reality of peacemaking and peacebuilding has distinctively different characteristics. Peace agreements involve only a limited number of actors and therefore do not always represent the views and aspirations of a significant portion of society. What is more, the contributions of marginalised groups – such as women, youth and ethnic minorities – are largely ignored. The gap between normative ambition and current practice demands a better understanding of the operational aspects about how to achieve higher levels of inclusiveness in peacemaking and peacebuilding. Such a focus on the ‘how’ highlights a series of tough questions: who needs to be included, what issues need to be addressed, to what extent and when? What are the process requirements to work towards a higher level of inclusiveness over time? How do we operationalise inclusiveness in political environments that are not truly conducive to this concept? And how do we engage those groups that self-exclude from a peace process?

Policy Brief: Can Inclusive Peace Processes Work? New Evidence From a Multi-Year Research Project

Inclusive peace processes are slowly replacing the traditional exclusive peace deals negotiated solely between two or more armed groups. From Colombia to Libya or Myanmar, current peace processes seek to broaden participation even at the highest level of official (track 1) peace negotiations. Civil society groups, but also political parties and women’s groups often take part in these negotiations and their implementation in formal roles and structures. However, policy makers and international donors struggle to respond adequately to calls for greater inclusion. This is because there is a lack of knowledge as to how inclusion can practically work in order to have a positive impact on the quality and sustainability of peace deals without reducing the likelihood that agreements are being reached. With a team of more than 30 researchers, the project “Broadening Participation in Political Negotiations and Implementation” produced seven key findings for successful inclusive peace processes.

Broadening participation in peace processes: Dilemmas & options for mediators

This paper seeks to provide mediators and mediation teams with a better understanding of, and options for, broadening participation in peace negotiations without sacrificing the effectiveness of the mediation process. It offers mediators and their support teams an accessible survey of the ‘state of the art’ of current debates on and practice of broadening participation in peace processes.

Incremental inclusivity in peace processes: Key lessons learnt

Policy Brief, 2020

This policy brief provides evidence-based lessons learnt and recommendations on the timing, sequencing and modalities of inclusion of nonsignatory armed groups and civil society actors in peace processes. It aims to inform a strategic understanding on how to design and implement peace processes that are effective in bringing about an inclusive political, economic and social transformation. This policy brief draws on a comparative assessment of ‘incremental inclusion’ approaches for nonsignatory armed groups and civil society actors during the negotiation and implementation of peace agreements in Afghanistan, Colombia, Mali and Myanmar, as summarised from the research report “Incremental inclusivity: A recipe for effective peace processes?” (Schädel and Dudouet 2020).

Achieving Peace: An Integration

International Handbook of Peace and Reconciliation, 2013

Beginning with a discussion of ideological framing in peace and conflict studies and international relations, this chapter presents alternative frameworks for examining discourse in international ethics, compares results from its implementation in eight regions on peace-related items on the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS), and discusses their possible normative implications. The introductory section considers historical and contemporary obstacles to peace and prescriptive and critical reactions. We sketch the contours of a practical pacifism through which social psychological peace research can give both international law and global public opinion their due. Applying agentic and grounded theory approaches influenced by Johan Galtung’s conception of positive peace and sociocognitive psychologist Albert Bandura’s theory of moral engagement, we demonstrate how surveying international attitudes toward peace is one way of making the descriptive medium the prescriptive message.