Committee for Conflict Transformation Support

CCTS
Newsletter 16

Mechanisms for political participation of the public in peacemaking

A summary by Celia McKeon of an Accord Programme analysis workshop held in February 2002

As vehicles for bringing an end to war and violent conflict, peace processes go well beyond the issues of dealing with violence and play a crucial role in defining the future political landscape of a country. Very often, however, negotiations take place behind closed doors and are dominated exclusively by the warring parties. Deals are often brokered in foreign countries by international mediators. The public is barely informed of vital decisions being taken about the future governance of the state in which they live, let alone asked to participate in the process for reaching those decisions. Yet many would argue that public awareness of and support for peace agreements can be a key factor in their success. So how can the public be enabled to participate directly and effectively in political processes in a way which generates a broad ownership of the agreements reached? What are the implications of such process mechanisms for conflict transformation? What is there to learn from mechanisms developed and implemented in processes to date?

The Accord Programme at Conciliation Resources, which is known primarily as a publication series, 'an international review of peace initiatives', is aimed, more broadly, at 'creating opportunities for learning from peace processes'. Normally focussing on a specific country or conflict, CR's first thematic project in the Accord series, currently underway, focuses on this issue of "mechanisms for political participation of the public in peacemaking". In February 2002, as part of the project, and following on from a consultation process with practitioners in 15 countries, CR organised a joint analysis workshop. The weekend event brought together professionals from eight countries - all of whom are engaged in promoting, developing, or assessing such mechanisms - to exchange experiences and share analysis. The following summary attempts to capture something of the issues, dynamics and spirit of a fascinating weekend of comparative learning. The insights shared here belong in the first instance to those who participated.

Coming together for joint analysis

"It is different and it is so valuable to listen to and learn from people who are investing their lives in concrete situations, in different parts of the world."

The CR team welcomed delegations of civil society practitioners from Colombia, Guatemala, Mali, Northern Ireland, the Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Somalia. Between them they represent an enormous diversity of contexts and experiences; the processes they are engaged in are at markedly different phases and have emerged in their own specific ways; cultural values, symbols and references are extremely varied.

To create sufficient focus for the weekend, each of the participants was asked to prepare for the workshop by thinking about the specific mechanisms in which they participated:

• Who initiated it (e.g., government, international agency, civil society group, etc.) and why did they think it was necessary?
• How was the mechanism created and who negotiated it?
• What was the mandate and how did it relate to the formal political negotiation process. Was it a consultative or a decision-making forum? Was it formally recognised by the government?
• What types of people participated in it and how were those groups and individuals selected? How did the mechanism address the dilemmas of representation and inclusion? Did sectors of society that are usually marginalised have a voice?
• How did the process itself influence conflict dynamics and relations between the individuals involved and the groups they represented?
• How is this process mechanism viewed now? In retrospect, what difference has it made to the political life and conflict dynamics of the country?

The group focused for one morning on three specific processes. Delegations from Guatemala, Mali and South Africa were asked to make short presentations on the processes they had been part of, focusing on how the mechanisms had operated, looking retrospectively at their impact on conflict transformation and identifying particular areas for learning. The Guatemalan delegation described the experience of the multi-sectoral Oslo consultations - between the URNG (Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity) and five sectoral groupings - and of the Civil Society Assembly, which comprised a broader range of sectors mandated to generate consensus papers to feed in to the negotiations. Participants from Mali described the regional "concertations" throughout the country, which led to increased support for defining solutions to the problems of the north. They went on to analyse the important function played by "inter-community meetings" which consolidated a "pragmatic peace" at local level, creating the conditions for a national peace ritual whereby decommissioned weapons were burned as a "flame of peace". The delegation from South Africa considered the experience of the National Peace Accord and of the CODESA (Convention for a Democratic South Africa) process, highlighting the important historical antecedent of the Freedom Charter and the value of culturally meaningful concepts and metaphors in mobilising popular support for peace.

These case studies were followed by extended sessions of exchange and analysis, during which participants shared the details of their individual experiences, challenging each other to explain particular features, opening up the issues and highlighting particular areas of concern. While recognising that peace processes are not typically linear in nature, the group decided to proceed by considering the various mechanisms at different developmental phases in the transformation process: 1) preparing the ground for negotiations; 2) accompanying or participating in formal negotiations and 3) implementing and consolidating agreements. For each of these phases they considered specific experiences as examples of mechanisms for political participation of the public.

Finally, the participants were asked to think about recommendations emerging from the experience of comparative analysis.

As organisers, CR has tried to identify particular learning with regard to the methodology for the event. Despite the huge diversity of experiences brought to bear, the discussion remained focused - a point appreciated by participants and organisers alike. We feel that the success of this methodology is in large part due to a) care to create sufficient definition for the topic under consideration; b) extensive consultation which enabled us to identify people with similar, direct experience of the topic c) use of a facilitative style which created the conditions for thoughtful exchange and analysis.

Cross-cutting issues

"The thing I'm particularly interested in is ownership of peace processes, because without proper ownership, peace is not durable, is not sustainable. If you revert to person A's peace, or person B's peace, then that's not peace, that's war. So how does everybody share in the ownership of the peace? This is important because politicians are rather volatile and they will fight and they will come to an agreement without giving people the time to realise why they have fought or why they have come to an agreement. Unless people own the peace process, then these people will continue to fight, whenever it suits them."

Participants identified a number of cross-cutting issues which emerged repeatedly throughout the course of the weekend. They stressed that public participation "is not an end in itself" but an opportunity to bring change and to influence the political direction of the state. Peace and politics cannot be separated, and it was stressed that peace advocates need to develop their political voice, to directly influence the political process as a means of bringing about the transformation which is required to achieve their vision of a peaceful future.

Ownership of the process at various phases is a key concern of many participants. It was pointed out that processes which generate greater public ownership are perhaps less likely to be vulnerable to collapse; broader support for an agreement could serve as a deterrent to those considering a return to violence as a means to achieve their political aims. However, it was also emphasised that the public is not a homogenous body and thus that mechanisms for promoting public participation need to address the diverse and often contradictory aspirations of various sectors and communities. Such conditions represent considerable challenges for any society, and particularly so for those where the violence has become deeply entrenched over a number of years and has been resistant to previous initiatives. Participants from Colombia questioned how to build effective coalitions, united enough to deliver a clear message yet strong enough to withstand the inevitable tensions of diverse aspirations for the peace desired.

Participants from the Philippines challenged the value of mechanisms for public consultation in processes, which did not then succeed in addressing the root causes articulated. They described the disillusionment experienced when public participation is treated as "public relations". One participant from Guatemala described what she saw as superficial participation by the public, in a process which was ultimately unable to deliver structural changes and which wasted opportunities for real public participation by using poor consultations and a badly designed referendum. She emphasised the need for mechanisms for implementing and monitoring the consolidation of the peace agreement.

The quality of peace processes and the degree to which local ownership is valued are also significantly affected by wider geopolitical forces and agendas, as well as by the manner of international interventions and support for the peace process. Participants commented on the potential value of international assistance from institutions and governments who are keen to support local initiatives. They were concerned that external interventions should not displace local resources, or shift the agenda from priorities articulated by civil society. Rather, civil society involvement should be sought at the earliest stages, particularly among groups whose interests are frequently marginalized.

It became clear that the participants viewed peace processes as more than just vehicles for ending the immediate violence. Instead, many considered these moments to be key opportunities for promoting deeper transformative social change. A number of participants expressed their wish for peace processes to be able to address broader developmental issues. They wanted to be able to create the conditions for improved social justice. They are committed to the long-term project of "civilianising structures", of creating accessible institutions which empower ordinary people to play an active role in their own governance.

Mechanisms for different phases of a peace process

"How proactive should civil society be? Should we have a political proposal for the negotiations? Yes, but we also need to go beyond the negotiating table. We need to prepare our own agenda and strategies so that they are more than symbolic, so that they are transformative."

As mentioned above, there can be no set of instructions providing neat formulas for interventions at different stages of a process. The widely differing circumstances which constitute the political reality of a country experiencing conflict will demand culturally appropriate mechanisms. However, participants felt that there was value in exploring how the mechanisms they had been part of related to particular moments in the political process.

Thus, one participant from Northern Ireland recounted how he had participated in Initiative '92. This initiative established a commission whose function was to open up public debate through extensive consultations about conflict issues at a time when they were otherwise only raised in public discourse by militants. Although unable to interface directly with a political process (at the time there were only secret efforts underway to initiate negotiations), the commission is credited with creating a climate suitable for peace talks. The organisers were also later able to channel some of the ideas which emerged into the 1997-98 negotiations.

A participant from Guatemala described the mandate of the Civil Society Assembly, which comprised ten social sectors, including indigenous peoples and women. Each sector was mandated to draft consensus papers on seven substantive negotiating themes. Taking each theme in turn, the individual sectors were invited to present position papers that were then debated until a consensus paper could be presented at the main negotiations. The participant commented however that a number of factors led to an erosion of the influence of the Civil Society Assembly, with the result that it was ultimately unable to assume the critical function of monitoring the implementation and consolidation of the agreement to ensure that it resulted in political change.

Promoting learning on mechanisms for political participation of the public

"Each experience of comparative learning has been a step forward. Here we have managed to learn more, comprehend more, but we need to give continuity to this effort."

The workshop was not principally about generating a series of policy recommendations. It was about creating opportunities for comparative analysis for practitioners engaged with a common issue. It was carried out in the hope that the learning would inspire and stimulate new thinking as well as creating resources and contacts for people seeking to learn from the experiences of similar processes elsewhere. Nonetheless participants did spend some time identifying key points that they would wish to communicate to different audiences, including civil society peacemakers and international intermediaries. The full list of these principles and ideas are presented in the workshop report, available electronically in the occasional papers section of the CR website (www.c-r.org) or in hard copy from CR staff. It has also been distributed to a number of key policy-makers and external intermediaries with an interest in peace processes.

Meanwhile, the Accord project continues. A publication as part of the series, Accord: an international review of peace initiatives is currently being developed, with the aim of providing fuller documentation of some of the process mechanisms described briefly here. It is being developed in collaboration with individuals and institutions directly involved in implementing and assessing these mechanisms and will seek to provide analysis of their contribution to conflict transformation and the obstacles encountered along the way. It is our hope that by engaging directly with the issues and questions raised by practitioners in the workshop, the documentation can be of real and practical benefit to people around the world who are actively seeking to promote or design mechanisms for the political participation of the public in peacemaking. We are also intending to conduct an international policy seminar at a later stage in the project, to present some of the learning which emerges and discuss it with representatives of national governments and inter-governmental institutions engaged in the project of ending armed conflict and promoting sustainable peace.

More importantly, diverse and vibrant work also continues in the eight countries mentioned here, and in many more besides, by people who are looking at ways to enable effective broad-based participation in the processes which will define their political future. It is our hope that this project contributes in a small way to their endeavour.

Celia McKeon

Accord website

Next Article

newsletter  |  ccts