CCTS
Review 34

Final session

In this final discussion session, participants commented that, although the approach taken in the three case studies was affected by the way that each organisation functioned, there were great similarities between them, including: their focus on individuals and relationships; their willingness to stand by local partners and offer support until they had the capacity to act, even (or perhaps especially) when this required very long-term commitment; their work in supporting local action and building the capacity to reflect; and the qualities that were identified as necessary to do the work effectively.

All of the speakers made a distinction between organic and mechanical development of strategy, and one participant would have liked to hear more about the implications of choosing a particular route to strategy development, whether by adopting an intuitive approach, by basing strategy more on the philosophical basis of one’s organisation, or by consciously formulating it with local partners. In reality the three case studies all used a combination of these approaches: if peacebuilding work is necessary, the local political situation is, almost by definition, volatile, and it will require intuition and experience to make the most of whatever is possible at any given moment; a peacebuilding organisation will inevitably have guiding principles which underpin all its work; and if that work is to be successful, it will involve collaborating with and listening to local partners.

It was suggested that a number of possible strategic trajectories could be taken:

i) focusing on the primacy of people and relationships (which was the approach taken by RTC and, to a large extent, by QPSW);
ii) focusing on politics and policy, either through direct influence or by supporting the actions of local partners;
iii) focusing on both people and politics, and dealing with the tensions that working at different levels inevitably created (which was CR’s approach in Georgia and Abkhazia).

Alan commented that QPSW’s role would always be to offer support until the local actors felt ready to act politically. In his experience, any attempt to impose political direction from the outside would be unwelcome.

There was some discussion about the legitimacy of international actors. Outsiders are most likely to have a dispassionate, non-entrenched viewpoint, but insiders clearly have more legitimacy, because of their first-hand knowledge and personal involvement. People who manage to straddle the two positions, either by dint of longevity in a region (like Jonathan) or because of their background (like Marwan) have the capacity to have most influence.

The efficacy and limitations of working with civil society were raised again, with one participant commenting that although civil society alone cannot make peace, peace cannot be made without it.
The choice of partners was also discussed. Is it better to develop relationships with a wide range of organisations, to select a small number of partners (and if so, how?) or to try and identify ‘winners’ – inspirational individuals who might really make a difference? Several participants saw great dangers in picking ‘winners’, fearing that a bad choice would be destructive and even a good choice might be divisive. One or two people admitted that their organisations had run into trouble by picking people who were objectively excellent (even when there had been intuitive reservations). Others acknowledged the danger, but thought that it was natural, and often productive, to look for ‘agents of change’ – who had the capacity to energise passive communities and create the capacity for movement.

A sobering closing comment was that conflict transformation organisations have yet to persuade others, even within the civil societies with which they work, that they have a key role in peacebuilding. As a group, they need to work harder to establish their credentials.

<< Previous article

newsletter  |  ccts |  top