CCTS
Newsletter

by John Lampen

The title "Advocacy and Conflict Resolution: A time to take sides?" suggested an absolute division. But when we looked at it in our group, with examples from the field, we came to see that these were two strategies towards shared aims -- justice, an end to violence, and the building of civil society. In unjust situations, outside agencies need to ask, "Is reform possible by discussion and negotiation?" and "What approach is acceptable to the local groups who invited us?" The answers to these questions will shape the mandate under which we work. However, we recognised that sometimes mandates seem to favour conciliation because a clear statement of advocacy would lead the government to refuse our registration as an NGO.

There is another distinction which affects the question: an advocate for victims can be public and confrontational, or can work by attempts at quiet persuasion. We discussed experiences where private interviews had effectively improved individual situations, but allowed the structure of injustice to remain in place. But in other cases (for example some of the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross) a quiet approach has brought systemic change where public protest had only aggravated injustice. A powerful body may welcome an independent mediator or arbitrator as a means to change its policy without appearing to give in to public unrest.

The conclusion seems to be that even within an agenda of advocacy there is sometimes a place for the techniques of conflict resolution. But we believed that it was usually inappropriate to switch one's approach abruptly; this is often misunderstood both by those one is working for and their opponents. It would be wiser to draw in a different agency to take up the issue in a different style.

Generating trust

What of the conflict resolution approach? We agreed that it was a myth to say that this should be value-free. Some of us had been challenged by members of violent groups to explain the moral basis of our position, and in explaining it we became more credible. Credibility comes from careful listening, and trying to understand what problems and difficulties are experienced by both sides. As we do this, we generate not only trust but a degree of friendship. The combination of friendship and a moral position may result in the conciliator sometimes confronting one party: a criticism may be accepted within a relationship which would be ignored if it was made in public. For instance, a conciliator was in dialogue with a group which claimed to be fighting a just war against its government; he challenged it over an assassination attempt in a hospital, and this seemed to lead to an end to such attacks without damaging the conciliator's standing. A different example is where a conflict resolution project is working at the grass-roots; there may come a time when it supports its clients in confronting their own leaders. Furthermore, just as advocacy may come up against limits which it cannot breach, and hand over the cause to conciliators, so the latter may decide that they have exhausted their resources for the time being and a public campaign of protest is now needed.

So we concluded that there is a space for advocacy within conflict resolution and vice versa. Each approach is dependent on the situation, which is not static; so timing is crucial. Adam Curle writes in Making Peace of a stage of action to balance power on the two sides, followed by a stage of negotiating solutions. We did not argue for the absence of task boundaries.

A rigid approach to the original question may lose opportunities for progress. But failing to understand the distinction leads to confusion and sometimes physical danger. The necessary safeguards seem to be: a clear mandate; agreed means for revising the mandate when circumstances change; support and advice from experienced people not directly involved; and mutual understanding (rather than rivalry) between different peace and justice organisations in the field so that their efforts and approaches supplement one another.

newsletter  |  ccts