Owning the process: public participation in peacemaking: principles to guide policy and practice

Presented by Conciliation Resources' Accord Programme at an International Peace Academy policy forum in New York, 12 February 2003.

1. WHY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION?

• Peace processes as processes of political decision-making. Peace agreements typically go beyond arrangements to end the hostilities to address questions relating to the state structure, political systems and the allocation of resources; as such they can mark a significant turning point in the country’s history.
• Participation is a fundamental human right. Effective political participation is essential for determining the will of the people, which is the basis of the authority of government. These rights should be promoted during peace negotiations, as in other forms of political decision-making.
• Supporting democratic values. A more participatory process can enhance democratic values and structures, laying the groundwork for further democratisation of political systems and mechanisms for dispute resolution.
• Enhanced legitimacy. The involvement of those beyond the combatant groups gives greater public legitimacy to the negotiation of new political arrangements; if the process is seen as legitimate, the outcomes are more likely to be treated as such.
• Ownership of agreements. Broad ownership of agreements contributes greatly tothe sustainability of settlements and is enhanced if a wide range of actors feel included in the process.
• Widening the agenda. Experiences suggest that a more open process tends to widen the scope of political issues to be negotiated, offering greater opportunity to address substantive grievances and explore a wider range of possible solutions.
• Coordination of initiatives. The strategic co-ordination of peace initiatives and advocates through a process of participation can enable more effective communication between actors and less duplication of initiatives, binding people to a common process.
• Reconciliation. Through the process of deliberating the issues and struggling to reach shared agreements, peace talks can help to forge more cooperative relationships between a country’s diverse communities and help to lay the foundations for social and political reconciliation.

2. DILEMMAS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

• Security first. Does public participation slow down the process of reaching agreements on ending the violence? How can tensions between short-term security and long-term solutions be managed?
• ‘Integrity of the mediation’. Does public participation put at risk the confidentiality and coordination that many mediators believe to be crucial to building trust and effective negotiations between protagonists? Can sequencing inclusion in the talks at different phases of the process help address this dilemma?
• Divergent voices. How can process mechanisms deal with the heterogeneous nature of ‘the public’ so as to address diverse and contradictory aspirations?
• Managing inclusion. How can the process be designed to enable the effective participation of traditionally marginalized social groups and not just the ‘civil society elite’? Can and should exceptional support be given to pro-peace, pro-human rights and pro-democracy groups within civil society?
• Superficial participation. Given inevitable imbalances of power, how can one ensure that public participation is meaningful rather than a superficial public relations exercise?

3. PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE POLICY AND PRACTICE

General principles

• Linking peacemaking to democratization and development programmes. International actors should work towards the collaborative development of process mechanisms that underpin democratic values and decision-making. Peace processes can address the challenges of comprehensive human security by considering issues of good governance and equitable development within a participatory framework.
• Primacy of local ownership and popular sovereignty. International interventions should be designed to strengthen or complement indigenous capacities for conflict resolution. This includes respect for traditional leadership structures as well as encouraging marginalised groups. International actors can use their leverage to encourage or sponsor processes that are socially and politically inclusive, and that promote transparency and encourage the accountability of those who negotiate it.
• Support for local-level peace initiatives. Participatory processes at a local level can offer important precedents for national initiatives. International actors should be sensitive to and supportive of local initiatives, especially as they offer opportunities for reaching a ‘pragmatic peace’ within the community.
• Public participation from crisis prevention to post-conflict peacebuilding. International actors can take steps to build public engagement at every developmental stage of a process.
• Public participation as a comprehensive framework for policy development. Debates, campaigns and discussions about the roles of different sectors of national and international civil society in peacemaking (i.e. women, war-affected children, the business sector, international NGOs) can fit within the comprehensive framework of public participation and policy development can be usefully approached from this perspective.

Preparation for negotiations

• Support for civil society peace advocates. It is vital to provide political, financial and technical support as appropriate to vulnerable peace advocates operating in a hostile environment. Their voices will play an important role in preparing the public – and encouraging the protagonists to engage in negotiations.
• Capacity-building. Invest in training opportunities and resources for participants who might be involved in future negotiations. Provide support for strategising among non-combatant groups so that they can better articulate their aspirations, shape the negotiating agenda and possibly develop consensus positions.
• Violence mitigation mechanisms. In a context where widescale violence could threaten a negotiation process, explore with local civil society and the parties to the conflict possible violence-reduction mechanisms which could be implemented at a local as well as national level
• Safety. Push for principles of engagement in the negotiations that encourage safe space for non-combatants.

Participation in formal political negotiations

• Opening the process. International actors, and particularly countries that are ‘friends of the process’, can use their leverage to open the process to the participation of non-combatant groups and ensure their aspirations are considered in the negotiating agenda.
• Process mechanisms. Develop mechanisms which enable the effective participation of all groupings, and which mitigate against domination of the process by one or two groups. Explore the possibility and appropriateness of multi-party representative negotiations, multi-sectoral consultation processes, or mass participation direct negotiations – as consistent with the cultural and political systems of the society.
• Substantive agenda issues. With negotiations frequently tackling reforms to the constitution, the security sector, socio-economic policy and human rights, relevant sectors of society should be invited to contribute to the substantive content of the agenda and provisions to address these issues.
• Communication strategies. Develop public information campaigns that speak to the variety of different constituencies being represented at the negotiations. Ensure sufficient time and appropriate mechanisms for consultation between delegates and their constituencies.

Participation in implementation of agreements

• Implementation. Prioritize financial, technical and political support for implementation of peace agreements, including mechanisms to monitor and verify compliance.
• Public education campaigns. Encourage and resource public information campaigns and events and civic education initiatives that provide details and opportunities for discussion on the agreements reached.
• Referenda. If the public will be balloted on the agreement, work with the parties to ensure that the public is informed of the issues and to ensure that referenda questions are clear.
• Institutionalising participation. Contribute resources that enable continuity of meaningful political participation in governing institutions.

Top | Public participation