Conflict resolution and the establishment of sustainable peace are fundamental aspects within the realms of international relations and conflict studies. A diverse array of techniques and theoretical frameworks have emerged in response to these intricate matters, each proposing its benefits alongside limitations for consideration. This essay aims to assess the effectiveness of diverse methodologies and theoretical frameworks in mitigating both direct and structural violence while promoting lasting peace. The journey toward peace is paved with various philosophies and strategies, and selecting an appropriate approach heavily relies on the specific context of the conflict in question (Darby et al., 2000). Through a critical inspection of inherent capacities and limitations, light can be shed on the parts they act in confronting both immediate and institutionalized harm and their contributions to a lasting calm. This exploration will help us better comprehend the intricate landscape of peacebuilding and conflict resolution, ultimately contributing to a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
The various methods of peacebuilding each have their strengths and weaknesses. Liberal peacebuilding focuses on democratic institutions and market-based economies but has been accused of Western-centric prejudices. Critical peacebuilding emphasizes power imbalances and structural inequalities that are crucial determinants of conflict; however, it is criticized for not proposing practical strategies. While transformative peacebuilding might be commended for the long-term perspective, this can have a hard time being practiced and will attract resistance. Peacebuilding includes conflict resolution and mediation, reconciliation programs, provision of development aid to reduce poverty, and many other methods (Galtung 1969, p.172).
Nonetheless, their success depends on removing the underlying problem and balancing short- and long-term outcomes. Structural violence is different from direct violence, which entails immediate physical hurt. Both can be dealt with simultaneously by putting short-term strategies such as conflict resolution and long-term strategies such as socio-economic development. The critical comparisons include difficulties in meeting short-term and long-term objectives, local versus international issues, and ways of measuring the results. Building peace is complex and must be tailored to the locality and combined with multiple tactics, knowledge of local dynamics, and unwavering focus on root causes.
Peacebuilding From Below
Peacebuilding from Below is an approach that prioritizes the active involvement of local communities in resolving conflicts and building sustainable peace. This grassroots-focused approach emphasizes empowering everyday individuals, community groups, and local leaders to address fundamental sources of disagreement and foster reconciliation between neighbors through cooperation at the ground level. Lederach’s theory of peacebuilding from below centers on the importance of inclusive, locally-led processes. According to him, sustainable peace will only be possible if the impacted communities meaningfully contribute to determining the answers to their disputes. Lederach stresses the role of indigenous knowledge, cultural practices, and community-based mechanisms in resolving conflicts and reducing violence (Pillay 2020, p. 55). His work showcases how person-to-person diplomacy and discussion can cultivate enduring peace by tapping into humanity’s potential for reconciliation.
Galtung emphasizes the distinction between direct violence, which is physical harm, and structural violence, involving systemic inequalities and injustices. Peacebuilding from below aligns with Galtung’s call for addressing both forms of violence by engaging communities in transformative processes (Galtung 1969, p.171). Galtung sees peacebuilding as a way to dismantle structural violence, fostering a more equitable and just society. As discussed in various works, Darby and colleague’s research (2000) on peacebuilding underscores the importance of local ownership and participation. She argues that sustainable peace can only be achieved when affected communities actively shape the peace process. Through her efforts, she underscores how grassroots peacebuilding is indispensable for tackling the fundamental drivers of discord and cultivating an enduring calm from the ground up.
Strengths
The strengths of the approach are evident in several key aspects. Empowering local communities and granting them a significant role in decision-making enables grassroots participation that strengthens these processes from the bottom up. This empowerment enhances community resilience and fosters a sense of ownership over the peacebuilding efforts, contributing to the likelihood of sustainable peace. Secondly, it effectively addresses the root causes of conflict, prioritizing their identification and resolution. Addressing the root causes of grievances and disparities is paramount to decreasing immediate violence and establishing long-term tranquility by helping curb the reemergence of combative clashes by comprehending past disputes and reducing the chances that similar conditions spark future conflicts. Lastly, the approach strongly emphasizes reconciliation and social cohesion at the community level (Galtung 1969, p.174). Facilitating open communication and comprehension across differences is vital to mitigating divides and cultivating concord between groups. The Seeds for Peace initiative exemplifies this concept well by bringing young individuals from areas impacted by conflict together for discussion in a way that mitigates immediate violence and fosters a more harmonious coexistence.
Weaknesses
The Peacebuilding from Below approach has some areas for improvement, such as the resource-intensive nature that demands big investments in capacity building, training, and community-level infrastructure that could be difficult in the low resources-based setting. Additionally, it could be restricted when addressing complicated, multi-dimensional disputes that require comprehensive systemic alterations and the introduction of external actions (Darby et al., 2000). Furthermore, this approach may not work in specific conditions when local authorities or communities are a part of the problem, which would destroy trust and confidence in such leaders.
Pros and Cons of Direct Violence, Structural Violence, and Sustainable Peace
Peacebuilding from below often encourages dialogue and reconciliation at the community level, which can directly contribute to a reduction in direct violence (Reychler & Langer 2020, p. 290). By cultivating rapport and appreciation between Israeli and Palestinian youths, programs such as Seeds for Peace help diminish the chances of bitter clashes ensuing from misunderstandings by facilitating interactions that nurture fellowship between these collectives. Similarly, in the Wajir conflict in Kenya, local leaders and elders engaged in dialogue and reconciliation efforts, directly contributing to decreased violence and hostilities. However, while deeply entrenched conflicts or circumstances where either or both parties refuse dialogue or reconciliation may render it ineffective, opportunities still exist for open communication to foster understanding between adversaries gradually (Darby et al., 2000). In such cases, the reduction of direct violence may be limited. While these initiatives frequently demand substantial means involving both temporal and financial commitments, constrained environments can find such expectations present a constraint.
In addressing structural violence, Peacebuilding from Below has its strengths. By focusing on uncovering and resolving the fundamental drivers of disagreement, particularly systemic biases and inequities, there is a concerted effort to tackle conflicts at their source. By directly involving impacted populations in its methodology, this strategy can bring about alterations deeper and more long-lasting. This can be especially effective in addressing structural violence in various contexts. Nonetheless, the impact on larger-scale structural violence may be indirect and take time to materialize. Peacebuilding from Below is more effective at the community level, and its influence on broader systemic changes may require additional interventions (Darby et al., 2000). Moreover, in cases where local elites or power structures are responsible for maintaining structural violence, this approach may face resistance and opposition, hindering its effectiveness.
Regarding sustainable peace, peacebuilding from below promotes community ownership and agency, which is crucial for lasting peace. Through active involvement in determining the path to peace, communities become more invested in achieving and preserving their hard-won success. The Wajir conflict in Kenya is a prime example, where lasting peace was achieved due to the involvement of local leaders and the affected population. Additionally, peacebuilding from below fosters reconciliation by prioritizing dialogue and understanding, thereby building social cohesion and trust among conflict-affected groups. Nevertheless, there are challenges to achieving sustainable peace through this approach. The sustainability of peacebuilding from below initiatives may be compromised if they heavily rely on external funding and support (Reychler & Langer 2020, p. 276). The withdrawal of resources could jeopardize long-term peace efforts. Additionally, achieving sustainable peace through this approach is often time-consuming and complex. It may yield little results, which can be a challenge in conflicts with urgent humanitarian needs.
Postwar Reconstruction and the Liberal Peace
Postwar reconstruction and the Liberal Peace approach represent a significant strand of conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts in the modern era. These approaches emphasize external interventions and establishing democratic institutions in conflict-affected regions. The Liberal Peace approach, founded on the notion that championing democracy, virtuous administration, and economic advancement can curb brutality and cultivate enduring tranquility in post-strife communities, is based on this conviction (Pillay 2006, p.56). This approach aligns with the concept of “negative peace,” which emphasizes the absence of violence, as discussed by Galtung. Negative peace is seen as a fundamental step in conflict resolution and is achieved through preventing direct violence.
One of the key strengths of the Liberal Peace approach is its potential to stabilize war-torn regions and establish democratic institutions. Through advocating open and just elections and basic human liberties, the ultimate ambition is supplanting unaccountable authoritarian administrations with governments answerable to their people. Additionally, it aims to create economic opportunities, which can contribute to postwar reconstruction and reduce direct violence by addressing the underlying economic grievances that often fuel conflicts. However, the Liberal Peace approach is not without its weaknesses. It has been criticized for its imposition of external models of governance on conflict-affected regions (Reychler & Langer 2020, p. 286). This approach may need to adequately consider each conflict’s unique cultural, historical, and political contexts. While a centralized, uniform approach to social issues risks alienating diverse communities, cultivating local ownership may better promote enduring reconciliation. While a uniform methodology for reconciliation risks overlooking the intricacies inherent to each dispute, it seems particularly insufficient when addressing societal fractures in deeply divided communities, where the “one-size-fits-all” approach fails to account for the diversity underlying conflict dynamics fully.
Moreover, the Liberal Peace approach can perpetuate structural violence by promoting neoliberal economic policies. These policies may exacerbate existing inequalities and leave marginalized groups at a disadvantage, resulting in the persistence of structural violence, which encompasses the systemic and structural factors that underpin conflict and violence. A good example of liberal peace in action is the post-Iraq invasion and the reconstruction efforts. The regime change towards democracy was done in a top-down manner, and this led to significant resistance and sectarian violence, thus calling into question sustainable peace. Another example of liberal peace in Afghanistan is that the international community has struggled to build democracy and states (Darby et al., 2000). Persistent violence and instability have resulted from the resistance by many Afghan factions to the imposition of external models of governance and economic policies. Therefore, the Postwar Reconstruction and Liberal Peace is arguably one of the most notable attempts at conflict management and peace construction. It has strong points, which include the stabilization and promotion of democracy, and bad points, which include the external models and maintaining structural violence. Its success in combating direct and structural violence while promoting lasting peace depends on the extent of its consideration of local factors (Pillay 2006, p.56). Post-conflict situations are complex and, therefore, require a tailored approach that considers the specific factors leading to each conflict to ensure sustainable peace.
To sum up, this article has examined several conflict resolution techniques, theoretical frameworks, and their value in lowering structural and direct violence and promoting long-lasting peace. “Peacebuilding from Below” emphasizes the importance of grassroots efforts and community involvement in conflict resolution. It aligns with theories by Lederach and Johan Galtung. Though addressing underlying factors, empowering vulnerable populations, and fostering a sense of stakeholding, its applicability in intricate disputes may be bounded owing to the demands on resources and lack of universal effectiveness. “Postwar Reconstruction and the Liberal Peace,” on the other hand, involves external interventions and the promotion of democratic governance and economic development. It aligns with liberal peace theory, emphasizing the reduction of direct violence through democratic institutions. However, it has been criticized for imposing external models and perpetuating structural violence through neoliberal policies, potentially leading to resistance and resentment.
In response to the essay title, it is evident that no single method or theoretical approach can provide a universal solution to conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Whether an approach proves fruitful is contingent on the unique circumstances and ever-shifting nature inherent to the particular disagreement under examination. Successful conflict resolution and sustainable peace often require combining approaches considering local and international perspectives. We acknowledge that a thorough and context-specific approach is required to decrease direct and structural violence while achieving lasting peace when assessing the relative usefulness of various techniques and theoretical frameworks. Consequently, the most effective method for settling disputes and establishing long-lasting peace is flexible and nuanced, combining components from several systems.
References
Darby, J., Mac Ginty, R. and Mac Ginty, R. eds., 2000. The management of peace processes. Springer.
Galtung, J., 1969. Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of peace research, 6(3), pp.167-191. http://demilitarisation.org/IMG/pdf/galtung_violence_peace_and_peace_research.pdf
Pillay, V., 2006. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, John Paul Lederach: book review. Conflict Trends, 2006(1), pp.55-56.
Reychler, L. and Langer, A., 2020. Peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding. Luc Reychler: A Pioneer in Sustainable Peacebuilding Architecture, pp.271-299.
write