______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Handouts

The strategic who for peacebuilding

The strategic who analyses conflicted social systems in order to identify key agents of change. Two metaphors for thinking strategically about whom we work with are the critical yeast and the siphon.

Critical yeast: The critical yeast uses the metaphor of bread making. Basic ingredients for bread are flour, salt, water and yeast. These ingredients for the mass, but the mass only grows with the smalles ingredient, the yeast. Critical yeast asks the question, who, within this setting, if brought together would have the capacity to make things grow toward the desired end?

The siphon: The physics of a siphon applied to social process provides another metaphor. The task is how to move liquid from one container to another. The siphon uses a tube inserted in one container, creates a pulling vacuum to lift an initial portian of the liquid against gravity until it begins its descent to the other container, pulling with it the remainder of the liquid in the original. The person using the siphon is not concerned with moving all the liquid. This person is only concerned with getting the initial portion to move against gravity knowing it will pull the rest. Applied to social processes, the metaphor asks this question: Who, if linked together to make the journey against social gravity, would have the capacity to pull the rest of the system toward a desired change?

Source: Adapted from Neufeldt, R., Fast, L., et al., Peacebuilding: A Caritas Training Manual, Vatican City, Caritas Internationalis, 2nd edition, p. 178. The manual is available as free pdf file at <http://www.caritas.org/upload/pea/peacebil-ing_1.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2009).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Peacebuilding tracks




____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Agents of change

The Systemic Approach to Conflict Transformation: Agents of peaceful change (AoPCs)

A general feature of violent political conflicts is the desire of strategically influential groups from contentious parties to maintain or change an inherited balance of power. Within this field of tension between “agents of continuity” and “agents of change”, small groups are also campaigning for amicable, inclusive and compromise solutions. These agents of peace are often perceived as small and less influential groups, as attention is primarily focussed on the articulate civil society elite. In systemic terms it is interesting to broaden this concept to one of agents of peaceful change, which can then embrace many members of functional elites as well as moderate representatives from the direct conflict parties. (…)

In summary, AoPCs have the following characteristics:
1. They comprise men, women or organizations willing and able to introduce and support political changes.
2. They are not coherent in their composition and require various forms of support such as logistics, concept development, methodological training.
3. They do not necessarily have to have the same ideas and visions of the changes required as those of a third party intervening in a conflict with a view to transforming it. However, in order to allow a cooperation over a period of time, they must share at least a minimum number of ideas in terms of, e.g., the need for peaceful change, the acceptance of an equal, multi-ethnic society.
4. They are extremely important for systemic conflict management as partners, intensifiers (advocates) and mediators (multiplier function) of processes of change within the political elite.
5. They help to assess the attractiveness of political conflict resolution methods and can observe the relevance of these in their respective fields of influence.

AoPCs can generally be found within the political elite in the groups often described as “moderates” or “reformers”. However, from a systemic perspective it is also advisable to look at hardliners (also described as non-like-minded) and consider how these groups and individuals can be strategically involved in the conflict management process. As borne out by historical experiences, hardliners who decide to switch to non-violent solution strategies in critical situations, can generally push these through more easily on the basis of their popular support (as in, e.g., Richard Nixon’s policy of East-West détente, Charles De Gaulle’s Algerian policy or Yitzhak Rabin’s peace policy). Can we support these processes of “shifts in historical perspective” by, for example, cooperating with influential consultants and think tanks in the more conservative political spectrum? How are strategy options for non-violent conflict resolution best prepared and communicated in order to be heard by a broad spectrum of actors? Even when, in many cases, access to hardliners may not be available, it is certainly worth considering a strategy of engaging with hardliners in situations where influence appears possible.

Source: Wils, Oliver, et. al., The Systemic Approach to Conflict Transformation. Concept and Fields of Application, Berghof Foundation for Peace Support, Berlin 2006, pp. 59f. <http://www.berghof-peacesupport.org/publications/systemic_conflict_transformation_complete.pdf> (accessed 17 June 2009)

For a critical examination of the concept of change agent see Mitchell, Christopher, Conflict, Social Change and Conflict Resolution. An Inquiry, in: Berghof Center for Constructive Conflict Management: Berghof Handbook, 2005, pp. 18-21. <http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/mitchell_handbook.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2009)