W.M. Verkoren

Peacebuilding Plans and Local Reconfigurations: Frictions between Imported Processes and Indigenous Practices

What happens when global meets local? This special issue focuses on the dynamic interaction between externally conceived plans for peacebuilding intervention and local peoples own approaches and strategies. The notion of ‘friction’ provides a perspective that acknowledges the unpredictable and unexpected nature of this interaction. The ‘hybrid’ outcomes of such dynamic interactions can vary in extent and success, as peacebuilding plans are rerouted and redesigned in practice. This special issue explores how, why, and to what effect internationally designed, funded, or administered peace projects interact with and/or are appropriated by local actors.

Complexities and Challenges for Civil Society Building in Post-Conflict Settings

Strengthening or even ‘building’ civil society has become a preoccupation of international development actors working in post-conflict settings. However, how to do so effectively remains a difficult and theoretically underexplored question. This article identifies two core challenges. The first is how to overcome the discrepancy between what international development actors aim to achieve in building civil society – namely the strengthening of the social contract between a state and its citizens – and strategies to achieve it that focus narrowly on local NGOs and on their roles in apolitical service delivery, leaving out the state. The second is how to take better account of the complexities of the local institutions and processes concerned, and the alternative forms of social contract that might come about. This article explores these challenges and recommends how debate and research might proceed.

Civil Society in Peacebuilding: Global Discourse, Local Reality

This article analyses frictions in strengthening civil society (CS) for peacebuilding. It argues that frictions are caused by the fact that policies for CS support in post-conflict settings are rooted in a Western discourse on the role of civic actors in politics and society. Consequently, intervention practices do not match local practices of civil society in non-Western, conflict-affected countries. In trying to locate suitable local counterparts, intervening international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) struggle to reconcile criteria of ‘international legitimacy’ (based on values of inclusivity, tolerance and non-violence) and ‘local legitimacy’ (local support and roots). The frictions to which this leads are illustrated with case studies from our research over the past years. They show that when intervention models based on such discourses meet realities on the ground, there is often some margin for action and space for negotiation on both sides. In two cases, this led to unexpected outcomes, which were not necessarily negative from the perspective of peacebuilding. However, friction does not always yield unexpected or positive outcomes. In the third case, it led merely to an imposition of norms on the part of intervening INGOs.

Learning by Southern Peace NGOs

Abstract Literature and policies on learning by NGOs focus on internal processes in Northern organisations. This article examines the learning processes of Southern NGOs by studying peacebuilding organisations in several African and Asian countries. These organisations learn mostly in an interactive way, emphasising exchange with other practitioners and beneficiaries. However, these learning strategies are limited by competition and distrust among SNGOs and by the imposition of policy by donors. SNGOs feel constrained particularly in doing research and documenting local knowledge, activities for which they lack the time and skills, but which potentially could strengthen their role in international debates and policymaking.

Understanding Power in Hybrid Political Orders: Applying Stakeholder Analysis to Land Conflicts in Cambodia

Current peacebuilding debates centre around the idea that international and local activities need to be better aligned. However, the distinction between ‘local’ and ‘international’ actors and processes obscures both power and interest differentials among actors and the various interconnections between international, national and local actors and discourses. This article proposes stakeholder analysis as a way to help understand power relations among various actors. This approach is applied to an empirical sample of land conflicts in Cambodia, in which local residents saw their livelihoods threatened by collusion between international private investors and national and local political interests. The findings suggest that building peace in insecure settings is not just a matter of harmonising approaches to strengthen the state with initiatives to support local groups. The reflex of international peacebuilders to strengthen the state and promote the rule of law overlooks the fact that governments may be unaccountable and laws may be illegitimate.