The Importance of Grassroots Involvement
"Top-down development programs often exacerbate post-conflict problems, increase tensions, and marginalize local communities."
"For example, the humanitarian assistance program that was initiated in South Sudan in the 1980s made community participation almost impossible." -- Vivien Erasmus, 249
Grassroots process design aims to address these issues by increasing public participation, empowering local actors, and fostering a sense of community ownership.
|
Grassroots process design seeks to increase local actors' sense of ownership in an intervention process, empower local communities, and create an environment more conducive to lasting peace. It recognizes that peacebuilding strategies must give individuals and groups the opportunity to rediscover their cultural identities and regain their independence.[1]
When communities find themselves in crisis situations, urgent humanitarian interventions can be quite helpful, and almost always reflect honorable, humanitarian intentions. However, given the compromised state of post-conflict groups, there is significant risk that external intervention can have unforeseen, negative consequences.[2] In part, this is because the peacebuilding process introduces a new set of relationships between the groups recovering from conflict and the external actors working to help them. If parties feel that outsiders have imposed peacebuilding policies, intervention strategies are far less likely to be successful. Indeed, short-term emergency funds and emergency-oriented NGOs have the potential to intensify conflict and add to existing tensions.[3]
To a large extent, the effectiveness of external aid depends on the ability of international actors to truly understand the conflict situation they are trying to mitigate.[4] Post-war rebuilding should be based on a holistic and in-depth understanding of the problems and the ways these problems are connected, of available resources, and of the respective agendas of the various actors.[5] However, donors of humanitarian aid and development assistance can be insensitive to local social and cultural conditions, and proceed as if they are rebuilding a society from nothing. They may ignore important contextual issues and assume that from their "Western" perspective, they know best. But any attempts to impose liberal values or principles may be seen as paternalistic, or as acts of aggression.[6] In fact, failures to effectively mobilize the community sometimes lead to conflict between NGOs and local actors, worsening an already bad situation.
Donors sometimes promote a perception that the programs being supported belong to the agency, rather than to the community.[7] This top-down approach makes community ownership almost impossible. As a result, traditional leadership and systems may become marginalized, and local capacities for peacebuilding ignored. In some cases, external actors may use funding mechanisms and donations as political tools to direct peacebuilding in a way that suits their own interests.[8] In other cases, communities simply become overly dependent on these funds and agencies.
Many have noted that the quality of external assistance to war-torn societies must be improved if it is to contribute effectively to peacebuilding. There must be more listening and discussion and less imposition, and more facilitation and empowerment and less control.[9] Donors must be aware that some positive changes are not measurable, and they must seek to understand these changes from the perspective of community members. Ultimately, the ownership of the intervention process must reside largely with local communities. If done effectively, grassroots process design can reduce political opposition to intervention, and foster good relationships between external actors and local labor and communities.
Community Mobilization
Additional insights into grassroots process design are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.
|
Many people speak of grassroots process design in terms of community mobilization programs that aim to minimize dependency and create a sense of ownership at the grassroots level. Such efforts also tap into the local knowledge and resources of a community, with the recognition that these resources can be crucial to a successful intervention.[10] They foster indigenous democratic elements, conflict resolution mechanisms, and civil society, and promote democratic development that reflects local values and history.[11] Even after the assistance program is withdrawn, community mobilization strategies can continue to be effective.[12]
The central goal of community mobilization is to re-empower communities to make vital decisions and strengthen their capacity to address the needs of their people.[13] John Paul Lederach refers to grassroots process design as an "integrated framework," in which the participation and empowerment of people within a local setting is stressed as the best way to identify and handle problems.[14] Empowerment results from processes that promote self-awareness, and encourage public participation in the process of naming and creating appropriate responses to people's needs and problems.[15] Local actors must formulate their own goals for the future, and their voices must be heard in the decision-making bodies that dictate the course that development will take.[16] Indeed, all groups, including the marginalized, should be encouraged to express themselves.
Participation of local people in the process of conflict transformation is crucial because it helps to foster self-sufficiency and sustain development over time.[17] If there is no national ownership of the development process, political ownership of the rehabilitation process will simply remain with the external actors.[18] And if they are not active participants, people at the grassroots level cannot become "stakeholders" in the measures meant to assist them. The promotion of local and national ownership of external assistance can restore confidence and dignity and contribute to building local capacities.[19] Creating such localized ownership involves transferring control from donors to recipients, and allowing local and national actors to gradually acquire the skills and confidence needed to direct peacebuilding efforts. Over time, the role of external actors can be reduced to back-up support, facilitation, advice, and financial assistance.[20] Administrative donor control can be replaced by collective control and responsibility on the part of the recipients.
Involving Local Actors
As noted above, the grassroots level is a vital source of information for assessing the merits of peacebuilding operations and development plans. Indeed, local communities should be involved in planning, designing, and evaluating these operations. The accountability of donors and implementers towards local communities is an essential part of work toward social development and local ownership of peacebuilding. Thus, external support should assist and reinforce local communities, rather than replace local efforts.[21]
In many contemporary intervention efforts, however, the involvement of local actors is limited or non-existent. Project design, feedback, and evaluation are often least open to public participation. The implementer simply asks the community for relevant information, but assumes that it alone has the means and skills to design and evaluate peacebuilding programs. Evaluation is typically donor-sponsored and comes in the forms of reports issued by the implementing organization.[22]
In What Areas Can Local Involvement Be Effectively Increased?
To be sure, there are many different levels of involvement. The most limited level of public involvement is when people are informed about matters that affect them on a need-to-know basis, and are not asked for their input. In other cases, external actors define problems and processes, but then consult local actors and grant them a limited voice. However, the external actors have no obligation to take people's views into account. In procedural participation, local actors are encouraged to engage in achieving project goals, but not participate in designing those project goals. In an "interactive partnership," on the other hand, local actors work together with external actors to design, implement, and assess projects.[23]
In its most advanced form, grassroots process design seeks to engage local populations extensively in decision-making for needs assessment, project design and project evaluation.[24] Thus, it aims to promote structures that increase the level of community participation in planning, managing, and supervising peacebuilding processes. It also includes strategic plans to make implementers more accountable to recipients. Eventually, those at the grassroots level will take initiatives independently of external actors, and external actors will assume the role of facilitating projects designed by local communities.[25]
The "elicitive model" seeks to discover and solidify the resources that exist in a specific post-conflict context, and to empower under-represented individuals to voice their cultural traditions.[26] These individuals can often provide external actors with the in-depth knowledge of local and national dynamics and forces that they need to gain a holistic understanding of the postwar situation, the root causes of the conflict, and the different actors involved.[27] At the field level, external actors must build informal communication networks that can increase trust and provide insight into local realities. Building these networks requires intercultural, team building, and communication skills.[28]
While identifying individuals who can provide important information about a conflict and explain its dynamics can be difficult, these "resource persons" are crucial.[29] Consulting with resource persons can also yield information about project objectives, strategies, resources available within the community, and time frames. Ideally, these consultants will be unbiased and reliable.
Once the basic facts are understood, a wider dialogue process that involves local authorities and community leaders should begin. A broad-based process, involving all interest groups, must be emphasized.[30] Dialogue between the various stakeholders, including community members, donors, and service providers, is an integral part of this process. In cases of modest community involvement, donors might provide a clear explanation of the project objectives, strategies, and management structure that are being proposed, and ask for feedback from the leaders.[31] In cases of more advanced grassroots participation, the community can participate as a full member of the planning. In both sorts of cases, external actors must view local authorities and communities as equal partners, deserving of respect. In addition, donors must make a long-term commitment to the development project, be committed to the notion of community ownership, and be flexible enough to allow for community participation.[32]
Donors should also strive to utilize existing community resources, including technical knowledge as well as material, financial, and human resources.[33] For example, they might seek to establish good lines of communication between political, business, church, and civil society leaders, or promote education and training programs on tolerance at schools and in the workplace.[34] External actors might also strive to develop rehabilitation technology that utilizes local skills and materials or channel aid through community-based organizations.[35] Or, they might implement specialized interventions and institutions to provide professional and technical support and training that are not available within the community itself.[36]
Finally, communities should be encouraged not only to meet immediate survival goals, but also to envision positive change for the future. External actors should promote capacity-building measures for local institutions and communities, and promote programs that are characterized by community decision-making and implementation.[37] Ultimately, it is these local resources that will determine whether a lasting peace can be sustained.
Community Mobilization Strategies
Community Leaders' Workshops: As noted above, community mobilization seeks to create a dialogue between the community, donors, and service providers, and ensure full cooperation between all stakeholders. One community mobilization strategy is to introduce a Community Leaders' Workshop. Those participating in such workshops might include local authorities, representatives from community structures and institutions, leaders of women's groups, religious leaders, relevant professionals, and representatives from humanitarian agencies.[38] These workshops can serve as the primary mechanism for making important decisions about project objectives, strategies, and organization. Either an appropriate local authority or an external facilitator can chair the workshop.
Those attending the workshop have an opportunity to discuss a wide variety of important issues pertaining to the peacebuilding and development process. First, parties can discuss the various roles and responsibilities of the community, the donor, and the service providers. A system for managing the project should be accepted by all stakeholders, and their various responsibilities should be clarified.
Once the community has assessed its needs and its available resources, it can work with service providers to formulate a project proposal and present it to the donor. If the donor agrees to the proposal, it provides specified resources to support the local program. This locally owned set of objectives and strategies is usually unlimited in time.[39] The donor project, on the other hand, contains a limited set of objectives, limited in time and resources. This ensures that in the long-term, ownership of local programs lies primarily with the communities themselves.
The Workshop can in this way establish a set of agreements that define how the project will proceed. Because it involves the community in planning efforts, it is an important part of community empowerment. In addition, the Workshop is a good way to conduct needs assessment, and to make all parties aware of the limitations and financial constraints of the donor. It provides a great forum for sharing and clarifying information, promotes accountability and transparency, and leads to cooperation between the various internal and external actors.[40]
Participatory Planning: The development of community action plans through participatory planning is another way to mobilize the community. During participatory planning, community leaders and technical/professional persons come together to share information and develop a strategy. It is thought that the information obtained through collective research and analysis reflects reality more effectively, because the participants bring first-hand knowledge and understanding to the research project.[41] Because policymakers and other participants can take the research results and "translate them into concrete policy and action," this process also makes it more likely that the research will be relevant and have an impact.[42]
Engaging local actors in these processes also transfers ownership of the research to those intended to benefit from it. The plans developed belong to the local community, and based on such plans; the community can seek assistance from donors and monitor progress.[43] What's more, these locally generated plans, if broadly understood, can create a strong sense of ownership and commitment among the participants.[44]
Finally, because it involves a wide range of local and external actors in a neutral dialogue, participatory planning can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of post-conflict situations and help to build trust among these different actors.[45] And insofar as a collective research process allows participants to see problems from the perspective of a variety of actors, it leads to more integrated policy responses.[46]
[1] William Boyce, Michael Koros, and Jennifer Hodgson, "Community Based Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Peacebuilding," Humanities Department, McMaster University. Available at: http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/peace-health/cbrpb.pdf, p. 5.
[2] Boyce, Koros, and Hodgson, 4.
[3] Vivien Erasmus, "Relief Aid and Development Cooperation: Community Mobilization as a Tool for Peacebuilding," in Peacebuilding: A Field Guide, Luc Reychler and Thania Paffenholz, eds. (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001), 247.
[4] Matthias Stiefel,"Participatory Action Research as a Tool for Peacebuilding: The WSP Experience," in Peacebuilding: A Field Guide, Luc Reychler and Thania Paffenholz, eds. (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001), 270.
[5] Stiefel, 268.
[6] Boyce, Koros, and Hodgson, 5.
[7] Erasmus, 248.
[8] Michael Pugh, "Post-Conflict Rehabilitation: The Humanitarian Dimension". Available at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/3isf/Online_Publications/WS5/WS_5A/Pugh.htm.
[9] Stiefel, 270.
[10] Erasmus, 247.
[11] Boyce, Koros, and Hodgson, 5.
[12] Erasmus, 249.
[13] Erasmus, 247.
[14] Lederach, 32.
[15] Lederach, 32.
[16] Pugh, available at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/securityforum/Online_Publications/WS5/WS_5A/Pugh.htm.
[17] Lederach, 31.
[18] Pugh.
[19] Stiefel, 272.
[20] Stiefel, 272.
[21] Pugh.
[22] Pugh.
[23] Pugh.
[24] Pugh.
[25] Pugh.
[26] Boyce, Koros, and Hodgson, 5.
[27] Stiefel, 270.
[28] Stiefel, 271.
[29] Erasmus, 250.
[30] Erasmus, 250.
[31] Erasmus, 251.
[32] Erasmus, 250.
[33] Erasmus, 249.
[34] Abdallah, 162.
[35] Boyce, Koros, and Hodgson, 6.
[36] Boyce, Koros, and Hodgson, 6.
[37] Pugh.
[38] Erasmus, 251.
[39] Erasmus, 252.
[40] Erasmus, 253.
[41] Stiefel, 273.
[42] Stiefel, 273,
[43] Erasmus, 253.
[44] Erasmus, 253.
[45] Stiefel, 273.
[46] Stiefel, 274.
Use the following to cite this article:
Maiese, Michelle. "Grassroots Process Design." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/grassroots_process_design/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Hodgson, Jennifer, William Boyce and Michael Koros. "Community Based Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Peacebuilding." , 1900
Available at: http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/peace-health/Resources/cbrpb.pdf.
This paper describes the practice and impact of peacebuilding through community based rehabilitation (CBR) strategies in the context of armed conflict. Initially, the authors examine the role of civil society, in contrast to state-level interventions, in reducing the risks of conflict. Next, the ethical basis for peacebuilding through practical community initiatives is explored. Finally, a number of benefits and challenges to using CBR strategies for peacebuilding purposes are identified.
Grassroots Process Design.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/grassrts.htm.
While peacebuilding and development programs can be designed and imposed by external actors, such imposition often inspires resentment in those most affected by the policies. Involving local actors in the decision-making process is a means of transferring ownership and control to those at the grassroots level. This web page outlines grassroots process design and provides links other valuable resources.
"Non-Official Conflict Management Methods: Peace Commissions." , 2002
Available at: Click here for more info.
"Peace Commissions or Committees are formal, officially supported or informal, grassroots-derived structures at the national, regional and/or local levels to involve community members in resolving issues through joint action to reduce, counter or prevent conflict." This page includes all the pertinent information regarding peace commissions as a tool in conflict prevention and resolution.
Barnes, Catherine. Owning the Process: Mechanisms for Political Participation of the Public in Peacemaking.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This is an Accord Programme Joint Analysis Workshop Report. This report summarizes the discussions, explores the reasons why public participation may make a difference in helping to build a sustainable peace as well as some of the reasons why it can fall short of this potential and offers recommendations for process design and the roles of civil society, foreign governments and international agencies. The report describes key issues, mechanisms, and phases of peacemaking and provides short examples from specific experiences. It is based solely on the information and views expressed during the workshop.
Pugh, Michael. "Post-Conflict Rehabilitation: the Humanitarian Dimension." , October 1998
Available at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/3isf/Online_Publications/WS5/WS_5A/Pugh.htm.
This paper contends that external actors do not have well-integrated and strategically coherent policies for dealing with the implementation of peace agreements. The paper suggests that an alternative to the orthodox paradigm is to promote transparency and accountability in (a) the external assistance to war-torn societies and in (b) the generation of civil society.
Marshall, Donna Ramsey. "Women in War and Peace: Grassroots Peacebuilding." , August 2000
Available at: http://www.usip.org/pubs/PeaceWorks/pwks34.pdf.
This report examines the role of women in addressing the issues of conflict resolution and peace-building. Many of the efforts under way to sustain peace in countries and regions beset by or emerging from violent conflict are undertaken by grassroots organizations formed by those whose lives are most directly and significantly affected by the conflict. A substantial proportion of these organizations are formed and staffed by women. These NGOs are playing an increasingly active role in dispute resolution and post conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding.
Carl, Andy. "Women Weaving Bougainville Together: A Contextual Case Study on the Leitana Nehan Women's Development Agency Buka, Bougainville Province, Papua New Guinea." , 2000
Available at: Click here for more info.
This case study documents the important role women played in initiating both civil society peace initiatives and the peace negoiation process in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea.
Offline (Print) Sources
Oppenheimer, Martin and George Lakey. "A Manual for Direct Action." , January 1, 1965.
"A "how to" guide which offers comprehensive, understandable instruction in the politics and tactics of people-based organizing. It includes a profusion of illustrations and examples of successful grassroots tactics. "
Lederach, John Paul. "An Integrated Framework." In Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, August 1, 1996. Pages: 25-33.
In Chapter 3, Lederach discusses how the use of an "integrated framework" in the process of peacebuilding and development is crucial. This framework suggests that local people are not recipients of aid, but rather central resources in the development process. Local knowledge and resources need to be utilized in peacebuilding programs, and problem-solving needs to be understood in the context of that society. Lederach maintains that this sort of "integrated framework" is a crucial part of empowering local communities. Click here for more info.
Stiefel, Matthias. "Participatory Action Research as a Tool for Peacebuilding: The WSP Experience." In Peacebuilding: A Field Guide. Edited by Reychler, Luc and Thania Paffenholz, eds. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2001.
The author suggests that postwar development must be based on a holistic and in-depth understanding of the community's problems, the available resources, and the respective agendas of the various actors. If external assistance is to contribute effectively to peacebuilding efforts, the operational practice of aid must change. Mattias argues that participatory action research, in which researchers and social actors join forces in collective research, might be used as a rebuilding tool. This strategy promotes better understanding of post-conflict situations, allows for more integrated policy responses, and promotes a democracy in societies emerging from conflict.
Erasmus, Vivien. "Relief Aid and Development Cooperation: Community Mobilization as a Tool for Peacebuilding." In Peacebuilding: A Field Guide. Edited by European Centre for Conflict Prevention, ed. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001.
This chapter explores how grassroots process design, which involves actors at the community level, can increase the effectiveness of relief and development aid. The author suggests that community mobilization re-empowers war-torn communities to make vital decisions for themselves, fosters a spirit of community ownership of peacebuilding processes, and taps into local knowledge and resources. Two community mobilization strategies, the Community Leaders? Workshop and Participatory Planning, are discussed in detail.
Ould Abdallah, Ahmedou. "Stakeholders and Owners." In Peacebuilding: A Field Guide. Edited by Reychler, Luc and Thania Paffenholz, eds. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers, January 1, 2001.
The discussion in this chapter concentrates on strategies for resolving situations of violent civil conflict. The author emphasizes the importance of involving the most powerful leaders or representatives of stakeholder groups in peacebuilding decision-making processes, including extremists.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Building Ethnic Conciliation and Roma Opportunities in Most, Czech Republic. Partners for Democratic Change.
Available at: http://www.partnersglobal.org/case_studies/mr_czech_ethnic.html.
Partners-Czech provided conflict management skills and facilitated a series of roundtable discussions with Roma citizens, social workers, city officials, teachers, police officers, and school district administrators to build tolerance and work towards community improvements in the city of Most. The initiative resulted in increased understanding of Roma traditions and culture, improved waste management and public spaces, new employment and housing opportunities for Roma, and the founding of a Roma civic association.
Citizen Involvement Promotes Change in Opole Lubelskie, Poland. Partners for Democratic Change.
Available at: Click here for more info.
Partners-Poland conducted a cooperative planning and problem-solving process in Opole-Lubelskie. The goal of the project was to encourage citizens and local government to work together to identify and address issues of local concern. Following a needs assessment, outreach efforts, and facilitated sessions with a citizen-local government committee, the community founded a new advocacy group for continued dialogue, and a new sewage system, daycare facility and youth club were developed.
Citizens Curb Neighborhood Violence & Impact Public Policy in Argentina. Partners for Democratic Change.
Available at: Click here for more info.
Partners-Argentina responded to an increase in violent crime in Buenos Aires Province and the creation of 322 citizen-run neighborhood security forums (Public Security Provincial Act 12154), with a participatory program that included citizens and local government in public policy promotion and maintaining public safety. Through training and facilitated dialogue, Partners-Argentina and community members introduced change management skills to the forums, developed a series of public policy recommendations on Act 12154, and laid the foundation for establishing community support groups that combat the root causes of conflict.
Wilson, Nick. "Innocence and Experience: The Volunteer Project Pakrac, Grassroots Peacebuilding in Croatia, 1993-1997." CCTS Newsletter, Number 12, Spring 2001 , 2001
Available at: http://www.c-r.org/ccts/ccts12/pakrac.htm.
This is an extended summary of the author's evaluative report on the Pakrac Project in West Slavonia in the 1990s. During 1992, the charismatic head of UN Civil Affairs in West Slavonia was able to exploit the ambiguities of his mandate and the flexibility of his UN military counterpart to push along a mid-level localized peace process.
Thurston, Anne F. "Muddling Toward Democracy: Political Change in Grassroots China." , August 1998
Available at: http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/thurst23/thurst23.html.
This USIP Peaceworks report examines China's efforts to bring competitive elections to the country's rural areas and attempts to explain why local democracy has proved more successful in some places than in others.
Offline (Print) Sources
Hemmer, Bruce. "Bottom-Up Peacebuilding in Bosnia." PARC News Spring, 1997.
This article argues for empowering Bosnians with the means and tools to build a democratic civil society. It also maintains that peace building and reconciliation processes need to support these empowerment initiatives. Click here for more info.
Lumsden, Malvern. "Peacebuilding in Macedonia: Searching for Common Ground in Civil society." International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), PRIO Report 2/97, Oslo, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, 1997.
In this report, the author examines the external and internal factors influencing relationships between the ethnic communities in Macedonia, and the role of an NGO "Search for Common Ground in Macedonia" in attempting to improve their relationships. This role has shifted from an emphasis on high-level Track II diplomacy to community-level projects, compatible with UNESCO's concept of a Culture of Peace.
van der Veen, Hans, Paul van Tongeren and Juliette Verhoeven. Searching for Peace in Europe and Eurasia: An Overview of Conflict Prevention. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002.
This book offers insight into the possibilities for effective conflict prevention and peacebuilding throughout the region. Presenting surveys of the violent conflicts in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, the contributors offer a unique combination of background information, detailed descriptions of ongoing activities, and assessments of future prospects for conflict resolution and peacebuilding. A major focus of their work is the efforts of regional organizations and NGOs to make civil society part of any peace process, and they thoroughly cover the activities of grassroots groups. A directory of more than 400 organizations working in the field of conflict prevention and peacebuilding in the region is also included.
Return to Top
|
