Peace processes: the role of grassroots movements in their development

Mitchell, Blair, Adams,
Trimble, Ahern... conventional politics and its (male) leaders monopolise the
big headlines on the Northern Ireland peace agreement. Where are the grassroots
groups and movements which have been struggling for peace in Ireland for years?
Of course, deep complex social processes have little press appeal compared to
the photo of the year: two former irreconcilable (male) enemies shaking
hands.

However, media ignorance cannot be the only explanation. In scenarios where
violence has taken a leading role, grassroots peace movements usually do find
it difficult to play a relevant part in achieving peace agreements. It
sometimes seems as if they concentrate their efforts in peace-building
initiatives, whereas peace-making and peace-keeping tasks must be left in the
hands of the élites. However, these three approaches all have to be used
in combination for any effective durable solution to the conflict. They must be
implemented simultaneously, but also coherently. Contradictions between the way
peace agreements are made and kept, and the strategies aimed at social healing
and reconstruction, explain to a great extent the weakness and eventual failure
of many peace processes, as we have been able to see from Ireland itself in the
seventies to Cambodia and Israel-Palestine today.

Gender perspective

This is only too evident when we look at it from a gender perspective. Firstly,
it is mostly women who suffer the consequences of violent conflict. Secondly,
women are usually in a better position than men to find ways of mediation and
mutual satisfaction between communities with opposing interests. Finally, they
usually have a determinant role in implementing the reconciliation, reparation
and economic development programmes necessary for the process to be feasible.
Nevertheless, as was clearly stated at the "Engendering the Peace Process"
gatherings started in November 1996 by many Palestinian and Israeli women, no
one seems to ask for their opinion when it comes to addressing the conflict and
assessing solutions.

If grassroots movements want their input to bring a different approach, they
will have to deal with many challenges, which may vary greatly from one place
to another.

Disappointed by the process

One first difficulty is that groups that sympathise with anti-militarist ideas
can feel disappointed and detached from parts of the process, for two
reasons.

On the one hand, these are specific processes, aimed at putting an end to
conflicts where at least one of the parties in conflict has made use of armed
struggle; or where there has been a significant military presence in order to
preserve the status quo.

No matter how urgent and necessary any solution arrived at may be, it is
sometimes seen as a poor understanding of the deep meaning peace has for a
pacifist. After all, if a real peace process were to lead us to real Peace, we
would be talking about nonviolent revolution itself. Consequently, we may tend
to focus more on the "peace-building" tasks, neglecting the vital aspects of
"making" and "keeping" peace.

Moral values or Realpolitik?

On the other hand, "peace" tends to be made on a basis of Realpolitik,
while pacifist groups operate on a basis of moral values. Often
anti-militarists have had a pretty critical relationship with populist peace
movements (in Euskadi/the Basque Country, Northern Ireland, Israel-Palestine,
Serbia...). Should we just seek to put an end to armed violence, or should we
also try to take part in the definition of the conflict? We'll inevitably have
to deal with problems of legitimisation, and whether or not to accept (as a
practical issue, not as a matter of principle) the state's monopoly over the
use of violence. All this is usually connected to the links of the grassroots
movements to the parties in conflict and to the conflict itself.

Wide range of cases

Even when we only talk about peace processes in this limited sense, we can be
making reference to a wide range of cases, each with its own features. The role
played by grassroots movements in addressing and assessing conflict may differ
greatly from one case to another. To give a few very different examples:

• We may be talking about a guerrilla warfare scenario where (as in some
  Latin American countries) lack of democratic mechanisms and genocide against
  the indigenous population go together with the imposition of an unjust economic
  situation. This leaves the country in the hands of an oligarchy and/or multi
  national corpor ations. The role of the army in preserving the status quo
  leads to massive human rights violations. Any effective protection by an
  independent judicial system is more theoretical than real. On the other hand,
  the umbrella of relatively powerful non-governmental institutions -- notably
  the Churches -- can be effectively used to a certain extent, depending on the
  existing social fabric in a given country. This would certainly be the case in
  Guatemala, and also, to a certain extent, in El Salvador and Chiapas.
• Also in Latin America we find cases like those of the Southern Cone, which
  share some of the features mentioned above, but where the indigenous element
  plays a comparatively weaker role -- they have already mostly been
  exterminated. Countries like Argentina, Uruguay and Chile do not have guerrilla
  conflicts nowadays, but the role played by their armies in maintaining the
  "stability" of the system means we can hardly say that a real peace process has
  put an end to the armed struggles and dictatorships of the seventies and early
  eighties. Paraguay and Brazil have both emerged from military dictatorships,
  but the composition of their civil society is different in many aspects, and so
  are the possibilities for grassroots movements to resist the military and
  promote social and economic change.
• There is certainly an armed struggle in Europe (Ireland, Euskadi, Corsica)
  based on a mixture of nationalist and economic l grounds. It takes place,
  however, in the middle of a quite unique moment of partial European
  integration, which is very likely to have an influence on all the actors in the
  conflict. This will be bound to affect the role of civil societies, the
  resources they can make use of, the international context...
• South Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, Chechnya, Turkey, Cambodia,
  East Timor, Burma, Rwanda, Congo... Grassroots movements play some extremely
  interesting roles in all of these cases, but they are not always easy to put
  into general categories.

Challenge of economics

Another
major challenge for grassroots movements is economics. This may be as a key to
the resolution of conflict (like, for example, the role played by multinational
mining corporations -- including companies from Mandela's South Africa -- in
the way the Congo war was won by the rebels). Economics can be a key to the
stability of the regime emerging from an armed conflict, or a major element in
the deepening of democracy after war or conflict ends and international media
attention switches to a new scenario. Do grassroots movements tend to
concentrate their efforts on people's primary needs, but neglect the work in
this vital domain? How can they propose practical feasible alternatives?

War crimes and punishment

War
crimes and their punishment is another part of most peace process that
grassroots groups sometimes find difficult to deal with. Traditionally, we find
three basic ways of dealing with such crimes. Firstly, the sacrificial method:
some "victims" will pay for all those guilty, thus bringing peace to the
community. This was part of the sort of peace process that took place in
Argentina and Uruguay. There they used the "Ley de punto final" and the concept
of "due obedience" as a way of ignoring the responsibility of all repressors
except the leaders of the Junta (albeit symbolically, for even they were all
pardoned some years later). Secondly, as in Central America, there may be an
agreement between parties. Nobody is punished. Some people are of course
removed from leading positions -- and given substantial retirement pensions --
but all society wants is to know how things happened, and to create mechanisms
to prevent it from happening again. Thirdly, the method that historically
corresponds -- in theory, at least -- to a higher level of human and social
development: a fair trial, in front of an international tribunal if it has been
a case of genocide or crimes against humanity. Such a tribunal may be an ad hoc
one -- like those on Rwanda or former Yugoslavia -- or the permanent one that
many NGOs are trying to promote under the auspices of the UN.

Questions for grassroots groups

All these methods have proved to be somewhat effective in giving some stability
to the peace processes in which they have taken place. How do grassroots
movements relate to them? Do they have any relevance for them, or does their
work take place at a completely different level?

These are only a few aspects of our work that can only be taken into account if
we are able to look with a critical eye at our own reality as grassroots
groups. The problem is not who ends up attracting media attention. We are not
seeking media coverage, but to have an effective presence in peace processes,
so that what comes out of them may be as similar as possible to the real Peace
we all strive for.