CHAPTER 2: NON-VIOLENCE, THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE AND THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN ZIMBABWE
4.7 The Concept of Peacebuilding
4.7.1 Lederach’s framework for peacebuilding
Lederach (1997; 2001) generally concurs with Boutros-Ghali’s proposal and framework for peacebuilding, which in itself should be seen as progression of Galtung’s pioneering work.
Lederach (1997, p20) proffers peacebuilding as a “comprehensive concept that encompasses, generates and sustains a full array of processes, approaches, and stages needed to transform conflict toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships.” He goes further to come up with a pyramidal model on Figure 4.5 below that locates the level of leadership and their specific peacebuilding roles in any conflict situation. He suggests different approaches to each level, which in the end combines the top – down approaches and the bottom – up approaches (Lederach, ibid: 38-55). These are also considered below.
116
Figure 4.5. Actors and Approaches to Peacebuilding, adapted from Lederach, (1997, p39)
Levels of leadership and their approaches to peacebuilding Level 1: Top-level leadership
Lederach says this level comprises highly visible key military and political leaders representing government or opposition movements. They are at the apex of the pyramid and are often the spokespersons for their constituencies. By virtue of their high public profile, these leaders are generally locked into positions taken with regard to the perspectives and issues in conflict, based on power and influence. At this level, the peacebuilding approaches include high-level negotiations in which top-level leaders are identified and brought to the bargaining table. These
Focus on high- level neotiations
Emphasises cease-fire Led by highly
visible single mediator
Problem-solving workshops Training in conflict
resolution Peace commissions Insider-partial teams
Local peace commissions Grassroots training Prejudice reduction Psychological work in postwar
trauma
Level 1: Top Leadership – military/political/religious leaders with high visibility
Level 2: Middle-Range
Leadership - Leaders respected in sectors Ethnic/religious leaders;
Academics/Intellectuals;
Humanitarian leaders (NGOs)
Level 3: Grassroots Leadership – Local leaders;
Leaders of indigenous NGOs;
Community developers; Local health officials; Refugee camp leaders
117
are often focused on achieving a cease-fire or a cessation of hostilities as a first step that will lead to subsequent steps involving broader political and substantive negotiations, which in turn will culminate in an agreement creating the mechanisms for a political transition from war to peace. This is a top-down approach, which assumes that the accomplishments at the highest level will translate to, and move down through, the rest of the population. According to this model, the greatest potential and the primary responsibility for achieving peace resides with the representative leaders of the parties to the conflict. It is assumed that the accord will have to be relevant to and capable of implementation at the local level, even though in most instances the accord was reached under enormous pressure and involved compromises on all sides.
Ledereach’s scenario described above was experienced in Zimbabwe when ZANU-PF and the two MDC formations signed the Global Peace Agreement (GPA) in September 2008 under pressure from SADC through its mediator former president of South Africa Thabo Mbeki. The GPA culminated in the formation of a Government of National Unity in 2009 as a transitional mechanism to bring peace. The GPA also set established a political party platform – Joint Monitoring and Implementation Commission (JOMIC) as well as the Organ on National Healing, Reconciliation and Integration (ONHRI) as mechanism that would lead the percolation of peace from top to bottom of the Zimbabwean society (The Global Political Agreement, 2008).
Level 2: Middle-level leadership and their approaches to peacebuilding
Lederach says middle-level leadership is composed of persons who function in leadership positions within a setting of protracted conflict but are not necessarily connected to or controlled by the authority or structures of formal government or major opposition movements. These can be highly respected individuals who may occupy formal positions of leadership in sectors such as education, business, agriculture, local NGOs, etc. They may also be individuals that command respect from their communities (and even beyond) as a result of their own individual achievements, which also make them opinion leaders. Middle-level leaders are positioned so that they are likely to know and be known by top-level leadership, yet they have significant connections to the broader context and the constituency that the top leaders
118
claim to represent. One of their advantages is that they tend to have pre-existing relationships with counterparts that cut across the lines of the conflict within the setting. In terms of peacebuilding approach, the middle-level leadership contributes through problem-solving workshops, conflict resolution training and the creation of peace commissions. Although different outcomes can be expected from these activities, they share one important aspect:
they often create conducive environments for adversaries to interact in ways that their home settings or public events would not permit. Lederach suggests that if integrated properly, the middle-level leadership might provide the key to establishing a relationship and skill-based infrastructure for sustaining the peacebuilding process. In the Zimbabwean context, such actors could include the NGOs and church-based institutions that have been at the forefront of running workshops and other activities to promote peace.
Level 3: Grassroots leadership and their approaches to peacebuilding
Lederach says the grassroots leadership represent the masses, and include people who are involved in local communities or local NGOs, among other local community establishments.
These people understand intimately the fear and suffering with which much of the population must live. They also have an expert knowledge of local politics and know the local leaders of the government and its adversaries. One important aspect that Lederach brings out is that the local level is, in many instances, the microcosm of the bigger picture. The lines of identity in the conflict often are drawn right through local communities, splitting them into hostile groups.
Unlike many actors at the higher levels of the pyramid, grassroots leaders witness firsthand the deep-rooted hatred and animosity on a daily basis.
Lederach suggests that approaches at this level, often influenced by middle-level initiatives, should focus at providing an opportunity for grassroots leaders and others to work at the community or village level on issues of peace and conflict resolution. The grassroots-level programmes should are also characterised by their attempts to deal with the enormous trauma that violence produces, especially among the youths.
119
In the case of Zimbabwe, most of the violence affected people at the grassroots. It became so localised as to pit people from the same community, including relatives, against each other. As such, a more comprehensive framework which assumes an interdependence of levels that involve multiple tiers of leadership and participation within the affected population that integrate simultaneous but pace-differentiated activities, as Lederach suggests, is worth considering.