Beyond the metropolis? Popular peace and post-conflict peacebuilding

Abstract

Abstract. The debate on peacebuilding is deadlocked. Leading scholars of 'fourth generation' peacebuilding, who take Liberalism to task for creating what they refer to as crises in peacebuilding, have themselves been challenged by those they criticise for over-stating Liberal failure and failing themselves to produce the goods in terms of an alternative. But behind this debate, it seems that both approaches are asking the same question: how can stable, legitimate, sustainable peace be engineered? This article engages critical theory with problem-solving social sciences. It proposes that the crises in orthodox post-conflict peacebuilding are genuine, but there are approaches that might put flesh on fourth generation concepts without bringing the Liberal edifice down, shifting the debate away from ontology and ideology and returning it to the people in whose name it is held.

The Role of Visiting Professionals in Peacebuilding

“…In recent years, critical and post-structuralist peacebuilding accounts have acknowledged a fourth generation in peacebuilding (Richmond, 2010;Richmond et al, 2011;Roberts, 2011Roberts, , 2011bRichmond, 2012;Jabri, 2013), one that rejects third-party interventions for peacebuilding and instead emphasises the input of local populations in peacebuilding processes, with their inclusion as equal partners ensuring their empowerment and emancipation. Roberts (2011) refers to fourth-generation peacebuilding as emancipatory peacebuilding, while Jabri (2013) differentiates between colonial and post-colonial peacebuilding; the former grants agency to international experts through external peacebuilding intervention, while the latter supports self-determination and shifts the focus to local agency.…”

Liberal peace and peacebuilding: global and local debates in the context of Sri Lanka

“…Also, the empirical work on peacebuilding have attempted to identify factors that impact on peace such as "Republican representation, an ideological commitment to fundamental human rights, and transnational interdependence" (Doyle, 2005: p. 1). Others have looked at the impact of local factors and stakeholders engaging dynamically with the offered peace instead of being passive recipients of peace as shown in case studies in African countries such as Sierra Leone (Ismail, 2008;Tom, 2011;Roberts, 2011). These attempts have sought to gather empirical data to test the validity of the liberal peace thesis.…”

Post‐conflict police reconstruction:Major trends and developments

“…At its core, it views reconstruction efforts as principally technical enterprises of importing Western methods while improving capacity through training by Western advisors. In this model, training is typically one part of a larger neoliberal program (Wozniak, ) resting on stark political and economic liberalization, largely ignoring variance in local conditions, such as previous forms of government or current levels of violence (Goldsmith & Dinnen, ; Roberts, ). The work of Bayley () fits neatly within this paradigm, identifying what he terms four pivotal reforms for democratic forces, arguing police must be accountable to law rather than a particular government; must protect human rights; must be accountable to persons outside the force; and finally, must give priority to the needs of private citizens.…”

“…Moving beyond the classic model of police reconstruction, many scholars (Ellison & Pino, ; Goldsmith & Dinnen, ; Keen, ; Richmond & Mitchell, ; Wiatrowski & Goldstone, ) have instead argued for what can be termed a reflexive model (Wozniak, ), or what is known as “fourth generation peacebuilding” in the International Relations literature (cf. Roberts, ). This view holds that police reconstruction must be context driven, with an emphasis on incorporating local knowledge and understandings.…”

“…This view holds that police reconstruction must be context driven, with an emphasis on incorporating local knowledge and understandings. Arguing that the classic model's guidelines are “unduly simplistic” and offer a “one‐size‐fits‐all” approach (Goldsmith & Dinnen, : 1097) that ignores important variables such as variations in forms of government and current levels of political violence, scholars instead argue that these efforts should emphasize “greater emancipation from structural violence, indigenous autonomy in determining peacebuilding priorities and the idea of the ‘everyday’ as a focal point” (Roberts, : 2537).…”