The Role of Grassroots Actors in Conflict Transformation Kate Muller

The Role of Grassroots Actors in Conflict Transformation
Kate Muller
Conflict transformation is an
emerging concept in conflict
resolution literature. The changing
nature of conflict in the post-Cold
War world has rendered many of the
realist, state-centric approaches to
conflict resolution insufficient to
promote peace – particularly in
protracted intra-state ethnic conflicts
where an allocation of resources is
often not enough to satisfy all
involved (George 2000: 17; Solomon
and Mngqibisa 2000: 26). This paper
argues that grassroots action has
been influential in the development
of conflict transformation primarily
for two reasons. First, ‘grassroots
actors’ 1 are well placed to deal with
issues involving cultural identity,
reconciliation and community
building, which are integral to
promoting a sustainable peace in
many conflicts (Wilson 2001: 2; Ross
2000: 1020; Solomon and Mngqibisa
2000: 26; Conradi 1993: 439).
Second, grassroots initiatives often
avoid the opposition mounted
against other actors, such as
international non-government
organizations. This paper will begin
by explaining the objectives of
conflict transformation. Secondly, I
will assess the involvement and
efficacy of grassroots actors in a
number of specific conflict situations.
Finally, I address the limitations of
grassroots action in the process of
conflict transformation.
Conflict transformation arose as an
alternative to the dominant
paradigms of conflict resolution. As
advocated by Lederach (1995),
conflict transformation was formed to
provide a comprehensive framework
for addressing conflict throughout its
phases – from the initial stages of
indirect conflict, to full-scale direct
conflict to lastly, its resolution.
Conflict transformation seeks to
address questions often neglected by
leading practitioners of conflict
resolution; structural violence,
culture and cultural identity and the
role individuals can play in
diminishing conflict intensity and
duration (Miall, Ramsbotham and
Woodhouse 1999: 21). However,
conflict transformation has also been
articulated as an extension of current
practices incorporated in
peacebuilding (Miall, Ramsbotham
and Woodhouse 1999: 21). This
distinction does not however, affect
the primary goals and objectives of a
transformational approach.
In theory, conflict transformation
emphasises a multi-track approach.
This recognises the need to involve a
Dialogue 1:1 (2003) pp 12-18

THE ROLE OF GRASSROOTS ACTORS IN CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
Kate Muller
multitude of actors, in a number of
roles, in order to establish lasting
peace (Lederach 1995: 21;
Rupesinghe 1995: 76). Primarily,
conflict transformation literature
emphasises the need to address the
underlying causes of conflict. This
includes the need to analyse both the
structural environment that allows
violence to continue, and the
assumptions and fears that foster an
environment of violence and hatred
(Francis 2000; Galtung 1990). It is
important to note that due to the
dynamic nature of conflicts, conflict
transformation theory does not
provide a concrete guide for action.
The success and direction of conflict
resolution mechanisms are largely
contextual.
Conflict transformation theory
recognises the need to transform the
conflict at a number of levels.
Vayrynen (1991) identifies five
transformations that need to occur in
order to have a positive shift in the
conflict. These are context
transformation, structural
transformation, actor transformation,
issue transformation and individual
and group transformation. This
approach to conflict transformation
acknowledges the multi-dimensional
nature of conflict. Similar facets have
been identified by other writers, such
as Crowther (2001), Francis (2000),
Rupesinghe (1995) and Lederach
(1995). These levels of analysis,
when combined, represent all
aspects of the conflict. Thus, unlike
traditional conceptions of conflict
resolution, conflict transformation
enables the complexity of conflict to
be adequately addressed.
Of these levels some are best
addressed from the top, others the
middle and some, the grassroots. It
is the latter that this paper is
concerned with. I argue that the
involvement of grassroots actors in
conflict resolution and the
peacebuilding process is intrinsic to
creating a legitimate post-conflict
state (Candio and Bleiker 2001: 82).
Grassroots actors perform various
roles. Of these, grassroots actors
engage in different activities that
directly contribute to the process of
conflict transformation. Grassroots
actors are fundamental to the
process of reconciliation and to the
promotion of peace. Grassroots
organisations initiate tasks such as
the reconstruction of damaged
property, holding peace
commissions, prayer meetings and
vigils, organising festivals of culture
and art, promoting contacts amongst
parties to the conflict and assessing
community needs. These processes
often address the need to evaluate
Dialogue 1:1 (2003) 13

THE ROLE OF GRASSROOTS ACTORS IN CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
Kate Muller
underlying assumptions of culture
and difference. In turn fostering an
environment of forgiveness and
equality. Even the simplest action,
such as providing a forum for
communication is integral to conflict
transformation. In reference to
grassroots peacework in Nicaragua,
Conradi (1993: 339) states ‘just
talking, venting frustrations, and
getting information about “the other
sides’” point of view can all be
pacifying processes.’
The following scenarios demonstrate
how various initiatives are
considered to further the process of
conflict transformation. The Talking
Drum Studio based in Saniquellie,
Liberia holds peace building and
reconciliation workshops throughout
Liberia and Cote d’Ivoire. The Studio
also hosts a radio program focussed
on peace building (Tapson 2002).
The Talking Drum Studio brings
together community leaders, elders
from seven tribes, women, youth,
government officials and security
personnel and encourages open
dialogue to promote peace and
reconciliation (Tapson 2002). Talking
Drum also provides community
education on topics such as trauma
and recovery, communication skills,
and the role of local government in
peace building (Tapson 2002).
Another similar program the
Kamenge Reconciliation and
Reconstruction Project, based in
Burundi, which was formed to rebuild
a church that had been destroyed
during the fighting between the Hutu
and Tutsi in 1993, as well as engage
in conflict resolution training (Bishop
1999). Yet another African initiative,
the Nigeria Peace Festival, held in
December 2000, was coordinated by
a number of different grassroots
agencies and held in the National
Theatre, Lagos, near to site where
are few months earlier a major
ethnic clash occurred between
Yoruba and Hausa residents (Iyanda
2000). The festival focussed upon
the role that art and culture can play
in conflict transformation (Iyanda
2000).
Grassroots actors – locally based
individuals - are well positioned to
address matters of community
building, and identity formation.
There are many reasons for this.
Firstly, grassroots actors are
positioned within the communities
that they are working. This places
them in close proximity to each
individual which builds trust, respect
and confidence between those
directly involved in the conflict.
Wilson (2001: 4) argues that the
Volunteer Project in Pakrac was
widely accepted because grassroots
actors were integrated into the local
Dialogue 1:1 (2003) 14

THE ROLE OF GRASSROOTS ACTORS IN CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
Kate Muller
community. This project placed
grassroots actors in a more
connected and informed position to
converse with and coordinate
activities. Thus, grassroots actors
not only provide trust-building
mechanisms, but are also exposed to
the psychologically engrained nature
of the conflict.
including Education for Mutual
Understanding, the Ulster Quaker
Peace Education Project, All Children
Together and the Belfast Charitable
Trust for Integrated Education.
Saunders (1999) argues that whilst
governments can write peace
treaties, only individuals can
transform human relationships.
Secondly, Solomon and Mngqibisa
(2000: 29) argue that states are
often misplaced to engage in or
coordinate community-based peace
building as the state is often a party
to the conflict. Indeed, through
state-based institutions, a violent
culture may be perpetuated. 2 If
youth are subject to compulsory
military education then this fosters a
culture of violence. Similarly if
children are taught history from a
specific political or religious
perspective this may promote
conceptions and stereotypes of
identity that fuel the conflict (Byrne
2001: 9). Byrne (2001: 9) illustrates
that cross-cultural storytelling and
historical guilds can be instrumental
in breaking the structural violence
often found in education, however,
reform by the government in formal
education is equally, if not more,
important. Byrne (2001) points to a
vast number of local organisations in
Northern Ireland that have been
highly active in these respects,
When dealing with conflicts based in
a Third World or non-Western
society, action or interference from
external actors, such as International
Non-Government Organisations, is
often regarded as culturally
insensitive or an act of Western
imperialism (Solomon and Mngqibisa
2000: 24; Conradi 1993: 443). This
perception of outside interference
affects the prospects of conflict
transformation. External actors
intervening in the conflict often have
established methods of interaction
that often disregard traditions of
conflict resolution that are evident in
conflict-ridden societies (Solomon
and Mngqibisa 2000: 24; Conradi
1993: 443). Grassroots actors are
however, often familiar with
particularistic traditions of
community-building. As these are
more likely to be positively received
by the people, traditional methods
are more conducive to peace
promotion and enduring stability.
Dialogue 1:1 (2003) 15

THE ROLE OF GRASSROOTS ACTORS IN CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
Kate Muller
Lederach (1986 as cited in Conradi
1993: 443) refers to the difference in
mediation techniques between
‘modern’ states and a ‘traditional’
society, in Conradi’s case, in
Nicaragua. The success of mediation
in Nueva Guinea was attributed to
the fact that the mediation process
was undertaken by grassroots actors
in a method that conformed to
cultural traditions. Previously
attempted mediation processes,
based on a formal state-centric
model, had failed (Conradi 2003:
443). 3 Secondly, in intra-state
conflicts where external intervention
is perceived to be insensitive to
cultural difference and/or national
sovereignty, international bodies and
agencies may be expelled from a
conflict situation. In these situations
grassroots organisations are
advantaged as they are based at a
local level and thus attempt to
invigorate local practices of conflict
resolution. 4
The success of these projects is
difficult to ascertain. Transformation
processes are generally contextbound.
Thus, the processes involved
in conflict transformation are ongoing
- success cannot be gauged simply
by a period without bloodshed. As
Galtung (1990) maintains, conflict
transformation is about building a
positive peace and overcoming
structural violence. However,
limitations of grassroots action can
be derived from past perceived
failures. Wilson (2001) observes that
problems with grassroots conflict
transformation initiatives are often
repeated. Grassroots organisations
are not often linked, nor does theory
reflect on grassroots action. This
predicates ill-informed foundations
for grassroots action. Wilson (2001:
4) emphasises that there is a “need
to penetrate beyond the surface of
grassroots action, draw out the
complex learning, and express it in
ways which truly engage with the
messiness of peacebuilding at the
grassroots.”.
However, from the few reflections on
grassroots initiatives that have been
noted, some limitations have been
derived. Firstly, the failures of
previous grassroots action have
contributed to the conflict
transformation literature in
furthering the view that an
integrated, multi-faceted approach is
required to transform a conflict. For
example, if an environment is not
conducive to the furthering of a
peace culture grassroots action will
fail. Economic, social, political and
military conditions must be
conducive to grassroots action. The
community in which grassroots
action is based should be ready to
Dialogue 1:1 (2003) 16

THE ROLE OF GRASSROOTS ACTORS IN CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
Kate Muller
move beyond revenge and
redemption and genuinely desire
positive social transformation.
Therefore, parties must be receptive
to the procedures intended to
promote peace (Ignatieff 1998:
189).
Similarly, the states in which
grassroots action is based have to
create an environment conducive to
grassroots action, if a government is
adamant that the conflict will
continue grassroots actors may be
persecuted. Wilson (2001: 3) argues
that the ‘failure’ of the volunteer
project at Pakrac, Croatia, illustrated
the need for grassroots attempts
have to be vertically integrated to be
successful. However, despite
labelling this project as a failure,
Wilson (2001:4) identifies a number
of descendant projects. The use of
local knowledge to identify
community needs and to develop
channels of communication has
continued following the conclusion of
the project.
Despite these difficulties, grassroots
action provides an invaluable
contribution to the process and
substance of conflict transformation.
Through their position in the sociopolitical
hierarchy, grassroots actors
are well placed to address issues of
identity and may often initiate
change in an environment generally
unconducive to larger scale attempts
at conflict resolution. Whilst the
activities engaged by grassroots
actors is largely context specific,
conflict transformation theorists and
practitioners can look to the success
of different grassroots initiatives to
build upon the current literature.
1 ‘Grassroots actors’ are locally based individuals and groups who engage in a range of
political initiatives to transform situations of conflict into peace.
2 Admittedly, in some circumstances the state may be the only actor capable of
implementing conflict transformation mechanisms. For further information on state based
conflict resolution, refer to Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse (1999), Chapter Six.
3 This is also evident in the debate surrounding the appropriateness of post-traumatic
stress disorder counselling in post-conflict non-Western cultures (Miall, Ramsbotham and
Woodhouse 1999: 210).
4 I do however, admit that even grassroots actors are not free from influence. Like any
agency seeking social transformation, grassroots actors are subject to dominant modes of
political and social authority. This raises complex issues of power relations. For the scope
of this paper, it is important only to recognise that grassroots actors attempt to develop
visions of community that are analogous with social customs.
Dialogue 1:1 (2003) 17

THE ROLE OF GRASSROOTS ACTORS IN CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
Kate Muller
References
Bishop, A. 1999. ‘Kamenge Reconciliation Project’. Africa News Service 21 October 1999.
Candio, P. and Bleiker, R. 2001. ‘Peacebuilding in East Timor’. The Pacific Review,
14(1200): 63.
Conradi, L. 1993. ‘Grassroots Peacework in Nicaragua’. Peace Review, 5(4): 437.
Crowther, S. 2001. ‘The Role of NGOs, Local and International in Post-war Peacebuilding’,
Committee for Conflict Transformation Support, Newsletter 15. Winter 2001
[http://www.c-r.org/ccts15/necess.htm] Accessed 17 September 2002.
Francis, D. 2000. ‘Conflict Transformation – from Violence to Politics’, Committee for
Conflict Transformation Support, Newsletter 9, Summer 2000 [http://www.cr.org/ccts/ccts9/index.htm]
Accessed 17 September 2002.
Galtung, J. 1990. ‘Cultural Violence’, Journal of Peace Research 27(3): 291.
George, A. 2000. ‘Strategies for Preventative Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution:
Scholarship for Policymaking’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 33(1): 15.
Ignatieff, M. 1998. The Warrior’s Honor. London: Chatto and Windus.
Iyanda, O. 2000. ‘Seeking a Culture of Peace’. Africa News Service, 28 December 2000.
Lederach, J. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. New
York: Syracuse University Press.
Miall, H., Ramsbotham, O. and Woodhouse, T. 1999. Contemporary Conflict Resolution.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ross, M. 2000. ‘Creating the Conditions for Peacemaking: Theories of Practice in Ethnic
Conflict Resolution’. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(6): 1002.
Rupesinghe, K. ed. 1995. Conflict Transformation. London: Macmillan.
Saunders, H. 1999. A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and
Ethnic Conflicts. New York: St Martins Press.
Solomon, H. and Mngqibisa, K. 2000. ‘Towards conflict transformation in the Democratic
Republic of Congo with specific reference to the model of Kumar Rupesinghe’. Strategic
Review of Southern Africa, 22(2): 22.
Tapson, B. 2002. ‘Talking Drum Peace Building Workshop Begins’. Africa News Service 20
March 2002.
Vayrynen, R. ed. 1991. New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict
Transformation. London: Sage.
Wadlow, R. 2001. ‘A Public Peace Process’ (Review Article). International Journal on World
Peace, 18(1) p1.
Wilson, N. 2001. ‘Innocence and Experience: The volunteer project Pakrac, Grassroots
Peacebuilding in Croatia 1993-1997’. Committee for Conflict Transformation Support,
Newsletter 12, Spring 2001 [http://www.cr.org/ccts/ccts12/pakrac.htm] Accessed 17
September 2002.
Dialogue 1:1 (2003) 18