How can people be directly involved in finding solutions for their security and livelihood needs? Research suggests that, although violence deters citizens from taking action, external actors in violent contexts can help to facilitate citizen action that is non-violent and socially legitimate. To do this, donors need a locally nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between violent and non-violent actors, and between forms of everyday and political violence.
New funding mechanisms have been established to support violence reduction efforts, but many fail to consider that poor, dispossessed people often perceive the state as a perpetrator. State security forces are often seen by local people as protecting the interests of the state, of local or transnational capital or of particular groups by using violence or by failing to provide security. Where official state security provision is weak, security is delegated to non-state actors who use a mix of violence and protection to maintain control.
The fear and mistrust that results from violence shapes people’s perceptions of their political community and affects the quality of democratic governance. Violence deters citizen action, silencing, segregating and subduing people. For example, the physical appropriation of space by non-state security actors can prevent citizens from assembling and mobilising. In Rio de Janeiro’s favelas, militias have occupied residents’ association buildings and control space via patrols, cameras, barriers and wall murals.
Citizens may adopt a range of strategies to cope with violence. These include: withdrawal into partial citizenship (such as withdrawal from public spaces and facilities) or self-censorship; peaceful co-existence with violent actors; and establishing parallel governance or security structures. Coping strategies can have both positive and negative consequences for citizens, their democratic participation and levels of violence in their communities.
Given the complexity of state and non-state actors, overlapping structures of power and authority, and multiple forms of everyday violence, it is essential that external interventions are grounded in a thorough understanding of the local context. This requires:
- Sensitive, respectful consultation with communities to enhance trust and avoid causing harm
- Work with non-violent community leaders and community-based organisations to analyse local power dynamics, sources of insecurity and sources of resilience
- The use of pre-existing community initiatives as ‘entry points’ for addressing broader issues of violence and insecurity.
It is important to recognise that state actors can be a source of both security and insecurity and to design specific strategies for coping with state-sponsored violence. In addition, external actors need to:
- Recognise the threat of violence in ‘non-fragile’ contexts and build on recent work that focuses on democratic or democratising states suffering from pockets of violence.
- Work at both state and community level, and understand the positions and interests of different actors.
- Conduct detailed analysis of local power dynamics, actors and relationships. Participatory and action research methods can provide space for citizenship, capture citizens’ local knowledge, and raise awareness and build ownership and sustainability of initiatives. Techniques such as participatory video and public theatre can promote dialogue and cooperation in communities, which can help to address the causes of violence. Such public techniques carry risks, however, and should be used with caution.
- Recognise that citizens’ responses can have positive or negative consequences for democratic participation and levels of violence.
- Build on existing sources of resilience, ‘safe spaces’ and structures for change. It may be useful to find an entry point unrelated to violence, then build awareness of, and broaden focus to include, issues of violence and insecurity.
