What are the comparative advantages, and limitations, of civil society in contributing to peace-building? This paper from the Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management discusses definitions of civil society (CS); outlines examples of CS peace-building activities; and discusses the positive contribution and potential limitations of CS involvement, with particular reference to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Civil society can play a key role in peacebuilding, but cannot compensate for state-building deficits: the strengthening of the state, economy and society must proceed simultaneously.
‘Civil society’ is a contested concept, but definitions involve the idea of a space where the political, economic and private spheres overlap. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs: non-state, non-profit groups working in the public interest) are frequently seen as the most obvious example of civil society. Recent decades have seen significant expansion in NGO numbers and activity, in large part due to the increased level of funds channelled through them by donors.
‘Strengthening civil society’ has become a key element of peacebuilding interventions – civil society is often seen as the solution to multiple social, economic and political problems. However, there is a risk that this overestimates the capacities of CS actors.
- Some of the ‘comparative advantages’ of NGO involvement in peacebuilding include: political independence; flexible mandates; impartiality; and credibility. NGOs may do things that governments cannot – such as opening dialogue with groups outside official peace processes.
- However, experience in Bosnia demonstrates that civil society groups can be a factor in war as well as a force for peace (for example, by promoting segregation and division). Critics suggest that NGOs: are often not independent, but state-driven, through funding; have become oriented to market forces rather than public interest; dominate Southern partners; interfere with the internal affairs of sovereign states; and lack legitimacy as they are not subject to democratic control.
- While these critiques have limited merit in some cases, they are not representative of the sector as a whole. Nonetheless, NGOs must focus more on self-reflection and impact assessment in order to ensure they are as effective as possible.
Civil society can play a key role in peacebuilding, but a realistic assessment of its strengths and limitations is essential. CS actors should evaluate themselves critically.
- Increasing the number of NGOs is not necessarily a guarantee of a vibrant civil society, and it is important not to overload CS with unrealistic expectations.
- Support for civil society should be further developed as a key element of peacebuilding – but funding mechanisms must be critically assessed and improved.
- Civil society must be included from the very beginning in all phases of peacebuilding.
- Civil society cannot be created entirely from the outside; external support can only strengthen existing local capacities. International NGOs must ensure they support and coordinate with, rather than undermine, local CS peacebuilding efforts.
- Peacebuilding and conflict transformation require an integrated approach that addresses state institutions and economic structures as well as civil society.
- More empirical research into the impact of civil society peacebuilding is needed.
See: Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation eds. M. Fischer, B. Schmelzle, and H. Gießmann, Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Berlin.
