What is the contribution of opposition civil groups to peace processes and democratisation? What are the strategies used by civil organisations to promote and participate in peace processes? These questions are addressed in this paper on South African and Guatemalan transitions.
Produced by the Catholic Institute for International Relations, this paper provides a comprehensive account of the transition periods in South Africa and Guatemala. It details the successes and failures of civil groups during the peace talks and contributes to debates about the range of challenges facing civil groups, after peace agreements are signed.
Civil groups have made a significant contribution to peace processes and democratisation by pressing for all-party talks, monitoring violence, urging compliance with national peace accords, and participating in policy formulation. Once peace is assured, the political framework tends to eclipse the civil groups that helped force the transition. Civil actors may be sidelined as a result.
- South African and Guatemalan civil groups have demonstrated the importance of participating in talks and of making them as transparent and accountable as possible.
- In Guatemala, civil groups linked up with international actors to put pressure on parties to return to the negotiating table.
- In both countries, civil groups used tactics of popular mobilisation and mass action to re-stimulate stalled talks.
- Civil groups have continued to have a role after peace talks through working on truth commissions, issues of reconciliation and criminal prosecution of human rights violators.
- Civil groups that are not incorporated into the political system can work with post-war governments if the new procedures are inclusive and representative.
Violence frequently worsens during transitions compared to the low-intensity conflict that usually precedes talks. Without international support, civil groups in South Africa could not resolve the problems of (state-sponsored) violent destabilisation and crumbling state crime-prevention structures. In Guatemala, international peace-monitoring groups were able to exercise independent leverage on the warring parties.
- Granting a role to international human rights verification bodies can be more effective than the national human rights movements in circumstances of state-led terrorism.
- Civil groups can themselves be embroiled in the cycle of political violence, (as in South Africa).
- In the initial phase of the peace process in South Africa and Guatemala, civil groups on their own could not provide the impetus for democratising the state. They had to work with the state, the armed opposition and international actors.
- Following peace talks in South Africa, civil groups could not cope with the lack of political will to prevent violence.
- In Guatemala the UN Human Rights Verification mission supervised the transition. This helped to mitigate the effects of national conflict.
- In both countries, civil groups were appropriate watchdogs for the new regime and were well positioned to press for openness, accountability and legitimate rule.
