Page contents:
- The origins of a combined approach and complementarities between statebuilding and peacebuilding
- Tensions between statebuilding and peacebuilding
The origins of a combined approach and complementarities between statebuilding and peacebuilding
Violent conflict can exacerbate characteristics of fragility. At the same time, weak authority and unresponsive states can increase the likelihood of conflict. Interventions in war-torn countries where institutions of authority have been destroyed or disrupted are exceptionally challenging. They have demonstrated inadequacies with peacebuilding models based primarily on bottom-up, civil society approaches; and statebuilding models based primarily on top-down, institutional approaches.
Bottom-up peacebuilding models have focused on conflict prevention, multi-track diplomacy and the creation of local capacities for peace. There has been growing consensus, however, that transitions from war to peace require the creation or strengthening of governmental institutions, and that this has been under-emphasised in peacebuilding concepts and practice. Top-down statebuilding models have focused on stabilisation, security and the creation of central government institutions. This too has been critiqued for being too state-centric and for under-emphasising civil society, inclusive participation, political community and relationship-building at all levels.
In recent years, concepts of statebuilding and peacebuilding have evolved considerably in international policymaking circles. There are growing convergences and linkages between the two concepts. Statebuilding seeks to transform states and make them more responsive and peacebuilding seeks to transform societal relationships. They converge in their aim to strengthen the relationship between the state and society and to promote representative and inclusive political systems and societies. In practice, both processes take place in complex environments in which every statebuilding or peacebuilding activity has the potential to impact on peace, stability and the relationship between state and society.
Call, C. T., 2008, ‘Conclusion: Building States to Build Peace?’, in Building States to Build Peace, eds. C. T. Call and V. Wyeth, Lynne Rienner, Colorado, ch. 15
How can legitimate and sustainable states best be established following civil wars? This chapter considers the dilemmas confronting domestic and international actors seeking to build states while building peace. Peacebuilding and statebuilding can be contradictory as well as complementary processes. To achieve both, it is crucial to manage the tensions that arise between them and to sequence activities in a timely, context-specific way.
Access full text: available online
Rocha Menocal, A., 2010, ‘“Statebuilding for Peace” – A New Paradigm for International Engagement in Post-Conflict Fragile States?’, EUI Working Paper, no. 34, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute (EUI), Florence
What challenges are common to both statebuilding and peacebuilding? What are the tensions between them? This paper examines the implications for donors seeking to engage in ‘statebuilding for peace’. International actors have an important role, but it is accompanying and facilitating domestic processes, leveraging local capacities, and complementing domestic initiatives and actions. With humility, realism and greater political understanding, donors need to determine priorities according to the local context and commit for the long term.
Access full text: available online
Interpeace, 2010, ‘Voices of Civil Society Organisations on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding’, Background Paper, prepared as an input into the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, Interpeace, Geneva
What are the views of civil society organisations (CSOs) on statebuilding and peacebuilding? This report presents the findings of a consultation designed to input into the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (Timor-Leste, April 2010). CSOs argue that the way that peacebuilding and statebuilding processes are undertaken is critically important: there is a need to focus not only on what is done, but how things are done. Inclusive and participatory processes are essential in order to address conflict and to ensure that statebuilding and peacebuilding can be complementary.
Access full text: available online
Heathershaw, J., 2008, ‘Unpacking the Liberal Peace: The Dividing and Merging of Peacebuilding Discourses’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 597-621
This paper argues that the `liberal peace’ is not a single discourse but a tripartite international discursive environment that dynamically reproduces technical solutions which fail to address the core issues of conflict in a given place. This disaggregation of the discursive environment enables a more nuanced understanding of the liberal peace that is able to grasp how critics and criticisms become incorporated into that which they seek to critique.
Access full text: available online
Mac Ginty R., 2010, ‘Warlords and the Liberal Peace: State-building in Afghanistan’, Conflict, Security and Development, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 577-598
This article highlights contradictions in the liberal peace that have become apparent in post-Taliban state-building in Afghanistan. It focuses on how warlords have been incorporated into a government unable to achieve a monopoly of violence without their support, noting that some of Afghanistan’s warlords have benefited from both state weakness and state-building. It suggests the need to rethink the relationship between warlords, states and state-building, and to recognise warlords as sophisticated, transnational and modern political actors. The case of Afghanistan illustrates the difficulty of extending the liberal peace in the context of an ongoing insurgency.
Access full text: available online
Tensions between statebuilding and peacebuilding
Although the complementarities between statebuilding and peacebuilding warrant a combined, holistic approach, there are potential tensions between the two. It is important to recognise that there are contradictions and that they are not always mutually reinforcing.
While states may be essential to peace, the process of statebuilding can contribute to further conflict. If the central government is corrupt and predatory and/or was a party to the conflict, strengthening the state is unlikely to contribute to peace and may fuel resentment instead. In such circumstances, there is a need to reform the state. Attempts to challenge an exclusionary political settlement, however, can lead to short-term instability or conflict.
Efforts to end hostilities and consolidate peace can also undermine statebuilding. Peace settlements can institutionalise divisions in politics. They may also strengthen the role of repressive rulers where there is a need to appease ‘spoilers’. Power-sharing arrangements that guarantee particular representation are often necessary as a confidence-building measure and to improve trust among warring parties. They may, however, lead to ineffective state institutions if those sharing power are unable to agree on issues of governance.
There is also often a desire to rapidly demonstrate ‘peace dividends’ in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Where state capacity is weak, non-state providers may be relied upon in order to rapidly deliver security and services such as water supply, sanitation, health and education. This, however, can undermine state legitimacy and long-term capacity building.
Rocha Menocal. A., 2009, ‘“Statebuilding for Peace”: Navigating an Arena of Contradictions’, ODI Briefing paper, no 52, Overseas Development Institute, London
How are statebuilding and peacebuilding processes linked, and what are some of the most significant complementarities and tensions between them? How can donors navigate the challenges of ‘statebuilding for peace’ in fragile states? This paper outlines an arena full of contradictions, arguing that these need to be recognised if they are to be managed. Effective donor engagement requires humility, better political understanding, greater sensitivity to context, and sustained, long-term commitment.
Access full text: available online
Call, C. T., and Cousens, E. M., 2007, ‘Ending Wars and Building Peace?’, Working with Crisis Working Paper Series, International Peace Academy, New York
How effective are international efforts to build peace? This paper assesses the status of international peace efforts and highlights chronic weaknesses in peacekeeping processes. In recent years, international and bi-lateral institutions have made efforts to fine-tune their peacebuilding processes. However, systemic issues of international political will and attention, resource allocation and a failure to recognise local contexts continue to affect the ability of international and national actors to establish enduring peace.
Access full text: available online
Paris, R. and Sisk, T., 2009, The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Post- War Peace Operations, Routledge, London and New York
See introductory chapter
Richmond, O. 2013. Failed statebuilding versus peace formation. Cooperation and Conflict, 48:3, 378-400.
This peer-reviewed journal article argues that without incorporating a better understanding of the multiple and often critical agencies involved in peace formation, the states emerging from statebuilding will remain failed by design. This is because they are founded on externalised systems, legitimacy and norms rather than a contextual, critical and emancipatory epistemology of peace. Engaging with the processes of peace formation may aid international actors in gaining a better understanding of the roots of a conflict, how local actors may be assisted, how violence and power-seeking may be ended or managed and how local legitimacy may emerge. Access full text: available online
Egnell, R. and Halden, P. (Eds.). 2013. New agendas in statebuilding: Hybridity, contingency, and history. Abingdon: Routledge.
How is the study of statebuilding connected to social theory and the historical study of the state? This edited volume uses a wide range of case studies to demonstrate the importance of hybridity, contingency and history in statebuilding. It also introduces new theoretical approaches to statebuilding from the broader social sciences.
Access full text: available online
Newman, E. 2013. The violence of statebuilding in historical perspective: Implications for peacebuilding. Peacebuilding, 1:1, 141-157.
Has there been a historical transformation in the relationship between statebuilding and peace? What implications does historical statebuilding experience hold for international peacebuilding activities? This paper argues that historically statebuilding has often been violent because it threatens the interests of groups which are on the outside of the process. The consolidation of national political projects is a related process that has often been accompanied by armed conflict as groups with competing political visions vie for control of the agenda. In the twenty-first century peacebuilding and statebuilding are portrayed as complementary or even mutually dependent.
Access full text: available online
