Local Ownership in Asian Peacebuilding

This opening chapter offers readers an introduction to the main theme: development of local peacebuilding models in Southeast Asia; as well as the key conceptual and analytical framework and the case studies. The core question of this study is “Is it ever possible for authentic local ownership to be developed under the strong influence and advocacy of external intervention?” Moreover, a few subordinate questions are: “Through what strategies do local peacebuilders develop their own models of peacebuilding? How different are they from the liberal models? What are their significance and limitations as locally-owned peacebuildings?” After introducing the questions, this chapter overviews three theoretical discussions that offer the analytical framework for the forthcoming case studies: local ownership, hybrid peace and everyday peace. Through this analysis, it will be highlighted that the development of local models of peacebuilding is understood as a gradual and positive process through which local peacebuilders can challenge external intervention. Moreover, this book will attempt to move beyond a binary conceptualisation of peacebuilding as a process characterised by an external/indigenous dichotomy and instead aims to analyse peacebuilding as a more flexible and dynamic process. Following this, it gives a concise explanation of the analytical foci of this study, highlighting the interaction of local grassroots agencies vis-à-vis external actors. The different meanings of ‘local’ will be briefly touched upon in this context and it will be clarified.

This chapter offers readers background information about the two case studies from a comparative perspective. All social developments are contextual and so is local peacebuilding. The peacebuilding models promoted by local actors are subject to the social, cultural and structural conditions of the society and reflect the local actors’ views and interests constructed within such contexts. The local models of peacebuilding in Mindanao and Cambodia, in this sense, present significant discrepancies in terms of the identity of local peacebuilders, the organisational structure of these agencies, types of programmes, strategies for ownership enhancement, and resources to be mobilised and utilised for operation. The long history of Khmer as a single political and cultural entity, the total civil war that has little relevance to local populations’ interests, and the externally-led peacebuilding in the aftermath of the civil war formed a more homogenous group of local peacebuilders in Cambodia. In Mindanao, in contrast, the coexistence of three cultural and ethnic groups (Christian, Muslim, and indigenous tribes), a complex series of conflicts that reflect multiple-layers of tensions, and multiple trends of peacebuilding supported by varied actors who have distinct historical, ideological and structural backgrounds, developed a few distinct groups of local peacebuilders who frequently have contradictory views and interests.

The case study chapters of this volume examine four behavioural patterns of local peacebuilders as stated above. They examine how the four types of ownership promotion have been employed in the two areas, focusing specifically on the strategies local actors utilize to develop their unique models of peacebuilding, the distinguishing features of each of these, and their limitations as models of authentically local peacebuilding. This chapter introduces the ownership inheritance cases where local actors strengthen their commitment to the peacebuilding programmes concerned through external actors’ voluntary ownership transfer. Such ownership inheritance frequently takes place while an organisation initially established by external peacebuilding actors attempts to localise. In other cases, local actors’ high-level of commitment is designed and encouraged by external advocates from the outset. Successful development of ownership inheritance brings about high levels of local ownership in terms of the organizational structure of peacebuilding agencies and the decision making process, where local representatives assume important roles. From a theoretical perspective, the chapter discusses that the local peacebuilders who inherit the ownership are likely to present different forms of norm diffusion and internalisation, adopting and internalising the value systems or core objectives set by the donor agencies.

The case study chapters of this volume examine four behavioural patterns of local peacebuilders as stated above. They examine how the four types of ownership promotion have been employed in the two areas, focusing specifically on the strategies local actors utilize to develop their unique models of peacebuilding, the distinguishing features of each of these, and their limitations as models of authentically local peacebuilding. This chapter introduces a contrasting approach to ownership development, that entails grassroots peacebuilders’ efforts to reduce the influence from external donors by gaining more financial independence. One popular way is to develop income generation schemes, in which funding sources are sought from collaboration with local communities and their own services for work partners. Moreover, local peacebuilders frequently adopt two types of actions to reduce their over-reliance on a small number of external supporters: diversification of partnership and local coalition building. While these efforts are unlikely to bring about complete autonomy for local peacebuilders, successful examples significantly increase their negotiation power vis-à-vis the demands from external actors, in terms of selecting the programmes to be initiated and those which will continue to operate, and determining operational features.

The case study chapters of this volume examine four behavioural patterns of local peacebuilders as stated above. They examine how the four types of ownership promotion have been employed in the two areas, focusing specifically on the strategies local actors utilize to develop their unique models of peacebuilding, the distinguishing features of each of these, and their limitations as models of authentically local peacebuilding. In this chapter, a non-frictional model of promoting local ownership is explored. In both Cambodia and Mindanao, a large number of local actors choose not to overtly challenge the demands from their international donors. Instead, they attempt to push forward their agenda in the conventional structure for international-local collaboration, by redefining and operationalising the themes proposed by donors and occasionally use smoke-and-mirror strategies. This empirical finding questions whether conventional assumptions of power disparity in favour of donors is indeed valid. The theoretical significance of friction-avoiding approaches as a model of ownership promotion was discussed from two perspectives. On one hand, it offers concrete empirical examples relevant to informal and subtle forms of resistance in local communities’ ‘everyday peacebuilding’. On the other hand, it discovers the presence of a dual structure of power: while international aid donors may control the official and financial aspects of peacebuilding, it is local actors who determine the unofficial/procedural/operational mechanisms.

The case study chapters of this volume examine four behavioural patterns of local peacebuilders as stated above. They examine how the four types of ownership promotion have been employed in the two areas, focusing specifically on the strategies local actors utilize to develop their unique models of peacebuilding, the distinguishing features of each of these, and their limitations as models of authentically local peacebuilding. This chapter examines a number of peacebuilding programmes developed by religious or traditional leaders in the local communities. Compared to other types of peacebuilders, religious or traditional leaders have more social capital for mobilising peacebuilding movements and their programmes frequently require less financial resources to maintain. Thus, the peacebuilding in this category is less reliant on external funding and more likely to demonstrate local actors’ unique perspectives and cultural contexts from the early stages of their development. At the same time, these leaders’ key interests and vision for peace are in many cases significantly different from the perspectives of other community residents, especially youth. Hence, their objectives for peacebuilding programmes may not be supported by wider communities. Based on this, Chapter 6 discusses the identity of local peacebuilders who work for the benefits of local communities but do maintain their own distinct interests and views.

This concluding chapter integrates the key findings appearing in the previous chapters and discusses their theoretical and practical implications. Firstly, the chapter overviews and summarises the findings presented in the case studies chapters. The discussion particularly focuses on the four types of strategies adopted by local peacebuilders for developing local peacebuilding models—ownership inheritance, management of external reliance, friction-avoiding approaches, and utilisation of religious/traditional leadership—, following the structure of this volume. It then examines the unique features that the local models in Mindanao and Cambodia demonstrate and their significance and limitations. In the final sections, the chapter reorganises and analyses the findings with regard to two areas that are not comprehensively discussed in the case study chapters: the forms of local-international collaboration developed in Mindanao and Cambodia, and varied responses of local peacebuilders to international norms. Through the examination, this study highlighted the promotion of local ownership as process, and demonstrates the strategies and practices being developed in field practice at the moment, and presents how models of local ownership are evolving in some local communities in Asia.