Peace as Social Cohesion, Equity, and Democracy: Local Peacebuilders’ Conceptualizations of Peace

Abstract

Peace is something that all societies value and desire, but very few can achieve and sustain. This paper offers an analysis of how local peacebuilders working in contexts affected by violent conflict and in postconflict areas conceptualize peace. Peacebuilders voices were collected through an open-ended survey, consultations on a digital platform called Padlet, and storytelling webinars facilitated by an Australian Indigenous storyteller. In these voices, we find a focus on achieving negative peace and deligitimizing all kinds of violence as well as a strong emphasis on positive peace that includes social cohesion; equity and inclusion; and democracy, human rights, and freedoms.

INTRODUCTION

The field of peace and conflict studies has traditionally been dominated by a focus on military and security, and just and positive peace have been receiving very little scholarly attention (Diehl 2016; Gleditsch, Nordkvelle, and Strand 2014; Webel 2007). The process of militarization and securitization of peace might be dangerous for four reasons. First, evidence shows that this intensifies insecurity by heightening the perceptions of threats and fear in local communities and undermining local ownership and effectiveness of peacebuilding efforts (de Groot and Regilme 2022; see also Basham 2018). Second, violent and armed conflicts continue, new conflicts emerge, and many societies relapse back to conflict because root causes of violent conflict—on which positive peace focuses—remain unaddressed (Cremin 2016). Third, in the name of security, peace discourse has been abused and instrumentalized by populist and authoritarian leaders to justify violence and atrocities against outgroups (Regilme 2020). This can translate into a belief by the public that once the group that “disturbs” the accepted order or way of life and identity is pacified or eliminated, there will be peace. Fourth, conceptualizing and placing such an enormous focus on security and militarization closes off the possibility of nonviolent and transformative approaches to building peace that emphasize addressing and redressing root causes of conflict and reconciling conflicting parties.

Perhaps this focus on peace as absence of violence and war is a reason as to why so “few human cultures and societies historically have qualified for the designation of ‘Strong Peace’” (Webel 2007, 11). We thus heed the call of various scholars for an increased attention to developing conceptions of peace that are “not a mirror image of or ‘symmetric’ to war” (Diehl 2016, 2). This essay does not aim to develop a definition of peace. Instead, we conducted a small-scale exploratory international study with local peace actors working in diverse (post-)conflict societies to explore how they conceptualize peace. Their conceptualizations of peace are important, as subjective understandings and views of peace shape people’s ideas, feelings, behaviors, and ways of living and being (Navarro-Castro and Nario-Galace 2010). In particular, their conceptualizations help us to understand what local peace actors value and what peace they want to build.

LITERATURE REVIEW: DEFINING PEACE

Peace has diverse and plural understandings across geographical, historical, social, economic, political, and cultural contexts and ranges from inner peace and unity to rejection of violence. In peace and conflict studies, the definition of peace as negative and positive developed by Johan Galtung (1967, 1969, 1990) remains foundational.

Negative peace means absence of organized collective destructive behavior (i.e., direct violence), particularly extreme violence between nations, classes, and racial and ethnic groups. Webel (2007, 8) referred to it as “weak” or “fragile” peace as, although war and widespread violence are absent, there is “pervasive injustice, inequity and personal discord.” The Institute for Economics and Peace (2019a) developed a framework to measure negative peace, including societal safety and security, ongoing conflict, and militarization. Negative peace is criticized for the mentality of “peace at all costs” that privileges order over change, frames nonviolent challenges to the existing system by disadvantaged groups as disturbing the peace, and rationalizes violence to mitigate overt conflicts while leaving their root causes, grievances, and symptoms unresolved (Rissler and Shields 2019). Another criticism is a short-term time horizon of negative peace that sees the job of peace done when physical violence stops and the status quo is reached, thus leaving a window for potential human rights abuses (Shields 2017). For example, in contexts where the military may not be used to suppress a population, institutions and practices can repress and exclude certain groups and inflict psychological, social, cultural, and/or economic violence and harm on them. This involves denying them social goods for dignified life, such as education, health, housing, or political participation based on race, gender, religion, and other markers of difference.

This is why the concept of positive peace (also referred to as strong or durable peace; see Webel 2007) emerged, defined by Galtung (1969, 1990) as absence of structural and cultural violence. Positive peace emphasizes the need to build and reinforce attitudes, institutions, and structures that (1) redress unjust structural social, political, cultural, and economic factors that sustain and reproduce a culture of violence and (2) help establish and sustain just, equitable, caring, humane, and collaborative relationships with others. Positive peace aims to preempt violent conflict and destructive behaviors and attitudes (Galtung 1967; Institute for Economics and Peace 2019b). It is peace that sets normative parameters for interpersonal relationships that respect and affirm inherently equal human dignity and moral worth of others (Reardon 1995) and addresses material conditions that are inconsistent with the high value of human dignity and life (Hansen 2016; Reardon 1988).

Reardon (1993) recommended referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) for indicators that should comprise positive peace, stating that if these rights are not respected, there is no peace. This proposal is aligned with the United Nations (UN, 1999) framework of a culture of peace that foregrounds human rights as key to establishing positive peace. More recently, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO 2018) linked positive peace to Agenda 2030 and its seventeen Sustainable Development Goals to ensure a comprehensive approach to establish inclusive and sustainable positive peace. Another proposal on positive peace measures comes from the Institute for Economics and Peace (2024) and includes measuring levels of corruption, soundness of business environment, effectiveness and openness of government, human rights, distribution of resources, freedom of information, relations with neighbors, and human capital. What all these frameworks have in common is their belief that positive peace can be achieved and sustained only in societies with pluralist institutions that have capacities to provide equal economic and social opportunities, political freedoms, security, and other social goods, protections, and freedoms to all (Upadhaya and Kolås 2018).

As seen above, there are diverse conceptualizations of peace in academic literature and global policies. Our exploratory study thus investigated the conceptualizations of peace by local peace actors to understand what kind of peace is valued locally and how locally driven understanding of peace might be different and/or similar to these global conceptualizations.

METHODS

Data collection was virtual and took place in 2021–2022. To explore diverse conceptualizations of peace from local actors’ points of view, we offered various methods for them to share their experiences, individually and as a collective (see the Appendix). An open-ended survey was distributed to the participants to explore individual experiences from different geographical and political contexts. Participants were then asked to participate in Padlet consultations—a digital platform that allowed participants to post responses to questions and reply to other participants. Afterward, two storytelling webinars were led by an Australian Indigenous storyteller, who encouraged participants to reflect on their place-based understanding of peace and peacebuilding. While these webinars offered an opportunity to explore participants’ peace conceptualization from their local and individual experiences, they also gave a platform to share and create an understanding of the locally driven meaning of peace as a learning community.

Participants were recruited through Twitter and LinkedIn and targeted emails to peacebuilding networks. Fourteen peacebuilders completed the survey and participated in the Padlet consultations, and sixteen joined the storytelling webinars. Participants were practitioners with extensive work experience in peacebuilding and came from Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon, Liberia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Uganda. The ethics approval was received from the University of Glasgow. Personal and research data were pseudonymized to protect participants’ identities.

The next section presents the results from the survey (s), storytelling webinars (sw), and Padlet (p). Representative quotes are used without correcting grammatical errors in participants’ quotes.

RESULTS: MEANINGS OF PEACE

All participants hold peace as the highest value. As Tshepiso (s) pointed out, “Without peace, there is no future for any country.” Our participants emphasized the need to focus on achieving negative and positive peace simultaneously and, in the webinars and on Padlet, noticed how similar their conceptualizations were despite coming from diverse contexts of violence and conflict. More broadly, all of them saw peace as stability and security, meaning absence of what Chidi (s) referred to as “physical, emotional/psychological, sexual and economic” violence and injustices. For example, Tolu (sw) noted that, while there is no violent conflict in their country anymore (negative peace), “there is a lot of discrimination,” bullying, and “stereotypes and misconceptions” against a particular group of people that leads to their marginalization and othering (hence the need for positive peace).

Negative Peace

Two key components of negative peace emerged from the data: ending all forms of violence and delegitimizing violence, with the aim of achieving physical safety and security. While some of these forms of violence are specific to certain contexts (e.g., violent rivalries between political parties, violence perpetrated by armed groups against civilians), others can be applied across contexts (e.g., intergroup violence, violence in schools).

Ending violent rivalries between different ethnic groups (tribes) and transforming interethnic group relationships to achieve negative peace was a concern for many participants. This showcases the need for both negative (ending intergroup killings) and positive peace (transforming intergroup relationships). For example, Ekei (s) explained that in their context, “where people are killed as animals and where different tribes don’t understand each other,” negative peace means bringing conflicting ethnic groups together “to agree with each other” and to “contribute to ending these killings.”

Ending violence perpetrated by armed or violent groups against civilian populations, especially children, youth, women, and girls, was another component of negative peace that participants identified. As Wafaa (sw) put it, violence against these groups by armed groups is “a huge human rights violation.” Rin (p) shared that young people in particular “are frequently exposed to harassment and abuse from armed groups, criminal gangs and members of the state security forces” and become victims of kidnapings, arbitrary detentions, trafficking, torture, and cattle rustling. Negative peace thus means physical safety and security so that people can “move freely from one village to another without any problem or hassle,” women can “cultivate their fields without fear of being raped or being kidnapped” (Dia, p).

Ending violent struggles between political parties is another aspect of negative peace highlighted by several participants. These participants believed that negative peace will not be achieved until violent power struggles between “two political parties in positions of power vying for more power” (Nessim, s) end as they challenge issues of security and development.

Ending violence in schools was emphasized as a crucial component of negative peace. Azar (s) explained that violence in schools includes “the physical act of students physically harming each other or staff” and “the lateral violence experienced by staff and students, such as bullying, shaming, and intimidation.” Participants acknowledge that violence in schools is widespread in their contexts and their concern with it is that children and youth acquire violent behaviors and learn to see violence as an acceptable mode of engagement with others.

Ending these types of violence was not seen as enough by participants who believed that an important component of negative peace included delegitimizing all forms of violence. Delegitimization of violence is crucial to building peace so that all community members enjoy “freedom from fear” that they will be “attacked, kidnapped, or will be silenced,” as Anh (sw) pointed out. However, as participants explained, delegitimizing violence is a challenging process, especially where intergroup relationships are concerned. Several participants shared that members of the communities they work in tend to view peace as power over and control and isolation of the Other. Nao (s) stressed that, while “there is no way we can live in peace without tolerance with other tribal groups, religion groups, social and political groups,” people in their community “believe that gaining total control, showing power and overruling others is peace.” Similarly, other participants emphasized that local community members they work with “believe in violences” and “in the neutralization and fragilization of other communities” (Rony, s), “accuse others [from another ethnic group] as being the sole cause of all their misfortunes” (Dian, p), and “want peace through killing and destruction” (Berhane, s). These voices highlight the importance of addressing a community’s or society’s cultural aspects that legitimize violence.

Positive Peace

Participants’ overarching conceptualization of peace was that of a transformation from bad to good and from unstable to stable. As such, they identified positive peace as a necessary component of peacebuilding as, for them, positive peace can support such transformation, thus preventing relapse to violence and conflict and sustaining peace. First, positive peace focuses on addressing root causes of violence, such as socioeconomic inequalities, intergroup tensions, instability, and marginalization of outgroups, among other issues. As Mira (s) shared, “We have succeeded in ending the civil war, but other factors: tribal and ethnic tensions, inequality, corruption, discrimination and youth political tensions still exist.” Second, positive peace focuses on addressing pervasive consequences and legacies of violence. In the words of Saša (sw), “[Y]ou can kick out a dictator, you can kick out the colonialists, you can kick out the evil elements, but you will have to always battle those long-term consequences of what they brought with them.” Such pervasive consequences include, as Esen (sw) noted, redressing “the damage and the trauma” that communities exposed to violence experience.

Three key components of positive peace emerged from the data: (1) social cohesion, (2) equity and inclusion, and (3) democracy, human rights, and freedoms.

Peace as social cohesion was emphasized in all participant responses. Social cohesion requires eliminating violent attitudes, behaviors, and practices and building a new type of intergroup and interpersonal relationships. First, it requires achieving “less of discrimination, tribalism, racism” (Robin, sw) that lead to physical violence and fear of violence. Participants pointed out that it is particularly important in contexts of “disagreement in belief, opinion, thought, practice, policy etc” (Zell, s) and where people “have fear of each other” because of their ethnic/racial background (Bo, sw). They maintained that to build and sustain peace, people need to nurture “tolerance” (Alex, s), “respect” (Addi, sw), and “empathy, understanding, peaceful co-existence, social cohesion and reconciliation” (Val, s).

Second, according to our participants, social cohesion necessitates nurturing “a sense of community” for all (Robin, sw) by building relationships of trust, respect, and reciprocity. This involves getting “to know each other” and “learning about each other” (Mira, s) to overcome biased and prejudicial attitudes and behaviors toward outgroups. This also includes recognizing one’s responsibility to invest in building relationships based on mutual trust. As Zell (s) highlighted, members of a community or society need to understand that their “influence must be one of respect and reciprocity.”

Building social cohesion is a dialogical process that should take place in “an enabling environment” that allows “to share views and to talk with one another” (Magao, sw) and to “question [our] worldview by reflecting on the stories” we are told (Nakia, p). Having a safe and enabling space to dialog can help to unlearn hate toward each other, develop “understanding of difference and acceptance” to overcome divisions (Shona, sw), build “a sense of community” (Offiong, sw) and friendship with people of backgrounds different to ours (Len, sw), “to heal suffering” (Elur, s), and to “learn to work together” (Tiam, p).

Peace as equity and inclusion was emphasized by most participants. They regarded peace as the presence of “equality/equity for all regardless of difference and inclusion” in all aspects of social, economic, and political life (Alex, s). Equality and inclusion were identified as necessary for peace as they allow members of a community or society “to survive and to participate” in their community (Bo, sw). Importantly, participants emphasized the need to implement targeted approaches to address inequalities and injustices to be able to build positive peace. They asserted that, to achieve peace, communities/societies need to invest in “reduc[ing] the separation between peoples and lay[ing] the foundations for a more just society” (Eka, s), preventing marginalization of a group, as it creates “injustice, unequal distribution of resources” (Mor, s), and redressing power imbalances in decision making so that it “consider[s] indigenous voices or the community at large” (Neri, s).

Peace as democracy, human rights, and freedoms was emphasized by many participants. For these participants, positive peace involves “the affirmative democratic and ongoing processes of creating a culture in which all people’s rights are respected equally” (Linh, s). Participants highlighted that there is no positive peace without protecting and promoting everyone’s rights and freedoms. As Tiam (p) stressed, “[P]eace is often threatened when the fundamental rights of populations are not respected.” Tiam (p) further explained, “We speak of peace when fundamental rights (food, health, housing, children’s education, youth unemployment) are guaranteed.” Regarding freedoms, a few participants acknowledged the need to protect the freedom of expression and of speech, with Addi (sw) stressing the importance of having their “voice … to advocate for the rights … without being imprisoned.” In addition to fundamental rights and freedoms, for some participants, having positive peace also meant respect for and protection of collective and cultural rights and ensuring that there is no deprivation or harm inflicted on the culture and identity of a group. For example, Aliz (s) asserted the need to address the deprivation and harm inflicted on Indigenous people across the world that contributes to continuous conflict and violence and prevents the establishment of negative and positive peace.

DISCUSSION

This essay reported on a study that explored how local peacebuilders conceptualize peace. We found that, despite the diverse contexts of violence and conflict from which our participants come, their conceptualizations of peace are very similar.

Not surprisingly, they all emphasized striving for an end of all forms of direct violence (negative peace). This can be explained by the fact that people “are predisposed to preserve their lives against any form of external violence and harassment” (Regilme 2020, 513). Participants also stressed the importance of delegitimizing violence. This view is in line with Galtung’s (1990, 291) idea of eliminating cultural violence; that is, “any aspect of a culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct or structural form.” This also aligns with other scholars’ belief that peace should be achieved by nonviolent measures only and provides evidence of the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance, critiquing the assumptions, attitudes, and values that deem violence as necessary to assert power or create social change (see Sharp 1973; Stephan and Chenoweth 2008).

While Olivius and Åkebo (2021) rightly emphasized the plurality of visions of peace, there is an alignment of values among our participants concerning what positive peace incorporates. Through their focus on equity and inclusion, participants advocate for addressing unjust structures and material conditions. This is in accordance with the conceptualization of holistic peace offered by Hansen (2016) and with the proposal of UNESCO (2018) to refer to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for positive peace measures. Through their focus on social cohesion and democracy, human rights, and freedoms, participants support creating a more just and humane intergroup and interpersonal relationships (which can also be found in the writings of peace scholars such as Reardon 1988, 1995). This emphasis aligns with Reardon’s (1993) proposal to use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for indicators of positive peace.

Importantly, participants emphasized the need to address intergroup hatred and create collaborative spaces for mutual learning and relationship and trust building. This finding ties well with Ragandang’s (2024) proposal of the importance of redressing historical grievances in peacebuilding, including by introducing inclusive and participatory approaches to peacebuilding. Participants’ views also show an alignment with what Toran Hansen highlighted: that “peace is more lived than it is achieved” (as cited in Premaratna 2019). In our participants’ voices, there is a focus on “living” peace as continuous individual and group work toward respect, acknowledgment, and recognition; societal transformation; and relationship building. Also, while we do not dispute Regilme’s (2020, 512) argument that the definitional boundaries of peace are “malleable and difficult to analytically pin down,” our participants’ voices show clarity in how they conceptualize peace and what values they attach to it.

Unlike the positive peace measures proposed by the Institute for Economics and Peace (2024), participants’ conceptualizations did not include any discussion of eradicating corruption, creating an inclusive business environment, or building an effective and open government. We speculate that this may be because these peace actors are primarily engaged in local community-based peacebuilding efforts, hence their focus on the individual, community, and intergroup levels of peacebuilding.

The focus on positive peace in our participants’ responses is a reminder of the urgency and importance of a comprehensive approach to prevent, transform, and end violent conflicts. It is our hope that evidence like this will help reignite interest in researching positive peace that, as Gleditsch, Nordkvelle, and Strand (2014, 145) note, “has largely evaporated.”

CONCLUSION

This essay presented findings from an international study that explored conceptualizations of peace by local peace actors. While the study is small scale and is not generalizable, research like this is important to understand what local peace actors value and work toward to support local peacebuilding. Such findings can help to determine what theoretical orientations and variables align with visions, values, and aspirations of communities affected by violence, to shape and improve (and, if necessary, reorient) peacebuilding efforts and processes. In this study, we find a strong focus on nurturing social cohesion by investing in intergroup trust and relationships building; redressing inequities and creating inclusive structures; and protecting and promoting everyone’s rights and freedoms by building a democratic society.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the participants of this study for their time and for sharing their valuable insights and ideas, as well as reviewers for their constructive feedback and valuable suggestions.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust under Grant SRG20\200232.

Notes on contributors

Yulia Nesterova

Yulia Nesterova, Ph.D., is an interdisciplinary social science researcher based at the University of Glasgow, Scotland. Her research focuses on peace education, community engagement in peacebuilding, and youth-inclusive peacebuilding. Yulia co-led the development of a strategy on youth engagement in preventing violent extremism through education and of a framework for the Together for Peace program for Asia-Pacific, both for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. She is part of the leadership team of the Justice, Insecurities and Fair Decision-Making Interdisciplinary Research Group at Glasgow and a member of the International Working Group on Youth, Peace, and Security at FBA, the Swedish Agency for Peace, Security and Development. Email: [email protected]

Eun-Ji Amy Kim

Dr. Eun-Ji Amy Kim, an interdisciplinary researcher, explores education’s intersections with science, culture, and society. Her work, reflected in publications and global collaborations, aims to transform education. With a decade of cross-cultural experience, she consults for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, contributing to global citizenship education, and engages with community-driven change. Email: [email protected]

Appendix

I. Survey questions

Prior Experience of Conflict

1. What does conflict mean to you? What is the nature and form of conflict/violence in your context?

2. Have the processes to end/transform it and/or transition from it been successful? Please give examples of what went successfully and what did not, including who led the processes. Views on Peace and Peacebuilding

3. What do “peace” and “achieving/building peace” mean to you in your context?

4. Where does Peacebuilding occur in your community? And who does it include? (for example, from the private home space to the public community space)

5. Do you think your perceptions on “peace” and how to achieve/build peace differ from the common understandings within your community setting? If so, how and why?

6. Do you think there are any differences between international and local approaches to peacebuilding? If so, what are the differences? How does it impact the process of achieving peace? Examples from Practice

7. What are the main challenges you experience in your work toward peace?

8. What actions have you taken to overcome these challenges?

9. Have they been successful?

   1. If they have been successful, what knowledge, skills, experiences, and partners helped you to make a positive change?

   2. If they haven’t been successful, what prevented the success?

10. Have you received any support from other organizations or individuals in your work?

    1. If yes, please give some examples of such support and why it was successful or unsuccessful in supporting you.

    2. If not, why was there no support available in your context/for your work?

11. We would like to ask you to think about what kind of support would help you or your organization to work more effectively toward peace. Please think about:

    1. What activities should constitute a holistic work toward peace in your context?

    2. What local knowledges and ways of working together should people rely on when working toward peace in your context?

    3. What resources do you need to support such work?

    4. What partnerships should be formed and what roles each partner should take on?

    5. What type of relationships should be built between and among different partners? Role of Education in Peacebuilding

12. Education and learning are often overlooked in peacebuilding. Do they play a role in peacebuilding in your context?

13. What do you think the role of education and learning should be in peacebuilding?

14. Do you have examples of educational and/or learning approaches or projects implemented to build peace in your context? If yes, please tell us more about those (for example: What was the nature of the activity? Who organized it and who participated? What was the outcome and was it successful?)

II. Storytelling webinars

The webinars were based on the facilitator’s own methodology, which we cannot share, but it was built around the following questions:

1. How does the word “peace” translate to your language and culture?

2. What does peace mean to you and for your community?

3. What threats/how is violence experienced in your community? How would you respond? Where?

4. How to achieve peace you envision in your context?

III. Mapping exercise on Padlet: Questions

Padlet 1: Consultations

Participants were asked to discuss the following issues on Padlet:

1. How does the word “peace” translate to your language and culture?

2. What threats/how is violence experienced in your community? How would you respond? Where?

3. What does reconciliation mean in your context?

4. What approaches to building peace and reconciliation are used in your context and who leads and owns them?

5. Have these approaches been successful? Please discuss reasons for success and/or failure.

6. What “building peace”/”peacebuilding” and reconciliation should be in your context? Think about who should lead it, who should own it, what knowledge and ways of knowing and working together should be relied on.

7. Have you or anyone else in your context tried to implement this alternative approach to peacebuilding and reconciliation? If yes, what have the results been? Why have they been successful/unsuccessful?

8. What is blocking/barriers to peace and reconciliation in your context?

9. What alternative solutions can help you to overcome these barriers?

Padlet 2: Mapping

Participants were asked to use Padlet platform to contribute to the activity of mapping the following aspects required for local, community-driven peacebuilding:

Resources (e.g., financial, technical, capacity building)

Partnerships (stakeholders and actors from local to international level)

Roles (duties and responsibilities of each partner)

Relationships (how partners engage with and relate to each other, how they support each other)

Processes (activities for a holistic action on the ground, including accountability, policy development and compliance, M&E (monitoring and evaluation))