Volume 39, Issue 1, March 2023, Pages 13–24
Bidu Ibrahim1
1 Centre for Peace Studies, The Arctic University of , UiT, Tromso, Norw, Norway
Original language: English
Copyright © 2023 ISSR Journals. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Peacebuilding aims to prevent relapse into conflict in countries or communities that are regarded as ‘post conflict’. Peace building initiatives may be structured or described in different ways. A common description based on the vertical implementation of the peacebuilding efforts as well as their level of inclusivity. Hence, peacebuilding efforts may be undertaken in a top-down or bottom-up approach. Top-down approaches have been criticized as elitist and fostering exclusion. This has led to a push for the inclusion of local actors in the top-down peacebuilding interventions in what is sometimes described as multitrack implementation. By examining the strength and drawbacks of both approaches, this article seeks to clarify the areas of tensions and possibilities of accommodation in a hybridization approach. In addition, by categorizing the local actors based on their characteristics and roles in their communities, the article seeks to demystify the concept of the local. This helps in visualizing how they may be incorporated into interventions. Local actors can provide entry points, consultancy and partnerships in research. Collaboration in form of locally led analysis, planning and implementation can be explored. Supporting local businesses and the private sector may mitigate likely sources of instability. External actors can also provide funding to facilitate the peacebuilding processes.
Author Keywords: Peace, conflict, local, local ownership, liberal peacebuilding, hybridity, hybridization.
Bidu Ibrahim1
1 Centre for Peace Studies, The Arctic University of , UiT, Tromso, Norw, Norway
Original language: English
Copyright © 2023 ISSR Journals. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Peacebuilding aims to prevent relapse into conflict in countries or communities that are regarded as ‘post conflict’. Peace building initiatives may be structured or described in different ways. A common description based on the vertical implementation of the peacebuilding efforts as well as their level of inclusivity. Hence, peacebuilding efforts may be undertaken in a top-down or bottom-up approach. Top-down approaches have been criticized as elitist and fostering exclusion. This has led to a push for the inclusion of local actors in the top-down peacebuilding interventions in what is sometimes described as multitrack implementation. By examining the strength and drawbacks of both approaches, this article seeks to clarify the areas of tensions and possibilities of accommodation in a hybridization approach. In addition, by categorizing the local actors based on their characteristics and roles in their communities, the article seeks to demystify the concept of the local. This helps in visualizing how they may be incorporated into interventions. Local actors can provide entry points, consultancy and partnerships in research. Collaboration in form of locally led analysis, planning and implementation can be explored. Supporting local businesses and the private sector may mitigate likely sources of instability. External actors can also provide funding to facilitate the peacebuilding processes.
Author Keywords: Peace, conflict, local, local ownership, liberal peacebuilding, hybridity, hybridization.
How to Cite this Article
Bidu Ibrahim, “Hybridization approach in the inclusion of local actors in top-down peacebuilding initiatives,” International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 13–24, March 2023.
