Advertisement

A Typology of Mid-Space Local Bridge-Builders

  • Yuji Uesugi
  • Megumi Kagawa
Chapter
Part of the Security, Development and Human Rights in East Asia book series (SDHRP)

Abstract

This chapter develops a typology of ‘mid-space local bridge-builders’ who move across different cleavages in a conflict-prone society to facilitate dialogue among competing stakeholders. It employs relevant concepts such as gatekeepers and spoilers to connect the dots between the outcomes of peacebuilding and the roles and functions that ‘mid-space local bridge-builders’ can play in a peace process. Gatekeepers hold keys to three different gateways: (1) horizontal (between contending communities), (2) vertical (between the national/top leaders and the grassroots/bottom of the society) and (3) diagonal (between local and international actors) gates. Under certain circumstances and by performing specific intermediary functions, gatekeepers can bridge horizontal, vertical and diagonal gaps, effectively turning to ‘mid-space local bridge-builders’. This chapter argues that bridge-building is done through ‘relational dialogue platforms’ on which different stakeholders meet and shape the nature of hybrid peacebuilding, and it discusses the conceptual models for such platforms.

Keywords

Mid-space Gatekeepers Bridge-builders Spoilers Dialogue platforms 

References

  1. Belloni, R. (2012). Hybrid Peace Governance: Its Emergence and Significance. Global Governance, 18, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björkdahl, A., et al. (2016). Introduction: Peacebuilding Through the Lends of Friction. In A. Björkdahl et al. (Eds.), Peacebuilding and Friction: Global and Local Encounters in Post-Conflict Societies. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Boege, V., Brown, A., Clements, K., & Nolan, A. (2008). On Hybrid Political Orders and Emerging States: State Formation in the Context of ‘Fragility’. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.Google Scholar
  4. Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Clements, K. (2009). Internal Dynamics and External Interventions. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 21(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clements, K. (2014). What Is Legitimacy and Why Does It Matter for Peace? Accord: An International Review of Peace Initiatives, 25, 13–17.Google Scholar
  7. Clements, K. P., et al. (2007). State Building Reconsidered: The Role of Hybridity in the Formation of Political Order. Political Science, 59, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Das, R. H. (2018). External Peacebuilders and the Search for Legitimacy: The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy in Kashmir. In C. R. Mitchell & L. E. Hancock (Eds.), Local Peacebuilding and National Peace: Interaction Between Grassroots and Elite Processes (pp. 84–101). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  9. Diamond, L., & McDonald, J. (1996). Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace (3rd ed.). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  10. Donais, T. (2012). Peacebuilding and Local Ownership: Post-conflict Consensus-building. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Hameiri, S., Hughes, C., & Scarpello, F. (2017). International Intervention and Local Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hancock, L. E., & Mitchell, C. R. (2018). Between Local and National Peace: Complementarity or conflict. In L. E. Hancock & C. R. Mitchell (Eds.), Local Peacebuilding and Legitimacy: Interactions Between National and Local Levels (pp. 222–236). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hellmüller, S. (2014). Owners or Partner? A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Local Ownership. In S. Hellmüller & M. Santschi (Eds.), Is Local Beautiful?: Peacebuilding Between International Interventions and Locally Led Initiatives (pp. 257–570). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hellmüller, S. (2018). The Interaction Between Local and International Peacebuilding Actors: Partners for Peace. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hellmüller, S. and Santschi, M. (Eds.). (2014). Is Local Beautiful? Peacebuilding between International Interventions and Locally Led Initiatives. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Hermann, M. G., & Gerard, C. (2009). The Contributions of Leadership to the Movement from Violence to Incorporation. In B. W. Dayton & L. Kriesberg (Eds.), Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding (pp. 30–44). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Interpeace. (2016). Building Bridges for Sustaining Peace. Annual Report 2016.Google Scholar
  18. Kagawa, M. (2017). The Role of Gatekeepers in the Mid-level in Peacebuilding: A Case of Bangsamoro, Southern Philippines. An unpublished paper presented at the Hybrid Peacebuilding Workshop at Waseda University on 22nd November 2017.Google Scholar
  19. Keethaponcalan, S. I. (2017). Conflict Resolution: An Introduction to Third Party Intervention. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  20. Keethaponcalan, S. I. (2019). Post-war Dilemmas of Sri Lanka: Democracy and Reconciliation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lederach, J. P. (2005). The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, S. (2019). Local Ownership in Asian Peacebuilding: Development of Local Peacebuilding Models. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, S., & Özerdem, A. (Eds.). (2015). Local Ownership in International Peacebuilding: Key Theoretical and Practical Issues. Oxon and NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Leonardsson, H., & Rudd, G. (2015). The ‘Local Turn’ in Peacebuilding: A Literature Review of Effective and Emancipatory Local Peacebuilding. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 825–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mac Ginty, R. (2015). Where Is the Local? Critical Localism and Peacebuilding. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 840–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mac Ginty, R., & Richmond, O. (2013). The Local Turn in Peace Building: A Critical Agenda for Peace. Third World Quarterly, 34(5), 763–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mac Ginty, R., & Richmond, O. (2016). The Fallacy of Constructing Hybrid Political Orders: A Reappraisal of the Hybrid Turn in Peacebuilding. International Peacekeeping, 23(2), 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell, C. R. (2006). Conflict, Social Change and Conflict Resolution: An Enquiry. In D. Bloomfield, M. Fischer, & B. Schmelzle (Eds.), Social Change and Conflict Transformation (Berghof Handbook Dialogue No. 5) (pp. 12–36). Berlin: Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, C. R. (2012). Introduction: Linking National-Level Peacemaking with Grassroots Peacebuilding. In C. R. Mitchell & L. E. Hancock (Eds.), Local Peacebuilding and National Peace: Interaction Between Grassroots and Elite Processes (pp. 1–18). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, C. (2018). By What Right? Competing Sources of Legitimacy in Intractable Conflict. In L. E. Hancock & C. Mitchell (Eds.), Local Peacebuilding and Legitimacy: Interactions Between National Local Levels (pp. 1–19). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Mitchell, C. R., & Hancock, L. E. (Eds.). (2012). Local Peacebuilding and National Peace: Interaction Between Grassroots and Elite Processes. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  33. Paffenholz, T. (2015). Unpacking the Local Turn in Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment Towards an Agenda for Future Research. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 857–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pruitt, D., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement (3rd ed.). New York and London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Richmond, O. P., & Mitchell, A. (2012). Introduction—Towards a Post-Liberal Peace: Exploring Hybridity via Everyday Forms of Resistance, Agency and Autonomy. In O. P. Richmond & A. Mitchell (Eds.), Hybrid Forms of Peace: From Everyday Agency to Post-Liberalism (pp. 1–38). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stedman, S. J. (2000). Spoiler Problems in Peace Processes. In P. C. Stern & D. Druckman (Eds.), International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War (pp. 178–224). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  37. Svensson, I., & Lindgren, M. (2013). Peace from the Inside: Exploring the Role of the Insider-Partial Mediator. International Interactions, 39(5), 698–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallis, J., Kent, L., Forsyth, M., Dinnen, S., & Bose, S. (2018). Hybridity on the Ground in Peacebuilding and Development: Critical Conversations. Acton: ANU Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wehr, P., & Lederach, J. P. (1991). Mediating Conflict in Central America. Journal of Peace Research, 28(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams, D. (2015). Leadership for a Fractured World: How to Cross Boundaries, Build Bridges, and Lead Change. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuji Uesugi
    • 1
  • Megumi Kagawa
    • 2
  1. 1.Professor, Faculty of International Research and EducationWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Former Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Hiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations