mapping a process - ict4peace.org › ... › 09 › mapping-a-process1.pdf · the mapping of a...
Post on 25-Jun-2020
17 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaYajithaHattotuwa,
InfoShare
sanjana@info‐share.org
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
IntroductionPeace inSriLanka ischaracterisedontheonehandbyanemphasisonthe constitutionaland legal
frameworks necessary to under‐gird the transformation to a new social contract in support of
sustainablepeace.On theother, there is limitedemphasisonprocess,of theneed to consider the
qualitativenatureofpeacebuildingandconstructparticipatoryandholisticframeworksinsupportof
transformativedialogues.
Sandwiched between the two, the shared aspirations of communities in Sri Lanka for an end to
violentconflictremainmuted.Thedesignandconductofapeaceprocessthatisabletocaptureand
givevoicethesemutedaspirationsremainsdistant.
The interactionswithinandbetweenparties to the conflict after theCeasefireAgreement (CFA) in
February 2002 is best understood as an entente cordiale, wherein the positions of stakeholders
jostled for international acceptance amidst domestic displays of opportunism. The peace process
sufferedunderthegeneralmyopiaofpoliticalactorswhowieldedtheprocessasatoolforparochial
and short‐term gain. The inability to create an inclusive process is further corroded by persistent
spoiler dynamics, which bedevil efforts to construct a process that is simultaneously resilient and
sensitivetochanginggrounddynamics.
This vicious dynamic, of ill‐thought out process design leading inevitably to ill‐fated attempts at
sustainablepeacebuildingneedstobeculledinfavourofprocessesthatarebetterabletoengender
dialoguesinsupportofsustainableconflicttransformation.
Itistothisendthatthemappingofapeaceprocessassumessignificantimportance.Mappingapeace
processisanendeavourtomakesenseoftheactionsofactorsintheprocess.Itisaforwardthinking
and iterative exercise, in which non‐partisan cartographers of peace are helped by the political
architects of the process in a mutually strengthening dynamic. It looks at past experience in a
transformative light – observing the tendencies of stakeholders to react to process stimuli in a
negative of positive manner and using this knowledge to draw up processes that constantly
encouragepartiestorespondconstructivelytothedemandsplacedonthem.
Despitetheimportanceofmappingapeaceprocess,thereisalargevoidinexitingconflictresolution
literature on howbest to conduct and envision such an exercise.Mapping requires us to envision
frameworksthatgobeyondPeaceandConflictImpactAssessments(PCIA)andEarlyWarningSystems
(EWS).WhilewellestablishedinthecorpusofCRliterature,theseframeworksaffordlittleintheform
of foundation that help us understand the on‐going dynamics of a peace process. The author will
expandthispointinafollowingsection.
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
InexploringthepossibilitiesofconstructingamappingprocessforpeaceinSriLanka,thismonograph
engageswith the theoretical aspectsofprocessmappingand thenexplorespossibleways inwhich
such mapping exercises can be conducted. The author’s research into the creation of Computer
Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) systems to support negotiations and peacebuilding has fed
intothispaper,alongwithhisearlierworkon systemsdesignforearlywarning, conflictprevention
andthemitigationofcommunalviolenceusingtechnology.
Beginningwithabriefoutlineofwhatconstitutesaprocessandtheimportanceofmappingsuchan
activity, the monograph will follow through an examination of ‘wicked problems’ and the locale
foundation and then explore other frameworks that may be useful in the formulation of a
comprehensivemappingarchitectureforapeaceprocess.Endingwithsomebasicrecommendations
andablueprintthatsynthesisesthekeyaspectsofotherframeworks,themonographprimarilyaims
to stimulate further discussion on a relatively under‐developed topic within the existing academic
literatureonconflictmitigation.
Whatisaprocess?A good definition of a process describes it as a series of connected steps or actions to achieve an
outcome.Anyprocesshasthefollowingcharacteristics:
• astartingpointandanendpoint.
• apurposeoraimfortheoutcome
• rulesgoverningthestandardorqualityofinputsthroughouttheprocess
• itisusuallylinkedtootherprocesses
• itcanbesimpleandshort,orcomplexandlong
Apeaceprocess inthisrespect isnodifferentfromanyotherprocess.Conductedwithaprincipled
foundation, a peace process is a vehicle for societal transformation and the creation of new
covenants that recognise the full spectrumof diversity in a conflict zone and create conditions for
communal,cultural,religious,caste,ethnicandother individualandgroup identitiestoblossomand
co‐existwith eachother.Conversely, conducted inamanner that isunprincipledandwithwanton
disregardforunityindiversity,apeaceprocess,asinSriLanka,runstheriskofbeingderailed.
Apeaceprocessisnotcreatedfromether.Recognisingtheuniquesocio‐politicalandculturaltableau
ofpolityand society inSri Lanka for instance,apeaceprocessmust endeavour togivevoice toas
manydifferentsectionsofsocietyaspossibleinanefforttogarnervoicesinsupportofapluraland
justpeace.
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
Mapping thenbecomesanexercisewhichnotonlyhelps creates suchaprocess,butalsoactsasa
weathervaneof itson‐goingdynamics. Ifthereallitmustestofapeaceprocesslies inthedynamics
through which a peace agreement is negotiated, the comprehensivemapping of stakeholders and
issuescanhelpproactivelymitigateproblemsthatmayariseinconflicttransformation.
Whymap?Alerting levers of constructive change, influencing conflict transformation initiatives and shaping
processesmore resilienttospoilerdynamicsaresomeofthepotentialbenefitsthatcanbeaccrued
forthebenefitofallpartiesbymappingapeaceprocess.
Beyondthegainsfor individualstakeholdersintheprocess,mappinghelpscreateastrategicmacro,
meso and micro level blueprint for peace support operations. The strategic vision that the
cartographyofanon‐goingprocesscangivetomultiplestakeholderscanaidin:
• intheidentificationandisolationofdriversofconflict,includingtheinadvertentfall‐outfrom
ill‐thoughtprogramminginitiativesbyCSOsandINGOs
• the timely identification of socio‐political fault‐lines which can give rise to a fractured
process
• identificationofpositivereconciliationandpeacebuildingprocessesfromTrackIIItoTrackI
• cullanunhealthyemphasisandinterestinconflictdriversandinsteadfocusonthedriversof
peace
• identificationof synergieswithinandbetweenvarious tiersand stakeholders in thepeace
process
• renewedemphasisonprocessdesigninthelongtermasopposedtopiecemealapproaches
• the process of mapping itself is a meta level exercise that can bring together various
stakeholders to complement Track I to III activities and also initiatives such as One Text.
Mappingitselfbecomesacatalystforchange.
• theapplicationofadvanced technology, suchasGeographic InformationSystems (GIS) can
help in literal mapping exercises, where the impact of the peace process can be visually
analysed
• the creation of complementarymapping frameworks, that can be sectoral or issue based,
thatstrengthenourunderstandingoftheon‐goingpeaceprocessanditsconstituentactors
It is open for discussion as to howmapping architectures can feed into the top and centre heavy
political architectures in Sri Lanka. Whilemapping, as an exercise, gathers information in a highly
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
decentralised manner, the analysis and storage of this information needs to be conducted in an
accountableandtransparentmanner.
Mapping the peace process in Sri Lanka will not automatically guarantee actions on the ground
devoidofpartisanbias.Itisalsoimportanttorecognizethatpeoplewillrejectalmostanyoutcome‐
even a wise and fair one ‐ that they feel is a result of bad process. The process ofmappingmust
reflectthevalueswhichtheexerciseseekstoinstilluponthepeaceprocessitself–assuch,itmustbe
open,inclusive,participatoryandaccountabletothestakeholders.
Themappingofapeaceprocessmustalso constructand strengthen trust relationshipswithinand
between parties to the process of conflict transformation. Mapping is a process is inextricably
entwinedwith theother constituentactorsand factorsof the largerpeaceprocess.As such,meta
levelmappingexercisesneedtobedeeply cognizantofthetrickledowneffectoftheiractionsand
thehighlyinfluentialnatureoftheirworkandanalyses.
Discussionson safeguarding thebest interestsofpartiesandpreventing themisuseof information
throughspoilerdynamicsneedstoformacorepillarinthecreationofanoverarchingarchitecturefor
aprocessmappingexercise.
Mappingasa‘WickedProblem’The complexity of mapping peace processes is evocative of the issues explored in “Dilemmas in a
GeneralTheoryofPlanning”byRittelandWebber(1973),andespeciallythedivisionbetweenwicked
andtameproblems.AsFitzpatrickstates(2003:4)“Tameproblemsarethosethatcanbesolvedbya
sequential process going from complete unambiguous problem definition to correct solution via
establishedmethods; many traditional science and engineering problems fall into the category of
tameproblems”.
RittelandWebberarguethatwickedproblemsareverydifferent.Arisingmostly inthesocialrealm,
theauthorssubmitthattheaimoffindingsolutionsforwickedproblems“isnotfindthetruth,butto
improve some characteristics of the world where people live” (Rittel andWebber, 1973: 167). Key
propertiesofwickedproblems,asdefinedbyRittelandWebber, includethefollowing(asquotedin
Fitzpatrick,2003:4–5):
• There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. In fact, the problem is only
understoodprogressivelyassolutionsaredeveloped.
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
• Because problem definition and solution co‐evolve, and because there are no criteria for
determining when the problem is adequately defined, wicked problems have no internal
stoppingrules.
• Itisnotpossibletoexhaustivelyenumeratethesetofpossiblesolutions.
• Solutionstowickedproblemsarenevertrueorfalsebutinsteadarequalitativelyjudgedas
betterorworse.A‘satisficing’or‘goodenough’solutionistherealisticgoal.
• There can be no immediate, ultimate, or definitive test of a solution because the
consequencescanpossiblyextendacrosstimeinanynumberofways.
• Becauseevery solutionhas (possiblyunknowable) consequences, rigorousexperimentation
ofpossiblesolutionsisnotpossible.
• The process of solving a wicked problem is inherently non‐linear. Progress is defined
qualitatively in terms of how much more is understood about the problem rather than
distancefromthesolution.
• Everyinstanceofawickedproblemisessentiallyunique.
• Everywickedproblemcanbeconsideredtobeasymptomofanotherproblem.Theproblem
shouldbesettledonashighalevelaspossible.
• Thereareanumberofstakeholderswhoareinterestedinhowawickedproblemissolved.
• Eachcouldmakedifferentqualitativejudgementsaboutthenatureoftheproblemandthe
valueofthesolution.
Peaceprocessesare inherentlywickedproblemsandhavenoeasy ‘resolution’.There isnoultimate
goal for peace processes – peace itself is not an endpoint or destination, rather a concept that
nourishestheprocessesoftransformingviolentconflict.
Aholistic approach topeacebuilding requiresasdetailed amapaspossibleof themultiple tiersof
conflicttransformation–thedialogues,the interventions, thetensions,the linkages,the loopholes,
thecaveats.Thepossibilitiesofaparticularpeacebuildingprocessareonlyevidentifacomprehensive
macro,mesoandmicrolevelmapofpeacebuildingisdrawn,andiscontinuallyrevisedandupdated.
Lookingatpeaceprocessmappingasawickedproblemenablesustocreatesolutionsthatarerooted
in reality, as opposed to academic models that may have little relevance to the way in which a
processisconductedinreallife.
The objective of process mapping is to evolve ‘satisficing’ solutions ‐ to use the term coined by
HerbertSimon(1960).Satisficingisanalternativetooptimizationforcaseswheretherearemultiple
(usuallyconflicting)objectives,inwhichonegivesuptheideaofobtainingthe‘best’solution.Inthis
approachonesetslowerboundsforthevariousobjectivesthat,ifattained,willbe‘goodenough’and
thenseeksa solutionthatwillexceedthesebounds.Thesatisficer'sphilosophy isthat in real‐world
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
problems there are too many uncertainties and conflicts in values for there to be any hope of
obtainingatrueoptimizationandthatitisfarmoresensibletosetouttodo‘wellenough’(butbetter
thanhasbeendonepreviously).
Thepointhereisthatprocessmappingisasciencethatwillneverbehonedtoapointofperfection.
The frameworks that are designed by the cartographers and architects today will lead to and be
replacedbymorenuancedunderstandingsof theexercise itself and theprocesseswhicharebeing
mapped.
Thisapproachlendsitselftothelocalesframework,whichasexplainedinthenextsection,alsodeals
with the impossibility of creating architectures that are rooted in time, place and context that can
mapdynamicandfluidprocess.
Themappingexerciseitselfhastobeiterative,fluidandasdynamic,reflectingtheinherentnatureof
thepeaceprocessitself.
LocalesFramework
Thedefinitionof localeasanongoing relationship betweenpeople inaparticular socialworld isof
pivotal importance to conflict transformation, which places an emphasis on understanding the
ongoingprocessandopposedtoafinalsettlementorpeaceagreement.Thelocaleframeworkallows
forthe“complex,dynamicandsituationinteractionalaspectsofworktobeaccountedforbutnotin
isolationfromwhereandhowthoseinteractionshappen”(Fitzpatrick2003:91).ToquoteFitzpatrick,
thelocaleframeworkconcernsitselfwith:
“The design of systems that support human activity, communication and interaction is a
wickedproblem.Morethanbeinganengineeringproblem,thedesignofsuchsocio‐technical
systemsisessentiallyasocialrealmproblemwherethesystemsaremeanttofitintocomplex
social contexts and help people in their daily lives, where there are multiple stakeholders
fromboththedevelopmentcontextandtheusecontext,wherethedefinitionoftheproblem
andthesolutionco‐evolveovertimeandwherethesolutionscanonlybejudgedasbetteror
worseratherthanrightorwrong.”(2003:4‐5)
Theauthorhasinearlierworkexaminedtheviabilityoftechnologyinpeacebuildinginregionscoming
out of protracted ethno‐political conflict (Hattotuwa, 2004). This earlier work was based on the
LocalesFramework to createbasic foundations for the conceptualisationof frameworks& systems
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
thatusedCSCW/ ICT toaddress the complexitiesofpeacebuilding.To recapitulatebriefly, the five
aspectsofGeraldineFitzpatrick’sformulationofthe localeframework(2003)werere‐formulatedto
fitpeacebuildinginthefollowingmanner:
1. LocaleFoundations
The socio‐political underpinnings that create sites of dialogue & intercourse within a peace
process.Theseinterlinkedsites,orlocales,servetoprovidethestakeholdersinapeaceprocess
themeansthroughwhichtheirvoice isheard,andalso,themeansthroughwhichtheiraction
is channelled. The locales both shape the qualitative nature of the discussions contained
therein,andinturn,areshapedbythetimbreoftheexchangesthattakeplacewithinit.
2. CivicStructure
Thebroaderpaletteuponwhich localesarerelatedto‐asFitzpatrick(2003:10)notes,these
arethe“social,political,organisational,material,cultural,legislative,contractual,technological
and broader‐sphere issues”. Furthermore, in a peace process, these also include communal
hagiography, personal trauma and histories, identity groupings, secessionist tendencies,
fractured memories and a smorgasbord of other social ills that invariably colour the social
fabricincountriessufferingfromprotractedethno‐politicalconflict.
3. IndividualViews
Apeaceprocessmayseeaparticularlybelligerentindividualchangetackinotherareas,orvice
versa,wherean individualwho is seen tobeprogressive inmacro issues tries to stubbornly
micromanagethefineprintof certainkey issues. Individualviewstakenoteofthis fact,and
identifies thevariedperspectivesand lenses throughwhich individuals view the same locale,
andasFitzpatricknotestheaggregatedviewofmultiplelocalesinwhichthatindividualmaybe
partof.
4. InteractionTrajectory
Localesarehardlyeverstaticinpeaceprocesses,oftentimeschangingtheircontoursdaily.This
fluid dynamic and temporality is captured in interaction trajectory, which tries to map the
interactionswithinandbetweenlocalesoveratime.
5. Mutuality
Therecognitionandacknowledgementofamultiplicityofviewpointsthatexistsimultaneously
in a vigorous dynamic in a particular locale. Mutuality is important in itself, but also in the
effectitcreates–thatoutcomesandprocessesaretheresultofmanystakeholdersworkingin
parallel,withtheobjectivebeingtoengenderharmoniousworkingrelationshipsasopposedto
divisiveandbitterinvective.
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
Ifthediagramaboveisunderstoodasamapthroughwhicheventsandprocessescanbeviewedand
understoodwithinanon‐goingpeaceprocess,itisevidentthatmappingsuchaprocessrequiresthe
co‐existence of multiple viewpoints and frameworks that are attentive to various issues, actors,
internal/externalfactorsandotherstimulithatcollectivelyshapeapeaceprocess1.
The author submits the importance of recognising the symbiosis betweenmapping a process and
creatingaprocessthatisinformedbysuchamappingexercise.Theprocessandmappingexercisewill
exist in a mutually strengthening dynamic – the more comprehensive the mapping, the better
informed thechiefarchitectsof theprocesswillbe to constructaprocess that is able toavoid the
pitfallsofpreviousattemptsatnegotiationsandpeacebuilding.Ofcourse,theanalysesresultingfrom
mappingpeaceprocesseswillhavetobenecessarilyjuxtaposedagainstthepoliticalwillnecessaryto
under‐girdallactioninsupportofsustainablepeacebuilding.
The importanceof the locales frameworkalso lies in its ability tomappoliticalwill.Whilemapping
frameworkscanleadtoabetteracademicunderstandingofaprocess,iftheobjectiveoftheexercise
1 Note that the diagram was first used by the author to explain computer supported virtual negotiations systems – hence the references technology
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
is to proactively shape the design and implementation of a peace process, we need to map the
dynamicsofhowwellmappinganalyseswillbeacceptedbythosedrivingtheprocess.
The followingmatrixbroadly examinesSri Lanka through the locales framework2.While thematrix
doesnotaimtobeanexhaustiveexaminationofthedynamicsofthepeaceprocess, itattemptsto
outlinethecontoursofthesocio‐politicalcomplexitiesinthepeaceprocessinSriLanka.
LocaleFoundation CivicStructure IndividualViews InteractionTrajectory Mutuality
Track1
Government/Non‐state(LTTE)/Muslimparties(SLMC,NUA)
Stateadministration/paralleladministrativeandlegalframeworkssetupinareasofrebelcontrolDonorstructuressetupthroughGovtlineministriesandparallelstructuressetupthroughLTTEpoliticalofficesandhumanitarianorganisationsBi‐lateralandmulti‐lateraldonordriveninterventions[A]
Statevs.Non‐stateframesandperspectivesofconflicttransformationLTTEhegemonyinNorth‐Eastvs.unitarymindsetofSriLankaGovt.InabilityoftheLTTEtoaddresstheconcernsandfearsofMuslimsintheNorth‐EastPerceptionsofpartisanbiasoftheceasefiremonitoringbody(SLMM)andNorwegianfacilitation[B]
Contestationofviewpointsleadstoamalgamation,divergenceandrecognitionofdiversityFrictionbetweentheLTTEandGovt.leadstofearoftheresumptionofconflictinallthreetiersGlimmersofhopeinjointmechanismarchitecturesfortsunamiaiddelivery[C]
Govt.agencies/lineministriesneedtorelyonLTTEfacilitationLTTE/non‐stateactorsneedCeasefireAgreementtocontinuetooperateinGovt.heldareasTsunamidevastationtoovastfortheLTTEtoaddressaloneGovt.cannotaddressthedevastationwithoutthesupportandcooperationoftheLTTE[D]
Track2
CSOs/NGOs/CBOsincl.LTTE’sTRO(HumanitarianFront)
LTTEreliefandrehabilitationNGO(TRO)OrganisationswithlinkstograssrootspeacebuildingnetworksoperatinginthevernacularDonorfundedCBOs/NGOs/CSOsAlternativeDisputeResolutionmechanisms–village/communitylevel(operatingintheswabasha)[E]
CBOsdealingwithhumanrights,childrights,reconciliationAlternativeDisputeResolutionMechanismsReligiousleadersandtheirimpactoncommunitydisputeresolutionVice‐ChancellorsoftheUniversitiesintheregion,whoinfluencetheactivismofstudents[F]
NosustainablepeacewithoutcollaborationReconciliationorgs–nopeacewithoutforgivenessNocohesivepeacepossiblewithoutinformationsharingConflictpreventionispredicatedonsharinginformationbetween/withincommunities[G]
Sinhala/Tamil/MuslimcommunitiesneedtoworktogetherforpeaceTheLTTEandGovt.needeachotherFearsofallcommunitiesneedstobeaddressedholisticallyAtthebasicminimum,theagonisticrelationshipsnecessarytomaintainharmonioussocialrelations[H]
Track3
Grassrootsorganisations–peacecommittees,AlternativeDisputeResolutionmechanisms,peaceactivists
Selffundedorganisations,operatinginthevernacular(SinhalaorTamil)doingworkwithcommunitiesonthegroundWorkofsolitarypeaceactivistsandcommunityleaders[I]
FearsofTrack1processesbythecommunitiesonthegroundInabilitytoarticulatefearstothosewhomakedecisionsthataffecttheirlivesFearsofmarginalisationinapeaceagreement[J]
Communitiesbroadlyfearthesamethings–security,food,shelter,freedomfromfear‐irrespectiveofgeographicallocationandethnicity[K]
Overlappingfearsandconcernsfeedoffstereotypesofthe‘Other’.Exposuretothehumanityofallandsharedconcernsopensclosedminds.[L]
2 This framework was drawn by the author to examine the dynamics in the NE of Sri Lanka in an earlier paper.
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
Thecomplexityasdemonstrated intheabovetable is furthercompoundedbythepresenceoftwo
languages(Sinhala&Tamil),whollydifferentfromeachotherandtheassociatedpoliticsoflanguage
usage, the existence of state and non‐state actors proscribed in some countries as terrorists (the
LTTE) and questions about the cost (financial & human) of collaboration between these various
entities, which some argue may outweigh its benefits. To this end, the locales framework again
providesamapthroughwhichlocal/grassrootslevelsengagementswithkeyactorsintheregioncan
in turn influence higher level processes and actors to collaborate on shared ideals for sustainable
peace.
Thismonograph submits thatmapping the complex interactions within and between these tiers is
essential for the sustainability of the peace process. It is impossible to grasp the possibilities for
peacebuildingusingsimplisticcategoriesofconflicttransformationthatexpungetherichtexturesof
interactivity and symbiotic relationships that exist within and between various communities,
stakeholders, tiers and processes. For instance, using the above table, perceptions of communities
that reside in [L] directly influence [A], but are informed by processes in [F] and [G]. Likewise,
recognisingandacknowledgingthatmutuallybeneficialcollaborationisrequiredtocreatesustainable
peace in [D] need to take into account the actions of [E] and the concerns and fears in [H]. It is
imperativethatactorsin[A]buildfoundationsfornegotiationsontherichcorpusofsharedinterests
that reside in [K], address the concerns stemming from [J], strengthen the work in [I] and work
towards[D]bystrengtheningactivitiesinTrack2.WhilemuchoftheproblemsintheSriLankanpeace
processstemfromthefactthatactorsandprocessesin[A]to[D]continuetoisolatevoicesfrom[I]to
[L]andignoreconstructivecriticismfrom[E]to[H].Thisproblemisfurthercompoundedbythe lack
ofinformationsharingwithinthesevarioussections.
Insum,theinteractionswithinandbetweentheLocaleFoundation,CivicStructure,IndividualViews,
InteractionTrajectoryandMutualitycanformthebasisforamappingarchitecturethatmeasuresand
analysestheseinteractioninordertopaintacomprehensiveprocess
Peacebuilding frameworks that are attendant to the need for such rich cross‐fertilisation of
knowledge, information and experience are incredibly difficult to design, implement and sustain in
therealworld.Importantly,thelocaleframeworkrecognisesthedifferentperspectivesofeachentity
involvedinaspecificlocale,becauseoftheirsingularrelationshipwithitonaccountoftheirhistorical
associationsand futureaspirations. In suchwickedproblems, it is virtually impossible toattainany
degreeofobjectivityinthesearchforaperfectsolutionthatmapsallviewpoints.
Furthermore,anyexaminationofcomplexterrainsofpeacebuildinginagivenlocaleisalsocoloured
by one’s own perspective. Thus, the research and design of mapping architectures for peace
processesmustaddressdynamicsthatarebroughttotheprocessbyotherparties.Putanotherway,
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
mapping systems need to be sufficiently robust to grapplewith conflicting viewpoints of the same
locale–anexampleofaverybadmappingframeworkfor instancecouldbeonethatdoesn’tallow
participantsthefreedomtoexplore ideaswithstakeholdersoutsidetheframework,therebystifling
attemptstouseprocessmappingasatoolthatsupportsinterpartydialogueandtrustbuilding.
Frameworksformappingaprocess
Thedifficultyof imagininga single framework forprocessmapping that cancapture the textureof
interactions within and between various actors in a peace process strongly suggests the need for
multipleandcomplementaryframeworksthatlookataprocessthroughacombinationofviewpoints
basedonactors,issues,geographicalareas,events,perceptions,semanticanalysis,mediamonitoring
etc. In doing so, it might be possible to envision comprehensive quantitative and qualitative
frameworks that can, together and in a holistic manner, feed into analyses that proactively guide
peaceprocessdesign.
Based on a framework formapping violent conflict that is explored inPeace Research for the 21st
Century published by the Institute for Research on Ethnicity and Conflict Resolution (IRECOR)3 the
followingmacroframeworkdemonstratesapossiblepointofdepartureforsomeoftheframeworks
envisionedabove:
(1) peacepotential:onregional,local&internationallevels;
(2) conflictpotential:onregional,local&internationallevels;
(3) differentactors:theirmotivation,interest;openandhiddenagendas;
(4) history:genesis/originsofdestructivegroupinteraction;
(5) causesanddrivingforcesoftheconflict:rootcauses;(im)mediatecauses;
(6) analysisofantagonismandincompatibilities
(7) dynamics of peace: escalators/de‐escalators; actors / factors / Track 1 to Track 3
potential
(8) essentialsoftheideologyofthewarringparties
(9) aims/objectivesofdifferentactors:politicalparties;nationalists;civicandcivilsociety
movements;NGOs;
(10) leaders and masses: representation; the relationship between leadership and their
politicalconstituencies;the rolesof leaders;examiningpeace relatedcontent inpublic
speechesandmediareleases
3 http://transcend.org/Peace%20Research%20for%20the%2021%20Century.doc
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
(11) resources and economic factors: land and territory, financial resources, human
resources,internationalnetworks,diasporas;
(12) Inside / Outside forces: currents for peace within parties, between parties, within Sri
Lanka and those which are supported by the international community and diaspora
(f)actors
(13) peacefulconflictsettlement:conditions,form,criteria;
Studies such as the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAPS) survey by the Centre for Policy
Alternatives (CPA)4 can support the exploration of some of these issues, especially using the full
dataset of the survey samples, ofwhich only a fraction is published in the report available online.
Furthermore, studies that have analysed the changing perceptions of peace, such as the Peace
ConfidenceIndex(PCI)5canalsosupportsuchframeworks,byprovidingindicatorsformeasuringthe
healthofapeaceprocess.
For instance,theKAPsurveyconstructsapeacetypologyforSriLankathatexploresthesupportfor
peaceinthefollowingconstituencies:
1. ActivistOpponent
2. PassiveOpponent
3. ActivistSupporter
4. PassiveSupporter
The following diagram from the 2004 KAP Survey (2004: 25) shows the possibilities of amapping
frameworkthatisbasedontheexplorationofpeacesupportarchitecturesineachpoliticalpartyand
theirrespectiveconstituencies.Thetypology,whichisexplainedindetailinthereport,isaqualitative
mapofthepeaceconstituencies inSriLankabasedonage,gender,politicalaffiliation,geographical
location,ethnicandreligiousidentityetc.
4 http://www.cpalanka.org/research_papers/KAPS_2004_Final_Report.pdf 5 http://www.cpalanka.org/research_papers/PCI_19_topline_results.pdf
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
BasedonthefourtypologiesconstructedintheKAPsurvey,itwouldbepossibletoconstructmapsof
the divergent and convergent issues along with cross cutting issues of importance to all
constituencies. The ripple effectsof the introductionof various issueswithinandbetween eachof
these typologies can thenbemapped to createmodelsof socio‐political interactions that can feed
into future scenario exercises. Sophisticated statisticalmodels can also be developed in support of
such typologies, so thatmapping inter and intra party interactions can lead to genericmodels of
processdesignthatcanbetweakedtobestfittheneedsofaparticularpeaceprocess.
ThePeaceAudit frameworkoftheSouthAsiaForumforHumanRights(SAFHR) isalsouseful inthe
exploration of frameworks related to peace process mapping. It is possible to adopt the SAFHR
framework to fit the dynamics of the Sri Lanka peace process and expand on the Sri Lanka Peace
Auditconductedin20036:
i. The relative ineffectivenessoftheearlywarningsystemsandmethods,which call fortheir
radical overhaul, because these methods underestimate the stake of several actors in
conflictsandthestakeofseveralotheractorsinpeace;
ii. Thecriticalroleofceasefireinpeaceprocess;thedeterminantsofaceasefireagreement,as
wellastheopen‐endednatureofaceasefireagreement;conditionalities;
iii. Disarming of non‐state armed opposition and its relation with the agenda of
demilitarisation;
6 http://www.safhr.org/peace_audits.htm
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
iv. Theissueoflandinpeacesettlement;autonomyandautonomousarrangementssetupasa
resultofpeaceaccord;
v. The importance of the human rights and the humanitarian tasks, their links, and
determining the stage inwhich they appear as crucial elements in process; ways inwhich
thesetwotasksmeet,theirspecificsandcommonpoints;
vi. Theopen‐endedcharacterofapeaceaccord,itsinstrumentalnature,andthesignificanceof
thisinframingpublicpolicyonpeace;impactonwhatmaybecalledthe"policy‐fund";
vii. Listingofbasichumanrightsandhumanitarianissues;
viii. Peaceprocessandthepatriarchalnatureofmilitarypower;women's involvement inpeace
process,theemergenceofwomenasacriticalpeaceconstituency,itsimplications;
ix. Peacedialoguesatseverallevel;pluralityofthepeacequestionandthepeaceprocess;
x. Whatdoexactlywemeanbypublicvoice,publicmedia,andpublicopinioninpeaceprocess
– the constructed nature of this "public", themanipulatibility of a plastic medium in the
interestofcontinuingconflict,militarism,andwar;
xi. Nature of the availability of legal and constitutional remedies to an acute conflict, their
inadequacies,theneedforflexibility in juridicalthinking,pluraldialogues,andtheneedfor
legalpluralism;conflictandtheconstitutionaldeficit;
xii. Nature of participation in the audit exercise; the structuring of the agenda of audit, the
nature of confidential "transparency"; method of writing the report, victims' voices, the
rights‐language, making the audit exercise a middle‐ground for meeting of the minds
engagedinpeace‐building;andtakingthereporttothefield;
xiii. Making concrete studies on the "third dimension" of a conflict/peace scenario,whichwill
involve examinations of various options of indigenous conciliators / facilitators / outside
mediators/interventions/arbitration,etcandtheirspecificmandates;
xiv. Linkingtheparticipantsoftheauditwithotherhuman rightsandpeaceactivities,theywill
becomethenaturalleaders,astheywillbeendowedwithinsightsintotheextremecasesof
abuse of human rights, situations of vulnerability, victims turning into actors, and acute
conflict‐ridden societieswhichhave tomuster their inner depths indefenseof justiceand
dialogicpeace;
xv. Finally, taking peace audit as an act of democratising peace bymaking reconciliation "the
middle ground", examining the dynamics of reconciliation, and by practising through the
audit exercise a politics that is known as the art of the possible; the additional issue is
therefore‐howtorestoretopoliticsofpeacethevirtuesofcommonsense.
However,asSAFHRitselfnotes,“whilemostofthesewereclearlyestablishedastherequiredgoals,
nature,methods,andobjectsofapublic inquiry intopeaceprocess,SAFHRwillhavetodomore in
ordertodevelopthefindings intoageneraltheoryandprogrammeofademocraticpeacebuilding
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
exercise,makeitmoreinterventionistasapoliticaltechnique,andlinkpeaceauditwithotherpeace
buildingactivities”7.
Itisthese linkagesthatthemappingexercise inSriLanka ispredicatedupon.Withoutthenecessary
connections to other peace support activities, processmapping will be of little or no use to those
involvedingrassrootsorcivilsocietyactivism.
Process mapping needs to holistically link the various theories, typologies, methodologies,
frameworks, systems and frames. Combining the above, amapping framework should be founded
uponthefollowing,attheveryleast:
1. Media monitoring – print, electronic, web & internet, including political analysis and
commentary, emphasis on vernacularmedia as well as English, regional and international
pressreports,non‐statemedia
2. AggregationofmonthlysituationandanalysisreportsfromGovernmentandCSOs–Human
Security,EWS,Tsunamiaiddelivery,donorreports,socialsurveys,marketresearchetc
3. Economicanalysis–stockmarketindices,investment,FDI,CentralBankindicators,year‐on‐
yeargrowth,donoraidandgrantsetc
4. Analysis of international (regional and trans‐national) actors – diaspora movements and
statements, India’s role, role of Norway and Co‐Chairs, donor statements, diplomatic
initiatives,traveladvisoriesandbansagainsttheStateornon‐stateactorsetc
Waysforward
Processmapping,asnotedatthebeginningofthispaper, isarelativelynovel idea.Thespiritofthe
exercise isn’t captured in existing CR literature and is only hinted at inmany existing conflict and
peaceanalysismodels.
Peaceprocessmapping clearlyneedstogobeyondPCIAandEWS.PCIAandEWSafford little inthe
form a framework that can helpmap and understand the dynamics of an on‐going peace process.
Withanemphasisonprojectdesignand implementationwith regards toPCIAandanemphasison
quantitativeandqualitativeindicatorsofconflictwithregardstoEWS,thesetwoframeworksdonot
givetherangeoftoolsneededtocapturethetenetsofapeaceprocess.ThoughtcomprehensiveEWS
can feed into PCIA and in turn lead to conflict sensitive project implementation which in turn
mitigates violent conflict and creates necessary foundations for peace,mapping a process requires
datacaptureandanalysistoolsandframeworksdifferenttothatofmappingconflictperse.
7 http://www.safhr.org/peace_audits.htm
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
Arangeofdifferentissuesneedtobecarefullychartedinordertoascertainthetimbreoftheprocess
at any given moment. The author submits a process of mapping needs to involve, inter alia, the
following:
(1) Acombinationofquantitativeandqualitativedata, includingpublicreleasesofprocess
mappingsystemsalreadyinoperation
(2) Mappingofexistingoutput fromactors in thepeaceprocess (fromTrack 1 to content
generationbycivilsocietyandthegrassroots)
(3) Analysisof communicationsandmedia strategiesand statementsbykeyactors in the
peace process (from semantic analysis to a statistical model that gives weightage to
statements based on seniority, geographical location, constituency, locale, local,
regionalorinternationalactorsandothers)
(4) Genderandroleofwomeninthepeaceprocess
(5) DatafromEarlyWarningSystemssalready inoperation (intheNorth‐Eastandthrough
datafrompeacecommitteesetc)
(6) Data from social peace audits and surveys (PCI, KAP, models from peace audits
conductedbySAFHRinSouthAsia)
(7) Technical expertise in the design of databases and information network support
(includingsystemsdesignforpeacebuilding)tosupportthemappingactivities,including
theprovisionofadvancedGeographicalInformationSystems(GIS)thatcanplotthegeo‐
politicalvectorsofanongoingprocess
Thereisalsoanecessityforacloserelationshipbetweentheoristsandpractitioners.Theoristsneed
tobe challengedbypractitionersaboutwhichof their theoriesbest explains violent situationsand
which best helps themdesign processes for dealingwith them. Practitioners, interested in helping
partiesdevisedurable solutions to theirproblemsalsoneed tobe informedaboutwhichpractices
workandwhichdonotandwhatislikelytoreinforceorundermineagreements.
Peaceprocessmapping isnotnecessarilylinkedtothepoliticalfortunesofTrack1actors.Whilethe
processmaystagnatebecauseoftheintransigenceofvariouskeyactors,mappingprocessdynamics
mustcontinueunabated.Itisexpectedthatthecontinuousdevelopmentofmappingtheprocessmay
influence to some degree the renewal of Track 1 negotiations based on options generated by the
mappingprocessitself.
This obviously feeds into the generation of future scenarios and future scenario models. The
development of “outside‐in” future scenario models can be supported by the comprehensive
mapping of peace processes. Such future scenariomodels can feed intomulti‐track dialogues and
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
peacesupportactivitiesandshouldbefreelydistributed inSriLankatobeappropriatedbyasmany
stakeholdersaspossiblewhosupportdesirablefutureswhichincludejustandsustainablepeace.
Thereare several issues thatarisewith regard to theperceptionof themapping exercise inpolity,
civilsocietyandthegeneralpublicinSriLanka.
• Any mapping exercise is about the design of tools and frameworks that support
peacebuilding,thesearchfordeterminantsoftrusttobringpeoplestogetherandthenever
endingsearchforcreativewaystopreventandmitigateviolentconflict.
• Initiativesthatmapapeaceprocessmustthemselvesencourageparticipationandownership
intheprocess.Amappingframeworkthatisdrivenbyafewcanbeperceivedasapartisan
effort. CSOs, especially national level NGOs, need to be included in mapping efforts and
more importantly encouraged to develop a shared ownership of the mapping exercise.
Withoutanemphasisonthedevelopmentofasharedownership, itisunlikelythemapping
exercisewillbeabletofullycapturethecomplextexturesofNGOandcivilsocietyactivism
anditsimpactonthepeaceprocess.
• The mapping process must be driven by stakeholders who are accountable to people. If
ownership of any a peace process rests upon its broad acceptance by society, an exercise
thatmapsandproactivelyinformsthedesignandimplementationofsuchaprocessneedsto
be as transparent and accountable as possible to outside actors.While amiddle pathwill
havetobestruckbetweentheneedforproprietaryownershipofdatasourcesandcertain
analyses, the emphasis should always be on a principled process wherein financial and
humanresourcesareexpendedinamannerthatisbeneficialtothelargerprocessanddoes
notuseitasameansofself‐aggrandisementorpersonalgain.
• Themappingprocessneedstoensurethattheaccurateperceptionofthemappingexercise
ismaintained through the lifetime of the project. Changing political and ground dynamics
affecttheperceptionofvariousactorsandinitiativesinanon‐goingpeaceprocessandit is
vitalthattheprocessmappingexerciseisnotseenasanappendageofadonororpartyfor
partisangain.
• The mapping process itself should grow in a modular fashion. Trying to devise the a
sophisticatedmappingframeworkmaybeconceptuallydesirable,butrun intoproblems in
its implementation on account of human resource shortfalls and resource constraints. As
noted earlier in this monograph, it is important to begin with a sustainable set of core
mappingframeworksandthendevelopthemintoalarger,morecomprehensiveactivitythat
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
grows in tandemwith the development of resources at organisations who are part of the
process.
Finalthoughts
Attemptingtodrawuponavarietyofexistingresourcestoenvisionanewpractice,thismonograph
callsforacartographyofpeacebuildingthatisbuildsonthestrengthsofexistingpracticeandtheory
to create comprehensive mapping frameworks that can complement long term conflict
transformation.
The lacuna in existing literature on processmapping is indicative of the need to explore this topic
furtherinordertoinfluencepeaceprocesspraxisanddesign.
Mappingitselfneedstobelookedatcarefully.Thesystememployed,theissues,datanodes,mapping
platformsandtechnologicalfoundationsneedtobecarefullyassessedinordertocreateframeworks
thatarebothresilienttothevicissitudesofapeaceprocessandflexibleenoughtoencourageon‐the‐
flychangestoreflectchangingcircumstancesontheground.
All considered, the importance of creating frameworks that help us understand the multi‐faceted
dimensionsofapeaceprocessmayalsohelpus in regainingthefuelthatunderpinsanyprocessof
conflicttransformation.
Hope.
Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology
SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005
Bibliography
1 Rittel,HorstW.J."DilemmasinaGeneralTheoryofPlanning."PolicySciences.4:155‐69.
2 Fitzpatrick, GA 2003, The locales framework: understanding and designing for wicked
problems,KluwerAcademicPublishers,Dordrecht;Boston.
3 Hattotuwa, SY 2004, 'Untying the Gordian Knot: ICT for Conflict Transformation and
Peacebuilding', paper presented to Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution,
Melbourne,Australia.http://www.info‐share.org/content/docs/ICT_for_peace.pdf
4 Hattotuwa,SY2004,‘DaringtoDream:CSCWandPeacebuilding’,SchoolofPoliticalScience
and International Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. http://www.info‐
share.org/content/docs/Daring_to_Dream.doc
5 Simon,HerbertA.TheNewScienceofManagementDecision.Rev.ed.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.
Prentice‐Hall,1977.
top related