mapping a process - ict4peace.org › ... › 09 › mapping-a-process1.pdf · the mapping of a...

Towardsanewcartography:MappingapeaceprocessusingInformationandCommunicationsTechnology

SanjanaHattotuwa,InfoShare,October2005


SanjanaYajithaHattotuwa,

InfoShare

sanjana@info‐share.org



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.



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.



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



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.



• 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



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



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.



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



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.



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,



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



(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



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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.

mapping a process - ict4peace.org › ... › 09 › mapping-a-process1.pdf · the mapping of a...

Documents