An Open Letter to Peacebuilders
A response from Michael Hammer
Dear Simon and Lada,
many thanks for your very thoughtful piece which will deserve repeated reading. It is very helpful to have such a review of where the sector stands and both obstacles and opportunities ahead. i think this is really what we ought to be talking about.
This said, and this is not a final comment on the paper, I found that there are maybe two areas in which some further work is needed, tied together by one substantive band that links them.
1. The definition of those loathsome elites ... In a way I think your paper makes the same mistake that is inherent to much of the sector's approaches to power and pluralism. Itself and those who exercise it are seen (or because of a certain lack of exploration in this paper, represented in a truncated way) as monolithic, generally problematic, and manipulative. Yet the reality is not so easy. The exercise of power is a necessary thing in a world that requires leadership and structure to respond to the major challenges we all face and can only respond to together. The use of it can go either way and we need to stop whining about its existence and abuse by others, and concentrate on how to make it work for the aims we may wish to pursue. Yet again here the same diversity that many cherish, also fragments. We cannot assume that pluralist civil society generates better intentions or practice in terms of use of power, than those who you currently call the elites, although the peacebuilding sector frequently does make this assumption. The elites of today that you criticise are just as much part of, and have emerged from fostered pluralism of ideas. They are not the same as they were before the French revolution, after Restoration, at the height of colonial power, or at the age of Rockefeller. They change too. The civil society whose virtues you extol has neither better nor worse values and is not necessarily a better ally in developing a better world. Pluralism, like power, is neutral in itself, and as such an environmental parameter for our actions rather than a value.
2. Cooperation ... You criticise the competition and lack of Trust between many civil society actors in peacebuilding and you point out why the environment of lack of funding and instrumentalisation by more powerful actors reinforces this condition. You are right in that it is unproductive. Yet, maybe that business acumen needs at times to take over and make our concern about the individualistic identity we all like less dominant in the way we engage. We all want to be recognise as something special, but over that we fail to recognise it in others and build complementary partnerships which need to be recognised by donors as well. In a market of ideas and search for the best and most productive forms to pursue them, I sometimes wonder whether the biggest obstacle to success in peacebuilding is the unhappiness to merge, build alliances, and change forms as impact orientation may require, and reduce our judgemental leanings. Size matters and we can all take pride in being unique mushrooms. At the end we get eaten or whither away at the end of the season.
Accountability ... Like the first subject of definition of elites and relationships with power, also the issue of cooperation can be seen through the lens of accountability. You mention it but only very briefly. yet it is one of the most important sections that I would recommend exploring further as it may hold the key to success for the sector: accountability is a tool to address the 'problematic' side of power, without arguing about its existence and the fact that it is being exercised. Accountability is also what should make people working in the sector address their own problem of singularity. We (and our Trustees) ought to cooperate, and maybe work for each other, merge and grow because we owe making the most of our productive energeies it to those for whose benefit we pursue a transformative approach, namely people living with and affected by violent conflict.
So you have done the right diagnosis: by insisting on changing others more than ourselves, we fail to change others just as much, and betray those we claim to work for. What the search for power has done for what you call the elites of today, is to teach them to make conscious and goal oriented choices about subordinating the pinnacles of their individual pride and self consciousness to professional achievement. The peace sector (and civil society in general) often suffers from the inability to do this, and as a donor I may not wish to invest into a set of people who cannot share goals and subordinate themselves to achieving these. Were we to change that, we would be more effective, but would have to accept that not everybody who is in the sector today, will work where they do now, tomorrow. As we have so much pride in what we do and tying it up into every fibre of our existence, we tend to be very judgmental about those who move on to other things (including those who become the technical advisers...) and find it hard to move and change ourselves.
Best wishes
Michael
many thanks for your very thoughtful piece which will deserve repeated reading. It is very helpful to have such a review of where the sector stands and both obstacles and opportunities ahead. i think this is really what we ought to be talking about.
This said, and this is not a final comment on the paper, I found that there are maybe two areas in which some further work is needed, tied together by one substantive band that links them.
1. The definition of those loathsome elites ... In a way I think your paper makes the same mistake that is inherent to much of the sector's approaches to power and pluralism. Itself and those who exercise it are seen (or because of a certain lack of exploration in this paper, represented in a truncated way) as monolithic, generally problematic, and manipulative. Yet the reality is not so easy. The exercise of power is a necessary thing in a world that requires leadership and structure to respond to the major challenges we all face and can only respond to together. The use of it can go either way and we need to stop whining about its existence and abuse by others, and concentrate on how to make it work for the aims we may wish to pursue. Yet again here the same diversity that many cherish, also fragments. We cannot assume that pluralist civil society generates better intentions or practice in terms of use of power, than those who you currently call the elites, although the peacebuilding sector frequently does make this assumption. The elites of today that you criticise are just as much part of, and have emerged from fostered pluralism of ideas. They are not the same as they were before the French revolution, after Restoration, at the height of colonial power, or at the age of Rockefeller. They change too. The civil society whose virtues you extol has neither better nor worse values and is not necessarily a better ally in developing a better world. Pluralism, like power, is neutral in itself, and as such an environmental parameter for our actions rather than a value.
2. Cooperation ... You criticise the competition and lack of Trust between many civil society actors in peacebuilding and you point out why the environment of lack of funding and instrumentalisation by more powerful actors reinforces this condition. You are right in that it is unproductive. Yet, maybe that business acumen needs at times to take over and make our concern about the individualistic identity we all like less dominant in the way we engage. We all want to be recognise as something special, but over that we fail to recognise it in others and build complementary partnerships which need to be recognised by donors as well. In a market of ideas and search for the best and most productive forms to pursue them, I sometimes wonder whether the biggest obstacle to success in peacebuilding is the unhappiness to merge, build alliances, and change forms as impact orientation may require, and reduce our judgemental leanings. Size matters and we can all take pride in being unique mushrooms. At the end we get eaten or whither away at the end of the season.
Accountability ... Like the first subject of definition of elites and relationships with power, also the issue of cooperation can be seen through the lens of accountability. You mention it but only very briefly. yet it is one of the most important sections that I would recommend exploring further as it may hold the key to success for the sector: accountability is a tool to address the 'problematic' side of power, without arguing about its existence and the fact that it is being exercised. Accountability is also what should make people working in the sector address their own problem of singularity. We (and our Trustees) ought to cooperate, and maybe work for each other, merge and grow because we owe making the most of our productive energeies it to those for whose benefit we pursue a transformative approach, namely people living with and affected by violent conflict.
So you have done the right diagnosis: by insisting on changing others more than ourselves, we fail to change others just as much, and betray those we claim to work for. What the search for power has done for what you call the elites of today, is to teach them to make conscious and goal oriented choices about subordinating the pinnacles of their individual pride and self consciousness to professional achievement. The peace sector (and civil society in general) often suffers from the inability to do this, and as a donor I may not wish to invest into a set of people who cannot share goals and subordinate themselves to achieving these. Were we to change that, we would be more effective, but would have to accept that not everybody who is in the sector today, will work where they do now, tomorrow. As we have so much pride in what we do and tying it up into every fibre of our existence, we tend to be very judgmental about those who move on to other things (including those who become the technical advisers...) and find it hard to move and change ourselves.
Best wishes
Michael
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Leigh Brady on -
Dear Michael
Your response was very thought-provoking and refreshingly insightful about the motivations and choices of who we label as power elites. However, the second point you make is not completely clear to me...is it possible to reformulate the message/point?
Also is it possible to have your email address? I would be interested in exchanging ideas about the problems of peace-building at a later date.
Many thanks
Leigh Brady
leigh.gerard@gmail.com
About
© 2009 Created by Letter To Peacebuilders on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
