To what extent are networks uniquely placed to advance change in the global peacebuilding system? How can networks navigate and perhaps transform the competitive dynamics of the system that currently shape organisations’ interactions with one another? How can equity as a core value within networks – in their governance, composition, and decision-making – catalyse sustainable outcomes? These are some of the questions that are discussed in this blog article.
Networks are an important element of the global peacebuilding system. They emerge in various forms – vertical (composed of multiple ‘links’ in the local-to-global chain), or horizontal (among, for instance, international non-governmental organisations). They also differ in their scope, for instance focusing on peacebuilding broadly, on locally led peacebuilding, on systems change that seeks to shift power to local peacebuilders. This blog article is focused on the latter – international networks that seek to transform the global peacebuilding system to better support local actors. It explores why networks are necessary for systems change, and the critical components that assist them in having impact on the system, as well as the key internal factors that create network cohesion and meaningful collaboration.
The current landscape
Current ways of working within the international system have inherent flaws that often inhibit the space for local actors to unfold their potential. Decisions are made outside the environments in which peacebuilding takes place, programmes are shaped on the basis of externally defined priorities, and local peacebuilders sometimes have limited space for defining their activities when funded by international organisations. International networks that seek to advance systems change must, in order to be successful, find their foundation in the needs of local peacebuilders. However, while systems change is gathering momentum, these efforts often times remain the territory of a limited number of international organisations that are familiar with one another – a small cluster of actors, with conversations often taking place in relatively closed and opaque arenas. Further, these groups sometimes base their discussions in the assumed, rather than expressed, needs of local peacebuilders.
Why work through networks? Systems change for locally led peacebuilding is fundamentally about changing structures, practices and attitudes through social processes and human engagement – creating connections that lead to change. Systems are composed of individuals, and therefore finding and/or forging inter-linkages between them is essential for success. Further, conversations on systems change in global peacebuilding are gathering pace, yet efforts are largely disparate and disconnected – coordination and collaboration to knit these small-scale efforts together is necessary, bridging systems change actions and conversations into a more coherent whole. Convening, bringing individuals and organisations together and facilitating arenas for interaction on systems change creates space for recognising the complementarity between existing efforts to shift power, and building momentum to do more.
Challenges to networks
The system itself produces a range of constraints that disincentivise networks and networked action. Multi-dimensional competition acts against transparent and meaningful collaboration: competition across global peacebuilding is pervasive – for ‘thematic turf’, for access to financing, with these impulses finding their way into conversations on systems change. This has the potential to create intra-network mistrust, with extra time needed to build relationships and transparency within a network.
This is particularly the case in multi-stakeholder networks where the presence of bilateral donors and/or foundations can create a ‘solicitation space’ where other members instrumentalise the network as a space to pitch their organisations and ideas. Further, inter-network competition also features, with the sense that one network is taking up the space and mandate of another. Finally, competition within the systems change community creates barriers to collaboration: disparate and isolated systems change efforts are themselves guarded as proprietary innovations that are part of an organisation’s intellectual property, whether new approaches to partnerships, locally led research methodologies, participatory conflict analysis models, that may be uniquely appealing to donors. Networks, however, can help both weave these innovations together in order to foster broader transformation, and potentially reduce the competition imperative.
Good practices, success factors, and promising models for networks
What might a network that is equitable and effective look like? And what would this configuration mean for its members and the impact it creates? Some overall principles below.
Common goal, mutually held values: emphasis on a jointly defined common goal at the outset of a network, and clear objectives as well as clarity on what constitutes success are important in creating trust and openness, and ensuring momentum is sustained. As it was put to Conducive Space for Peace by a senior representative of a Nepali civil society organisation: “There is a need to build values together, prior to working together.” Networks of this kind, in which values are shared, can also provide a form of refreshing catharsis and escapism to members – a space for collective decompression that (re)builds energy.
Networks that are more than the sum of their parts: Networks should provide added value to their members, for instance through access to relevant knowledge, decision-making spaces, or people that can provide something that others need. Network constellations that cut across different dimensions of systems change – programming, policy, procurement, partnership, learning, finance, and others are often effective. The same can be said for networks that provide ‘something new’ – content and experience that is not found elsewhere – and in which there is reciprocal give-and-take among members. All of these are factors that make networks more than the sum of their parts – generating and operating their own momentum, acting both as a collective and creating chain reactions within the network.
Convening for systems change: The individual or organisation that convenes the network and more broadly stewards the group should be conscious of the power they hold. Navigating and managing this power means participating in network processes (rather than only facilitating), demonstrating their stake in the change agenda, and prioritising reciprocity and mutuality in their engagement with other network members.
Networks and risk reduction: Individuals within international institutions may not be willing to articulate systemic dysfunctions and take action to transform them, due to their fear of the loss of reputation, or the effort they have expended in reaching their position within their institution. However, networks (particularly those that are multi-stakeholder) can reduce the vulnerability and exposure of individual change agents within institutions – lowering the risk for them in pursuing change or creating the space for them to feel comfortable taking risks. This links to the importance of standing together in systems change, rather than working alone – networks prompt a resetting, or a recalculation, of risk assessments, providing a structure of support for comparatively ‘safe rebellion’ and agency-building companionship. In this way, networks promote interaction and complementarity that catalyses change, but also build the agency of members, creating new ‘fields of possibility’ and helping individuals move from knowledge of the system’s dysfunctionality to practices for change. Networks are vehicles to pursue change, but also change processes in themselves.
Dilemmas for networks
Equity is a critical consideration in networks that seek to make transformative change. The equitability of a given network is important in achieving the overall goal discussed in this blog article: a more equitable international system of support to local peacebuilding. A network that operates equitably may be better able to achieve its desired outcomes and ensure their sustainability. Equity is, therefore, both the end state and reflected in the process to get there.
Equity can be embedded in a network’s governance structure, decision-making processes, and the scale and breadth of its membership, among other areas. This could mean, for instance, networks lowering the cost of participation, reducing the need to ‘learn a language’ or embody particular codes of behaviour, and therefore bridging different types of ‘expertise’ and including a broad range of perspectives. Equity may also imply that networks provide space for members to shape the agenda, participate in decision-making, and provide feedback on the functioning of the network.
What is the relationship between networks using equitable processes and achieving equity-related outcomes that are sustainable? When should particular elements of equity outlined above be prioritised, and in pursuit of which goals? When should participation in the efforts of a network be geared toward a wide range of stakeholders, and when should it be narrowed to include a decisive few ‘power-holders’ or people that characterise themselves along common lines? What are the most appropriate and effective models for equitable decision-making within a network? How can equity be embedded in participatory governance models for a network in ways that do not over-burden network members and retain clarity of direction? How can networks establish a space in which members trust governance structures and where decisions can be made in ways that are able to respond and adapt quickly to windows of opportunity for change? Who defines what equity looks like for a given network and its goals?
Networks that pursue systems change for locally-led peacebuilding often have to navigate these questions and find solutions, not as one-off solutions but as emergent and ongoing explorations of how values such as equity can shape the network, and how the ways of working of networks influence the outcomes; or how multiple dimensions of equitability in process can shape equitable outcomes. In this regard, there is a need for networks with the aim of systems change for locally-led peacebuilding to collectively reflect and learn from one another on dilemmas such as these, and more broadly, to share and exchange on shifting power to local actors.
