Principle 8: Embracing integrated and hybrid solutions.

 

Embracing integrated and hybrid solutions strives to enhance the local legitimacy of and support for peacemaking initiatives. To do so recognises the latter's complex, context-specific and adaptive nature and the need to improve the horizontal integration of activities by diverse external (international, transnational and regional) actors, to embed solutions within local norms, institutions and traditions and to harmonise short- and long-term processes of transformation. 

National governments and political institutions must be responsible and accountable to the population for delivering essential and basic services and representing the aims and aspirations of the entire polity. The development of functioning and efficient institutions is inevitably a hybrid process, intertwined with global and regional developments, shared histories, gender dynamics, and economic, environmental, or geopolitical structures and forces that can exacerbate or help resolve conflicts.

- Implications and recommendations -

The lack of horizontal integration between different actors, operating along varied time frames and with diverse mandates, has hobbled many prior peacemaking processes. Simple "coordination" or cooperation among actors (security/political/economic/social) and at different levels (international/national/local) cannot overcome conflicting objectives, different understandings of sustainable peace, distinct lines of accountability, or the tension between short- and longer-term time frames. Integrated solutions aim for greater coherence and unity of purpose among peacemaking actors and activities across international, regional and national arenas.

Working through and broadening the scope and reach of existing informal governance and economic systems can improve service delivery to a wider population -a crucial step towards wider processes of societal transformation. 

Building on and adapting local formal and informal forms of authority and institutions should contribute to developing more inclusive and responsive peacemaking and political processes. 

Traditional and community-based forms of dispute resolution should be carefully meshed with more formal justice and legal mechanisms (for major or serious conflicts or crimes), to avoid parallel systems that serve entrenched social, political and economic interests.

Embedding peacemaking in the local context involves developing hybrid solutions in which formal and informal institutions and practices can coexist, overlap and intertwine, with differing levels of legitimacy and authority, especially where formal institutions are fragile and social norms and institutions are relatively strong and legitimate. 

Hybrid arrangements are not just a bargaining compromise between the proposals and preferences of international and local actors but should be coconstructed and grounded in locally legitimate norms and values that also respect global norms. 

Hybrid solutions in different issue areas (security, justice, economics, dispute resolution, and representation) are not necessarily a panacea; they must be carefully constructed to ensure that they are transparent, equitable and fair to enhance the sustainability and legitimacy of peacemaking initiatives, and as part of a commitment to subsidiarity.

Most peacemaking support is channelled through development assistance frameworks that assume linear processes or theories of change and relatively tight sequencing of activities. This often does not allow for sufficient local input or for adaptation to a complex, dynamic environment. 

Support mechanisms that respect both short and longterm sequencing of programmes should nevertheless facilitate adaptation based on continuous input and reflexive learning to offer creative and sustained solutions.

Rationale 

All political, social, legal and economic arrangements - even in long-established states and societies - areshaped by a complex blend of local context, institutions and history as well as broader norms, practices and institutional arrangements. Processes of political, social and economic transformations cannot ever be fully preordained or designed. Embracing hybrid solutions that emerge through inclusive political and social processes that respect the principles of dignity, solidarity and humility and are embedded in local norms and institutions can be a key element in adaptive peacemaking and peacebuilding. Hybrid forms of power sharing exist beneath the surface in most political systems, responding to the particular fault lines of the society in which they operate. Embracing integrated and hybrid solutions seeks to avoid both maladapted "one size fits all" political strategies and the reinforcement of historically unjust local structures and practices through too much deference to "the local". It recognises that the reality on the ground is often a complex entanglement of local interests and initiatives with those of global actors.

All political, social, legal and economic arrangements involve a complex mix of shared and overlapping forms of authority. Even superficial knowledge of different systems of political representation, justice and legal institutions, or varieties of open economies, highlights the diverse range of common elements that have been moulded and shaped over time by local norms, traditions and historical experiences. Ideas such as "representative government," "human rights," or "liberal economies" have a common core, but are not monolithic, with countries around the world fusing such things as common law and civil code justice systems, various forms of representation (proportional, direct, indirect, etc.), and different relationships between the state and the economy. The cultural, social, economic and historical contexts in which efforts to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies are embedded greatly affect the legitimacy and effectiveness of these efforts. Transplanting particular models and templates of institutions without adaptation is not feasible.

The actors in conflict-affected and fragile settings evolve over time. Throughout a conflict and peace process, mobilised groups may assume the form of social movements, armed groups and/or political parties (or several at once), and business actors can be involved in both illicit and licit activities. А peace agreement is an important moment to transform these actors' roles and identities, with fundamental implications for the interests and importance of different groups in conflict. Careful attention must be paid to fostering their long-term interest in and commitment to sustainable and pluralistic peace in society. The exclusion of some non-state armed groups or criminal actors to achieve short-term stability typically backfires. International actors, often with short-term engagements or little local knowledge, can find it challenging to grasp these dynamics and must operate with strategic courage, due diligence and patience to draw upon multiple reliable sources of knowledge from local communities.

The Principles for Peace consultations highlighted the frequent exclusion of actors the local population regard as influencing the prospects for sustainable peace, such as religious and traditional leaders, who are often not sufficiently involved in peace processes. The displacement of customary and legitimate authorities as part of a centralising statebuilding project risks creating grievances that contribute to further cycles of instability. Peacemaking should work through and accompany existing informal governance and economic systems to improve service delivery and uphold locally legitimate dispute resolution mechanisms as part of a process of societal transformation, guided by an analysis of their potentially exclusionary or coercive nature.

Support for peacemaking remains largely driven by a "deliberate design approach" according to a sequential and linear template. International financing also often follows OECD-DAC guidelines for development assistance, which privilege log-frames and relatively simple and linear results frameworks. These assumptions tend not to fit well with complex conflict-affected and fragile situations that are characterised by non-linear and unpredictable dynamics highly dependent on constellations of multiple actors and configurations of power. The sequencing of activities and programmes should also be able to adapt to feedback loops and non-linear processes that require the revisiting and recalibration of policies, targets and objectives.

Hybrid solutions can be a practical way to generate output legitimacy. Hybrid governance forms include organisational arrangements that incorporate local institutions and organisations to fill gaps in state capacity in such areas as health care, education, or other state functions. Such arrangements, whether "from below" (fees for services), or "from above" contributions (salary supplements for state officials) can, however, have negative distributional effects and marginalise the disadvantaged, and some of these are seen as more legitimate than others. Hybrid service delivery must be advocated for carefully and requires understanding how public/ private formal/informal institutions can be harnessed to support peacemaking efforts to develop more inclusive political processes, create a safe and secure environment, and provide essential services to a wider population.