How to engage with the complexities of building peace
“You think that because you understand “one” that you must therefore understand “two” because one and one make two. But you forget that you must also understand “and.”― Thinking in Systems: A Primer
Building peace is complex. Today’s conflicts often contain a myriad of actors, with varied competing interests, historical grievances and ever evolving conflict dynamics. Though policymakers and academics acknowledge the need to interact with this complexity, the adoption of effective approaches to handle the complexity remains limited. In this article we explore why interacting with complex peace process is so difficult and ways we can overcome some of these challenges.
Why is interacting with the complexities of conflict such a problem?
Cedric de Coning’s work on adaptive peacebuilding emphasises that the complexities of conflict arise from its highly interconnected nature and continuously evolving situations. The interwoven nature of social, economic, and political factors requires taking a holistic perspective and understanding that addressing one facet necessitates considering its impact on others. The dynamic nature of conflict situations means unforeseen issues and actors often surface unexpectedly. This means responses must embrace adaptative strategies, forsaking linear cause-and-effect norms for unpredictable outcomes. To do this requires an intimate grasp of each context, its power dynamics, and the drivers of behaviour. This combination of factors provides major obstacles for policymakers and practitioners. Even with the will, acquiring a deep understanding, continuously updating knowledge, and forging novel paths in volatile circumstances demand significant time, resources, and collaboration across diverse domains.
How can we deal with this complexity?
A recent study by University College London’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (UCL) suggests that an effective way to embrace complexity is to adopt a system-thinking approach to post-conflict transitions. This approach emphasises three key elements:
- Think in systems;
- Systems analysis;
- Systems innovation or Systems change.
What does it mean to think in systems?
The UCL paper emphasises that thinking in systems involves asking analysts and practitioners to abandon their notions of quick fixes or simplistic linear solutions. Instead, analysts should focus on understanding the interrelationships underpinning events and the unintended consequences. While systems approaches may not be able to predict outcomes, it can prepare practitioners for the unpredictability of the outcomes[1].
The traditional approach (i.e., Political Economy or conflict analysis) to understanding complex challenges is to break them down into the power, interests and incentives driving component parts (inter-tribal conflict, governance, war economy). This tends to lead to interventions focused on specific themes. However, these types of challenges are not isolated, they are interconnected and influenced by a web of interlinking interests, incentives and power dynamics.
Thinking in systems synthesises these multiple variables and examines how they are connected. Doing so encourages us to see the multiple factors and feedback loops that contribute to a problem. Instead of delving into singular issues, that limit the ability to grasp the broader context, thinking in systems helps identify solutions that address the holistic nature of the challenges. Instead of contributing to disjointed efforts to solve complex problems, systems thinking encourages greater collaboration and more comprehensive multi-sectoral solutions. Instead of an emphasis on immediate outcomes, greater consideration can be placed on addressing systemic issues that will have both immediate and long-term implications.
However, despite the need for thinking in systems, implementing these concepts remains a relatively new endeavour in conflict and peace. To implement systems thinking in practice requires a fresh mindset, a willingness to challenge perspectives and explore innovative ways of collaboration. The existence of multiple simultaneous problems means that practitioners and analysts need to be receptive to different forms of data and to exploring a wide range of thematic disciplines. In conflict contexts where there are barriers on access, language and culture, as well as inherent biases embracing a systems mindset remains a challenge.
[1] Durand, L. (2013). Conflicts in Myanmar: A systemic approach to conflict analysis and transformation. LUP Student
How can we make thinking in systems more accessible?
Over the last years we have been working with a range of practitioners and policymakers, helping them apply a system thinking lens and improve their ability to engage with the complexities of conflict. Here we will draw from the lessons we have been learning applying a systems approach in Yemen, Myanmar, Syria and Afghanistan. We explore our experience of working with practitioners and policymakers to think in systems, and ways to increase the chance of uptake and viability. Our approach is to help practitioners gather diverse perspectives in a structured way, gain valuable insights into these differing views, encourage collaboration and undertake a journey of collective problem-solving.
We discovered a range of diverse approaches to describing conflict contexts, influenced by researchers’ and analysts’ objectives. To integrate these various perspectives, we devised a methodology that combines Political Economy Analysis, Systems Thinking, Complexity Theory, and Network Theory. By combining these theories in a structured way, we develop maps that show the differing relationships between actors, institutions, incentives, causal factors and events. By continually refining our analysis, we are assisting practitioners in gaining a more profound insight into the systemic factors that underlie behaviours and the actors responsible for influencing them.
The Dialectiq methodology can be broken down into five main stages as outlined in Figure 1 below. The methodology is not linear and requires an iterative process of experimentation to test the value of the analysis and insights.
Figure 1 – Dialectiq Methodology
In scoping and purpose, we get a grip on our partners’ needs, data types, and capabilities. The practitioners’ available or collected data, combined with each research team’s needs, shapes the visuals we create. In data exploration, we collaborate with partners to unearth insights and spot patterns in the data. The aim is to understand the data better and form hypotheses about the various factors influencing network behaviour. Through exploration, we link this data to other sources that reveal underlying incentives, identities, and interests.
As we delve into discovery and refine the analysis, our focus turns to a more in-depth examination. This concentrated attention yields a deeper understanding of the underlying dynamics and their consequences. It assists research teams in pinpointing leverage points, offering clear paths for policymakers and practitioners to craft their interventions.
How can thinking in systems improve our understanding of conflict and fragility?
Through our efforts, we are helping practitioners deeply understand peace and transition processes in changing conflict landscapes. We have been exploring how fragmentation occurs and how society is forced to reorganise itself into smaller networks that function by providing services, resources, security and governance.
Mapping Networks
Together we have been creating visuals of different networks so that practitioners can explore the nature of their relationships (e.g., collaborate, compete, influence). To develop these visuals, we structure data into a data model, which is a conceptual representation of the data and its relationships. Using a data model provides a structured framework for understanding the relationships and patterns of behaviours driving conflict dynamics allowing us to test hypotheses on the nature of the conflict.
Figure 2 shows how we connect different actors and the different types of relationships that can exist between Local actors within a network (Green circle) and with Key Actors between networks (Blue Circle). See Figure 3 for an illustrative example.
Figure 3 – An illustrative example of a network map using the network structure in Figure 2
Mapping the conflict problem
We are also creating visual representations of a conflict problem or system that is bringing greater clarity to the complexity. These maps explain the recurrent nature of a conflict problem through causal feedback loops.
Figure 4 shows how we connect different causal factors and the ways we can show how these causes are connected.
Figure 5 – An illustrative systems map showing how causal factors are interlinked
Through this ongoing practice, we are discovering how smaller systems can act as a centrifugal force creating separation from the larger state system or a centripetal force leading to new alliances forging with the larger state system. In different incidences, these forces can result in further violence or peaceful outcomes depending on the context.
Applying a system thinking lens in practice profoundly influences how we grasp post-conflict transitions. Equipping practitioners with tools to understand the systemic factors behind violence enables them to think more strategically, enhancing their prospects for achieving enduring peace. IApplying a system thinking lens in practice profoundly influences how we grasp post-conflict transitions. Equipping practitioners with tools to understand the systemic factors behind violence enables them to think more strategically, enhancing their prospects for achieving enduring peace. In our upcoming blog, we’ll dive into the practicalities of developing a systems analysis, exploring ways to strengthen its adoption, allowing more people to engage in deeper conversations that open doors for systemic change to emerge.