By: Beltina Gjeloshi
… in a responsive way instead of a directive one? If we approached local mediators as bearing duties and not just watchful spectators and advisers holding rights? If we supported reconciliation structures by putting insider mediators at their heart?
Since the founding of MHCR in the Fall of 2019, a core value of our research and practice programs is the commitment to support insider reconcilers (InRec). These individuals exemplify Lederach’s and Wehr’s insider-partials theory within a specific context of reconciliation practice. The InRec study is the first to examine the guiding theory of facilitating post-conflict intergroup reconciliation, strategies used during reconciliation processes, and the impact of reconciliation work on insider reconcilers’ mental health and wellbeing. The project speaks volumes about creating supportive, sustainable reconciliation structures. Conflicts must uphold their structural and contextual environments to bring about sustained change. Yet, support systems are often inadequate or non-existent. Getting there would not require a new approach but trusting and uplifting already-existing structures and knowledge. Speaking of making the best out of what one already has, the InRec study is really about the experiences, knowledge, complexities, skills, nuances, and wisdom that is already on the ground. Not to say that we cannot make meaningful decisions for other communities, but empathy and understanding are no substitute for lived experience.
The imperative of lived experience is more popular nowadays than a decade ago. Over the years, we have armed ourselves with the awareness that what one goes through is uniquely worthwhile. For example, one of the reasons lived experience is so important is that it may very well be a marker of inclusivity and representation of policy-making—drawing upon policies based on community surveys is not the same as directly including the voices of people who have been through experiences. You include those who live it and breathe it to make it make sense for those who have gone through the same. Good intentions are not irrelevant, but they do not prevent misguided ‘solutions.’ Drawing upon people’s lived experiences also does a terrific job of exploring to what degree we act in ‘saving’ ways towards which aid and assistance are given.
The InRec study offers an unparalleled opportunity to discover how we deliver peace work. We do not need to chaperone communities on the ways to find healing. But we need to trust these communities about their ancestral insights to respond to and make sense of conflict. When insider reconcilers are supported in responsive ways—based on their needs—rather than by directive, we can witness highly-skilled reconciliation specialists flourish into community leaders driving positive change with as many duties as rights. The beautiful thing about lived experience is its authenticity, which appeals to the rising literature on the local ownership dimension of peace work. For solutions to work, they must be local so that they are legitimate and authentic peacebuilding strategies to tailor peace needs. Looking ahead and putting one’s ‘humility hat’ on, the InRec study would benefit from defining ‘local’ so that there is a shared understanding of what it means—whether that is a place, a person, or a perspective.
