Suchergebnisse

Bilateral and multilateral donors are increasingly focusing on strengthening social cohesion in efforts to build and sustain peace in conflict-affected societies. What does promoting social cohesion mean with respect to inter­national engagement? This policy brief provides an overview of the "social cohesion" approach, explains how it applies to conflict-affected and fragile contexts, and intro­duces a typology of common interventions. It discusses the added value of taking a social cohesion approach to development and peacebuilding practice, as well as challenges policymakers and practitioners may encounter when using it. Social cohesion can be understood as positive relations among individuals and groups (the horizontal dimension) and between society and the state (the vertical dimension). While fostering, rebuilding or sustaining cohesion are challenges for any society, they are particularly difficult in conflict settings where divisions fuel violence and violence reinforces divisions. We argue that taking a social cohesion approach in divided, conflict-affected societies offers several advantages. First, it has the potential to focus intervention on less tangible aspects of conflict – drawing attention to overlooked grievances and bringing tensions between groups and the state into focus. Second, it helps integrate a peacebuilding lens in a broad variety of policy spaces. Third, it helps policymakers to integrate citizen perspectives into develop­ment strategies and to focus on the provision of quality peace for all citizens. Taking a social cohesion approach, however, also brings challenges. It may be sensitive for external actors to address social grievances, identity-based divisions and power relations. Dominant groups may feel threatened in their position of power and push back against these attempts, or tensions among historically marginalised groups may cause friction. Donors may experience backlash against programmes that directly address sensitive topics. At the same time, if the intent is to take a transformative approach to building social cohesion, it may be difficult for donors to maintain a neutral stance. Social cohesion programmes may risk increasing tension in the short term, but to restore inter-group trust and state legitimacy over the long term, it might be necessary to confront and accept tension. Reflecting on the potentials and pitfalls of strengthening social cohesion in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, we suggest that policymakers and practitioners should:Think politically. Fostering social cohesion may initially appear less political or less contentious than peace­building, but it inevitably involves engaging politics, as well as identity and power dynamics. Securing donor support for "apolitical" social cohesion programming may at first appear to be advantageous, but this perception risks overlooking power relationships, politicised grievances, hierarchies and other salient dimensions of social structure (e.g., class dynamics). Expect pushback. The social cohesion approach has the potential to interrupt powerful political and economic structures that link social and political identities (e.g., ethnicity, class and gender) to power, status and public goods. Donors should expect overt and covert pushback and contention and be prepared to encounter the stickiness of informal institutions Work across multiple dividing lines. Strengthening in-group trust and cooperation may negatively affect out-group relationships and overall social cohesion. Fostering social cohesion in the wake of violent conflict requires networks to address multiple social divisions. Large coalitions that cut across race, ethnicity, gender, class and generation are notoriously difficult to form and sustain, yet essential for building sustainable peace.

Can local elections introduced in a post-conflict context help to foster societal peace, or do they create new potential for conflict? The value of post-conflict elections has been the matter of controversial academic debates. However, this literature largely neglects to take into account the role of local elections. Based on the literature, we formulate three hypotheses on how local elections might impact societal peace, focussing on the periods before, during and after an election. The first focusses on the potential negative effects of identity-based mobilisation before an election, while the latter two lead us to expect positive effects - either through increased participation through the vote during an election, or improved responsiveness as a consequence after an election. We study each of these three mechanisms in Nepal, a country that experienced almost 10 years of civil war up until 2006 and where local elections were reintroduced in 2017. Combining 79 qualitative interviews at the national and local levels with insights from a large-n survey of 1,400 respondents, we find that overall the reintroduction of local elections had a clear positive impact on societal peace in Nepal. In particular, the results show that the elections increased participation and responsiveness, which has positively affected political trust and reduced (the potential for) political violence. Overall, this paper thereby contributes to the academic debate on the role of elections for peace, calling to attention the positive role local elections can play. It also demonstrates the benefits of moving beyond a narrow definition of peace in relatively stable post-conflict contexts to take a closer look at the effect of political institutions on societal dynamics.

Can local elections introduced in a post-conflict context help to foster societal peace, or do they create new potential for conflict? The value of post-conflict elections has been the matter of controversial academic debates. However, this literature largely neglects to take into account the role of local elections. Based on the literature, we formulate three hypotheses on how local elections might impact societal peace, focussing on the periods before, during and after an election. The first focusses on the potential negative effects of identity-based mobilisation before an election, while the latter two lead us to expect positive effects – either through increased participation through the vote during an election, or improved responsiveness as a consequence after an election. We study each of these three mechanisms in Nepal, a country that experienced almost 10 years of civil war up until 2006 and where local elections were reintroduced in 2017. Combining 79 qualitative interviews at the national and local levels with insights from a large-n survey of 1,400 respondents, we find that overall the reintroduction of local elections had a clear positive impact on societal peace in Nepal. In particular, the results show that the elections increased participation and responsiveness, which has positively affected political trust and reduced (the potential for) political violence. Overall, this paper thereby contributes to the academic debate on the role of elections for peace, calling to attention the positive role local elections can play. It also demonstrates the benefits of moving beyond a narrow definition of peace in relatively stable post-conflict contexts to take a closer look at the effect of political institutions on societal dynamics.

Social cohesion is key for sustainable development. While social cohesion has suffered in many societies from the consequences of the Covid- 19 pandemic, high levels of social cohesion have helped to overcome critical situations during the pandemic in other societies. As a consequence, protecting and strengthening social cohesion has become an increasingly central goal for most countries and the international community. Despite the strong interest in the topic, the questions of how to define social cohesion and make it an observable phenomenon through proper measurement are still contested, in both academia and policy circles. To date, no consistent, temporally and geographically spread-out data on the different elements of social cohesion exists that would allow for a global analysis of social cohesion. This rather fragmented picture of analytical approaches calls for a more universal definition and measurement of social cohesion. [...]

Social cohesion is key for sustainable development. While social cohesion has suffered in many societies from the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, high levels of social cohesion have helped to overcome critical situations during the pandemic in other societies. As a consequence, protecting and strengthening social cohesion has become an increasingly central goal for most countries and the international community. Despite the strong interest in the topic, the questions of how to define social cohesion and make it an observable phenomenon through proper measurement are still contested, in both academia and policy circles. To date, no consistent, temporally and geographically spread-out data on the different elements of social cohesion exists that would allow for a global analysis of social cohesion. This rather fragmented picture of analytical approaches calls for a more universal definition and measurement of social cohesion. This paper aims to provide a narrow and measurable definition of social cohesion that travels across regions and countries. Conceptually, it proposes a definition of social cohesion that incorporates the core elements of existing and widely used definitions of social cohesion across disciplines (trust, identity, cooperation for the common good). Our contribution is to offer a definition of social cohesion that is broad enough to cover the essentials holding societies together while at the same time keeping it lean enough to analyse the causes and consequences of social cohesion, for instance the relationship between social cohesion and inequalities or political institutions. Methodologically, we propose an application of our concept to the African context. It is not only a first step towards a more global and inter-regional measurement of social cohesion, but also the basis for further knowledge-creation, the identification of patterns of social cohesion and the analysis of its causes and consequences. From a policy-oriented perspective, a more unified definition of the core elements of social cohesion and its measurement can inform policies that aim at protecting and fostering social cohesion. In development cooperation, it will help not only to build indicators for designing programme objectives and for evaluation and monitoring, but also to advance evidence-based theories of change.

This study analyses how strengths and weaknesses of economic, societal, political and environmental structures played out during the Covid-19 crisis in Africa since March 2020. Its main aim is to improve evidence on the direct and indirect effects of the pandemic on African countries and, based on that evidence, identify policy implications and formulate recommendations. It comprises the analysis of (a) direct impacts of the pandemic as well as of policy responses such as lockdowns and their potential determinants; (b) indirect effects of lockdowns and policy responses to the pandemic on economic, social, political and environmental domains in the light of structural strengths and weaknesses of African countries. In general, the study is based on the assumption that economic and other structures determine the magnitude and direction of the pandemic's impact on the short and long run. Its added value is the thematic comprehensiveness and the comparative analysis of country clusters. Amongst many other findings, the analysis shows the important role of social cohesion for coping with the pandemic and for sustainable development on the longer run. This implies the need for (a) material and immaterial investments in good and trustful relationships within societies and between society and the state; (b) incentives for increasing cooperation of individuals for a common good need to be at the core of future development strategies. It identifies a trias of political priorities, which are all equally important and relate to each other. They contain (a) inclusive and green economic development that must be linked to (b) the establishment and improvement of universal social systems (health, education, social protection in case of poverty, old age and unemployment) as well as (c) a redesign of political institutions that are capable and inclusive to collect revenues and provide public goods. (d) None of these policy priorities will be effective on the long run without saving ecosystems.