RETHINKING THE CONCEPT OF PEACE PROCESS

This article provides a conceptual analysis that calls for a "rethinking" of the traditional, linear concept of a peace process. It critiques the common model that views peace processes as a straightforward progression from ceasefire to a comprehensive political settlement. The study argues that this model is often inadequate for understanding the complex, cyclical, and frequently interrupted nature of real-world peace negotiations, particularly in intra-state conflicts. The research advocates for a more dynamic and multi-layered conceptualization, one that acknowledges the importance of pre-negotiation phases, the role of spoilers, the need for parallel peacebuilding activities, and the long-term nature of post-conflict reconciliation. The paper uses insights from various contemporary conflicts to illustrate its arguments. The analysis concludes that a more nuanced and realistic understanding of the peace process is essential for both analysts and practitioners to avoid disillusionment and to design more effective strategies for conflict resolution.

The term "peace process" is widely used, but its underlying conceptualization is often overly simplistic and linear. This paper is an invitation to "rethink" this crucial concept. The study begins by deconstructing the conventional model of a peace process, often implicitly based on inter-state negotiations, and highlights its shortcomings when applied to the messy realities of contemporary civil wars. The core of the article is the development of a more sophisticated, non-linear framework. This framework emphasizes that peace processes are not smooth trajectories but are characterized by frequent breakdowns, reversals, and the persistent threat of "spoilers" who seek to undermine the process. The paper introduces the importance of the "pre-negotiation" phase, arguing that the success of formal talks often depends on the quiet, preparatory work of building trust and establishing a mutually acceptable framework. It also stresses the need to view peace processes holistically, recognizing that a top-down political settlement must be complemented by bottom-up peacebuilding efforts at the grassroots level to be sustainable. The findings suggest that analysts and policymakers should abandon the search for a single, elegant model and instead adopt a more flexible and adaptive approach. The paper concludes that by embracing a more complex and realistic understanding of the process, the international community can be better prepared to support the long and arduous journey from war to a lasting peace.