An increase in the number of peacekeepers in an area did not reduce the number of incidences of forced displacement or the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) fleeing that same area.
When aggrieved individuals perceive that their political activities make a difference, they are less likely to support political violence to change the status quo, meaning that this sense of “political efficacy” is a moderating factor in individuals’ likelihood to support political violence.
A protest is more likely to escalate to violence a) the more recently it has faced state repression and b) when it is spontaneous rather than well-organized.
In South Africa, “dialogue policing” and other seemingly benign “soft-policing” tactics during protests ultimately serve the interests of the state.
The U.S. response to terrorism, both domestic and transnational, has been rooted in ontological security, meaning that a state will seek to protect and perpetuate its own national identity, resulting in the U.S. government historically overlooking terrorism perpetrated by right-wing groups that aligned with a dominant American national identity.
Since relationships are so critical to peacebuilding processes and outcomes, peacebuilding practitioners should focus on building strong relationships with local partners and stakeholders informed by genuine dialogue, cultural sensitivity, and self-reflection.
Because the United Nations (UN) places higher value in the career advancement process on professional skills like business management than on local knowledge, and the career trajectory of peacebuilders often includes rotations through various UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the broader field of peacebuilding is discouraged from valuing and integrating local knowledge.
Many international peacebuilding actors operate according to “unsupported, untested, and potentially flawed assumptions about peace, peacebuilding, and the role of outsiders and insiders” that fundamentally shape their interventions and can lead to less successful and even counterproductive local peacebuilding outcomes.
Local peacebuilding risks being co-opted by national-level elites who may benefit from a depoliticized focus on the local level—“interpersonal harmony and everyday interaction”—as it takes pressure off the need to address difficult national-level issues.
A Western ideal of “the local” can be a site of exclusion where local actors have different levels of power, enabling some locals to govern the conduct and participation of other, less powerful locals.