The historical period which began in the 1990s, the sum of processes most often grouped together under the term “globalization,” has created a world of sharp contradictions, with growing interconnectedness on the one hand being accompanied by inequality, polarization, and increasing divisions along ethnic, religious and national lines, on the other hand.  The financial crisis which began in 2008 has ushered in a period of economic instability which shows no signs of ending any time soon, serving only to deepen these contradictions.

The conflicts that have consequently emerged have been seen primarily in terms of the identities which seem to define them. Often overlooked are the broader economic and social inequalities which underlie them.  The reassertion of particular identities can perhaps be better understood when seen as a reaction against universalizing projects which have misfired, failing to deliver on their promises of a better life for all.  While these are dynamics which can be largely witnessed throughout the world, in Europe they are particularly acute, with the project of European unification increasingly threatened by internal divisions amongst the representatives of the member states , imbalances between the core and periphery, and intense popular dissatisfaction at every level.

Taking seriously the project of a shared global society means taking seriously the structural imbalances and obstacles which currently stand in its way.  Likewise, working to overcome the divisive conflicts which are becoming every day more visible means taking seriously the structural determinants of these conflicts, the relations of  inequality, dominance and exclusion which currently characterize the global system.

One way in which this can be done is through structured group processes in which those caught up in dynamics of conflict can communicate with one another about the causes of those conflicts, and by doing so generate creative solutions and envisage alternative futures.  In our work we seek through partnership with local organizations to develop projects where this can take place.

Application

In Summer 2010, Transform held a workshop in Germany, attended by civil-society activists working in fields related to the issues of integration and Islamophobia in Europe.  The conference included a 5 day workshop using the Kumi method.  As a result of the workshop, a network was created among organizations present at the workshop, with the intention of developing implementable ideas about how to tackle problems facing migrants and other marginalized groups in Europe. Since then a Grundtivg Lifelong Learning grant was awarded to support the development and strengthening of this network.
The organizations involved are:

• Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA), UK
• Institut für konstruktive Konfliktaustragung und Mediation (IKM) Germany
• Shura, Germany
• Critical Mass, Netherlands
• Transform, Germany

Through this network we intend to create a group of local facilitators who are trained in the use of the Kumi method, who will then carry out projects in their communities.  The project as a whole is guided by the recognition that in the face of a rising tide of right-wing nationalism, political parties continue to see diversity as an issue which needs to be managed from above, and immigrant and other minority groups as primarily a threat needing to be contained.  An alternative approach would involve the recognition of these groups as integral members of society, and placing the inclusion of these groups in participatory democratic processes at the center of efforts to address the situation.

In 2010 Critical Mass received funding from Oxfam Novip to send members of the organization to the Middle East to be introduced to the Kumi method by local Israeli and Palestinian facilitators.  Following this, in 2011 two workshops were held in the Netherlands in which a group of Dutch civil-society activists were introduced to the Kumi method.

Currently Transform is in the process of communicating with local organizations in Berlin to develop local projects in accordance with the overall vision of the network.

For more information, contact Micah Brashear <micah@transform-centre.org>.

From Cairo to New York, Tunis to London, in Athens, Barcelona and Rome, wherever one looks, one sees dissatisfaction with politics and with the way politicians have mismanaged economies and societies and have betrayed the trust bestowed on them by citizens. On the other hand, even those politicians who are driven not by self-interest but by a genuine desire to serve their societies are at a loss as to what is to be done to confront the complex problems at hand. Miscommunication is rampant, short-term thinking is predominant, and habits of spin and politically-correct speech only serve to obfuscate problems and obscure the possibilities of finding creative solutions.

The disillusion with politics is even more severe in authoritarian regime. The repressions of an authoritarian era invariably leave a nation without either strong institutions of pluralistic deliberation or the practice of dialogue among political elites. Typically, participatory structures of governance are weakened, civil society and the independent media have faced repression and the independence of the judiciary has been threatened.

In the vacuum created by the collapse of such regimes there are grave risks that one authoritarian regime would be followed by another.  Reformers compete with those who have benefited from autocracy; and there are competing views of the destination of change and differences on how to get there. The political scene remains volatile, divisive, fragmented and dispersed. There is invariably an urgent need to introduce alternative means of conducting political business.

At the same time, a plethora of different groups form or re-form, each with its own view on the way ahead. They have studies, consultations, diagnoses and action plans drawn up while in exile or in opposition on which to rely; they may even command wide popular support. But they may lack the means to forge these approaches into a common agenda.

The immediate goal in this situation is to develop a platform founded on minimum common principles and standards, as a base from which to develop a new political settlement inclusive and representative of the many components of the nation and its social fabric.

The challenge, whether in disgruntled democratic polities or in suppressed autocratic ones, is to create the space and provide the tools for the various political groups to reach a consensus on new rules for the game; and then facilitate them to produce a political discourse capable of shaping a range of realistic options. What is require is a non-ambiguous demonstration that new political orders can be created in the interests of all citizens, at all levels of society.

Application

‘Early interventions can reduce the likelihood of prolonged instability and suffering and prevent the need for a more expensive solution’ as the UK Strategic Defence and Security Review states. The SDSR cites the case of Macedonia as one of the successes of conflict prevention.  In 2001, the Ohrid Framework Agreement brought to an end the conflict between the ethnic Albanian National Liberation Army and Macedonian security forces.

However, by 2007/8 the political consensus at the national level was breaking down, famously with a fist-fight in Parliament between competing Albanian parties caught on live TV. Parliament was paralysed as there was no agreement on procedures. The gains of Ohrid were at risk as the political tensions mounted again.

At the urgent request of the European Commission, with the backing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Chris Langdon directed a workshop at Wilton Park in January 2008 with the full support of the Speaker of the Macedonian Parliament, engaging him, the heads of all the parliamentary party factions, key Committee Chairs and rank and file MPs. The Prime Minister was also personally engaged by phone. In three days of intensive participatory strategic planning led by Ahmed Badawi, MPs produced an agreed document on how to progress on reforming procedures. The consensus reached culminated in a final agreement on a new rule book in 2010.

‘The Conference resulted in a viable Action Plan on the enhancement of the legislative and controlling functions, and the building of the financial independence of the Assembly,’ as Marjan Madzovski, Secretary of the Speaker’s cabinet said.  ‘Three years on, the Parliament is a very different place, thanks in large part to the action plan developed at Wilton Park. MPs and officials still recall that event with fondness’, Alex Romaniuc, Europe Director of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, said in January 2011. As subsequent events in Macedonia show, the situation remains challenging.

Following this workshop, and drawing on relevant other activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, the Balkans and the former Communist bloc, Chris Langdon, David French and Ahmed Badawi developed an approach for political dialogue embedding KUMI at the centre of a comprehensive six stage process which can be particularly useful at moments of national crisis or change such as:

• Following the overthrow an authoritarian regime or the death of a powerful ruler, when an opportunity may exist to support a process of engagement and structured dialogue to achieve a long term change in the political status quo.
• As the result of focusing events such as economic crises, natural disasters, or a major terrorist attack which may exert pressure on the ruling elite to introduce change.
• In response to underlying tensions which are caused by factors such as widespread inequalities in the distribution of power, identity-related grievances or a sense by sections of the population that some of their basic human needs are left unfulfilled.

In any of these settings an intervention incorporating KUMI can be undertaken with leaders and influencers at any level of society – national, sub-national and sectoral – provided it is grounded in a comprehensive understanding of the country context, incentives for change and the likely obstacles to progress.

Adapted to these contexts, this transformational process aims to be an operational bridge between peacebuilding, state building and governance programmes.  It is capable of drawing on political economy analyses where they exist, and on the perceptions of current issues as seen by the full range of local actors – who are central to this method.  It acknowledges local norms and traditions which have significant local legitimacy, and is structured to be part of a longer term process of external intervention.

The six stage process runs as follows:

Assessment and engagement:

1. Initial assessment of the potential to facilitate change at the required levels.
2. Detailed on-the-ground assessment, working with local partners to develop a deep picture of the political landscape and key actors, and to enable relationships of trust to be formed and bona fides to be established.
3. Engagement throughout the assessment process with local leaders and partners, negotiating the scope of a programme.

Workshops:

1. Workshop series, the fulcrum of the programme the timing of which is to be determined by local counterparts, bringing together political leaders and experts with the purpose of reaching agreement on

• their collective vision for the future, either on big picture issues or on specific problems identified by them
• the obstacles that are preventing them from reaching this vision
• the strategies they need to adopt in order to overcome the obstacles, and
• the plan of action they need in order to implement the strategies.

Following up:

1. Help in creating a national dialogue, using a range of communications tools and working with local communications specialists, to ensure that agreements reached at national level are informed by and/or feed into national, sub-national or sectoral debate and dialogue.
2. Follow up meetings, to review the results of the communications process and also to consolidate progress and deal with any new issues and potential conflicts which may have arisen.

Conversations are currently being held with a number of potential partners to develop opportunities to test this approach in a real-life setting.

For more information, contact David French david@transform-centre.org.

The Kumi method has been developed as a tool within a larger approach to engaging with conflict, an approach which we refer to as STiC, or Social Transformation in Conflict. This approach is guided by the idea that conflicts exist within broader contexts in which deeply rooted identities are bound together with entrenched social structures. It is characteristic of mainstream conflict resolution that attention is focused on identities, while the larger social structures, which contribute to the establishment and perpetuation of group identities, are perceived often in a limited or oblique way. Becoming conscious of the interrelation between identity, conflict culture and social structures, and the way in which conflict is an expression of that interrelation, enables individuals and groups to look for transcending solutions. Such solutions, if they conform with legal and ethical norms, and as long as they fulfill the basic human needs of all parties to the conflict, create the possibility for effective collective action through which a change may occur in the dynamics of the conflict itself.

In a deep, long-lasting conflict we believe it is important for groups to learn how to engage these instances of ongoing strife, to bring them to the surface, study, and generally begin to view them as opportunities for moral growth and social change. Engaging conflict provides an opportunity for self-study, which will eventually enable the design of new behavior, strategies and to implement change. People need to look at a conflict with new eyes, change the common perception of it from a destructive burden to a creative possibility. Thinking differently about conflict is a prerequisite for acting differently when it occurs. Therefore, a deep analysis is needed of conflict, its causes, the culture and ideology which legitimize it and the institutions and other social structures which perpetuate it.

The active engagement in conflict and attempts to successfully turn it into a catalyst for deep social transformation is a long-term historical process. No one knows exactly how to engineer such a process. But years of research and practice, some successes and numerous failures point to a number of settings in which interventions could be made. These may include working with existing coalitions across the conflict line to implement strategies for mobilizing public opinion behind the need to transform the conflict into a catalyst for peace and development. Another possibility is strengthening those organizations which are already active in solving the conflict by providing them with strategies and implementation tools to become more relevant and active in their society. And cognizant of the power asymmetries characterizing many intractable conflicts, interventions could also take place to enhance the capacity of oppressed local communities to sustain themselves economically and to generate a new type of empowered local and national leaders.

In any of these settings an intervention incorporating the Kumi method can be undertaken on Track 2 and Track 3 levels, bi-nationally and uni-nationally, provided it is grounded in a comprehensive understanding of the conflict’s context, the competing incentives for change, and the likely obstacles to progress especially those reflecting powerful interests that are benefiting from maintaining the status quo.

Application

In 2009-2010 Transform and its partner organisations: the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH), the Young Israeli Forum for Cooperation (YIFC), and the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation (Germany) designed and implemented the project “Beyond managing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Demonstrating the Effectiveness of a Conflict-Sensitive Social Transformation Approach.” The project was funded by the EU’s Partnership for Peace Programme. The project had the following objectives:

- To demonstrate the effectiveness of the new method in that it equips groups with the capacity to deal with conflicts, to organize themselves towards action, and to challenge the discourses and institutional structures that are blocking the conflict from being peacefully resolved.

- To form a group of 36 facilitators, trained in the new method, who are committed to furthering the project as a means of building peace and spearheading social transformation from below.

The activities implemented in this stage were designed to assist groups in conflict but also to further refine the method.

First a group of 14 Israeli, Palestinian and European facilitators were trained on the new method. These new Kumi practitioners co-facilitated 14 workshops, beginning as supporting facilitators to the method experts who developed Kumi and eventually running the workshops on their own with minimal supervision.

Four workshops were conducted with Israeli and Palestinian organisations that were already working together. These workshops focused on enhancing the capability of the existing Israeli and Palestinian coalitions to mobilize active constituencies on both sides of the conflict line to improve their influence on challenging the structures and cultures sustaining the conflict.

Another four workshops were held with Palestinians to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new method in enhancing the capability of Palestinian organizations and local communities to overcome internal fragmentation, provide an enabling environment for empowered leaders to emerge, engage in autonomous development aimed at satisfying the basic human needs of Palestinian society, and organize more effectively to challenge the occupation.

Four other workshops were held with Israeli participants. The objective on this intra-Israeli track was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new method to facilitate the emergence of coalitions capable of challenging the Israeli security discourse. It was assumed that the current state of the Israeli security discourse represents a major impediment to movement toward ending the conflict.

Another two workshops aimed at bringing together Israelis and Palestinians to discuss the issue of self-determination. These workshops brought together Palestinian refugees and mid-level leaders Israelis from political parties such as Likud, Kadima and Labour. In both workshops, they were joined by European activists and long-term observers of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The objective of these workshops was to engage these groups in a critical dialogue, amongst each other and with a third party (Europeans). The aim was to help them to reflect and to differentiate between what is legitimate and what is not legitimate in their goals and, building on this, to redefine these goals in legitimate ways in order for them to achieve their needs. It is important here to emphasize that the main focus was to help the participants realize that while needs are always legitimate, specific goals and means to achieve these needs may be illegitimate and, over the long run, undermine the capacity to achieve the legitimate goals.

Based on the findings of a major evaluation of the project and after conceptualizing the new design of the next step the project will be replicated on a wider scale to empower a critical mass in both societies to take effective steps towards peace, justice and development in Israel and Palestine, in the context of the wider Euro-Mediterranean region.

For more information, contact Michaela Birk birk@transform-centre.org.

Activity Report 2006-2008

Dr. Wilfried Graf is research fellow at the Institute for the Sociology of Law and Criminology in Vienna and at the Center for Peace Research and Peace Education at the university of Klagenfurt (Austria). He is co-founder and co-director of the “Institute for Integrative Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding” (IICP) in Vienna (www.iicp.at). Dr. Graf is a researcher and trainer on conflict transformation and peacebuilding approaches. He has co-developed a specific approach to “integrative conflict transformation”, taking into account the social-psychological, systemic/societal and intercultural dimensions of conflict transformation and peacebuilding, based on an intellectual and methodological journey from the structuralist approach of “Transcend” (Johan Galtung) to the constructivist approach of “Complexity Thinking” (Edgar Morin) and the interactional approach of “Interactive Problem Solving” (Herbert C. Kelman).

Gudrun Kramer is currently working for the “Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit” (GIZ), heading the “Social and Cultural Fund for Palestinian Refugees and Gaza Population”. She was co-founder and co-director of the “Institute for Integrative Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding” (IICP) in Vienna. She has vast practical experiences with supporting peace processes and facilitating dialogue projects especially in Sri Lanka, Israel-Palestine, the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Another focus was the reconstruction of 3 villages after the Tsunami in Sri Lanka’s war-torn areas. Ms Kramer is a trainer and lecturer on conflict transformation and peacebuilding at numerous universities. She has co-developed the approach to “Integrative Conflict Transformation”.

Jay Rothman, Ph.D. is President of ARIA Group (www.ariagroup.com) and Director of The ARIA Institute for Creative Conflict Engagement and Cooperative Action at the University of Cincinnati. He has been an academic/practitioner in the field of conflict resolution for the past 25 years. In the course of his career, Jay has worked with diplomats, business executives, opposing leaders of embattled communities, union leaders, school boards and superintendents, community activists and students around the world. He is a teacher, trainer and student of the art and science of conflict engagement and he has developed and taught two cutting edge methodologies for conflict engagement and collective visioning. Jay has lectured and taught around the country and the world, presented at many conflict resolution conferences and workshops, and is the author of numerous articles and books, including Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations and Communities (Jossey-Bass, 1997).

Brandon Sipes is the President of RE-Frame, LLC and a Senior Consultant to The ARIA Group (www.ariagroup.com).  During his career, Brandon has engaged with identity conflicts in the United States and around the world, leading to an understanding of the ways in which identity can be utilized for both division and unity. Research and practice in identity (and specifically religiously motivated) conflict has taken him to Northern Ireland, Croatia, Bosnia, France, Germany, Israel and the West Bank. His work has included organizational visioning, conflict mediation and workshop facilitation, and facilitator training and development. Brandon received a BA in Christian Education from Mt. Vernon Nazarene University in 2001.  In 2005, he began graduate studies in Theology at Xavier University.  While there, he discovered a passion for analyzing what he calls the “beauty and danger inherent in religions.”  This led him to focus his studies on violence and conflict which contain religious components.  Brandon received the Brueggeman Fellowship while at Xavier, allowing him to travel internationally and conduct research leading to the publication of his thesis, “Sacred Rage and Sacred Hope.”

James Wiegel has been involved in the facilitation and training of groups concerned with organizational and social change on 6 continents.  Mr. Wiegel is regarded as a highly skilled facilitator and a passionate trainer.  Over his career, Jim served on or led facilitation and training teams in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Korea, The Marshall Islands, The Netherlands, The Palestinian Territories, The Philippines, The United Kingdom, The United States, and Zambia.  Mr. Wiegel is a Founding Member of the International Association of Facilitators, and has served as Organizational Futures Chair, presented at their global conferences, and facilitated Board retreats for the Association.  Jim served as staff for the Institute of Cultural Affairs for over 35 years.  During that time he was one of the pioneers who developed and refined ICA’s well-established Technology of Participation (ToP®) methods. Jim is currently a member of ICA International and has served on the USA leadership team of the ToP Trainers Network which offers training in ICA’s Technology of Participation (ToP®) methods across the US.  Locally, Jim is an Associate with Partners in Participation, LLC and part of the technical assistance network with St. Luke’s Health Initiatives.  Currently living in Tolleson, Arizona, USA, Mr. Wiegel works with organizations, schools, government agencies and communities on request.