More could be done to use local knowledge about the nature of conflicts and peacebuilding at national level. First of all, it can be helpful to realise that many of these conflicts reflect a long local history of poor governance and state accumulation, such as looting, rent-seeking (eg collection of fees by government officials for services the government normally offers free or at a lower price than that being charged by the officials) or illegitimate trade. Understanding, in its local context, the economic and political rationale of elites engaging in conflict can be an important prerequisite for defining remedial strategies at the national level.

When discussing local forms of peacebuilding, the question of “traditional conflicts” often arises. In the East African context, for example, cattle rustling sometimes spirals into violent conflict. It is frequently mentioned as a traditional conflict, as it is supposedly carried out following age-old tribal traditions. Although such conflicts may adopt a traditional guise, it is extremely important to recognise that today they are often fuelled by dynamics linked to the nation state and the national and even global economy. As an example, research carried out by the programme team suggests that delivering food for people, but not food for their animals, is an ill-conceived response to food crises, and can fuel cattle rustling to replace dying or dead animals.

Traditional forms of justice and reconciliation are also critical in post-conflict situations, when large numbers of perpetrators of violence, including child soldiers, need to be made to face up to their deeds and to be reintegrated into their communities. Para-legal institutions and healing rituals can sometimes offer ex-combatants opportunities to repent and become valuable members of the community again. It would be naïve, however, to assume that local processes alone can bring about peace when the main issues have not yet been resolved at the national level. The main role of local level initiatives consists in providing a grassroots dimension to a successful multi-level peace process – so they must have a voluntary, not state-imposed character. To prevent further conflict in the long term, local principles of dispute settlement, justice and conflict resolution need stronger institutionalisation. This institutionalisation requires pluralistic and well-integrated justice systems and national constitutions that combine traditional values with international human rights standards (such as non-discrimination on the grounds of gender and ethnicity). The Report of the All-African Conference on African Principles of Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation (Addis Ababa, November 1999) set out some principles for Africa (see Box10).

Some theorists argue that, compared to international organisations, “traditional authorities” have better knowledge of the local situation, are more legitimate, and better equipped to carry out the necessary consultations. However, one still needs to ensure that they are legitimate and not working to further their own aims – eg Somalia’s clan structures which have sometimes been a cause for conflict and sometimes for peace. While peacebuilding relies on the primacy of those people living through the conflict, internal and external actors can usefully complement each other’s different capacities and perspectives. For example international agencies, as outsiders, can act as facilitators or engage in protection. And as noted in section 5.2, local peacebuilding actors, while particularly effective at their own level, may lack leverage in other areas where it is needed.