Description
Whilst the local turn in peace and conflict studies has called for locally-built and locally-informed peacebuilding, in practice, despite a rhetoric of localisation, this has not really happened. Rather, there tends to be preferred local actors brought into externally designed programmes that often lack context-informed elements with these actors often having adapted their approach to fit with the perspectives of international actors. In other instances, there are programmes that have some elements of being locally-informed but lack the care to understand the different dynamics and intersectional perspectives. “The local” becomes a homogenous category that fails to reveal lived experiences and more specific opportunities for peace. The significant inroads that have been made in peace and conflict studies are slow to make their way to practice. One substantial roadblock is that due to the context-specific, intersectional-understanding nature of these advancements, they take both time and resources that are not necessarily appreciated, or seen as feasible, in the peacebuilding practitioner field. It also requires time and attention to build equal local partnerships to develop and roll out programmes, which is not always aligned with how the international peacebuilding system is set out. This article aims to empirically understand this failure, whilst highlighting pathways for a local turn in practice.
