Mediation Brief #3
October 2013
Civil Society and Mediation
Brendan McAllister, Senior Associate
[email protected]
www.themediateur.eu
This speech was delivered by Brendan McAllister at the Second Seminar
of the Moroccan-Spanish Initiative on the Promotion of Mediation in the
Mediterranenan, ‘Concrete Actions for an Optimal Synergy in Mediation’
(8-9 June, 2013, Rabat).
About the author
Brendan McAllister was Director of Mediation
Northern Ireland from 1992 -2008. His remit
was to promote the use of mediation within
Northern Ireland and to develop indigenous
practice. He is Senior Associate and Adviser at
mediatEUr.
As someone from outside of the Mediterranean region I am
not going to try to give advice. Rather, I will speak from my
experience of the Northern Ireland conflict, focusing on the
relationship between civil society and peace mediation.
About this issue
This speech addresses the role of civil society
in mediation processes. It was delivered by
Brendan McAllister at the Second Seminar of the
Moroccan-Spanish Initiative on the Promotion
of Mediation in the Mediterranenan, ‘Concrete
Actions for an Optimal Synergy in Mediation’
(8-9 June, Rabat), and looks at the role civil
society can play in mediation processes.
About this series
Our Mediation Briefs is a series of publications
where our associates and collaborators
touch upon key issues in international peace
mediation and share their personal experiences,
in a short and accessible format.
“Civil society is an
essential target for
mediation as well
as an important
resource to it.”
From its foundation in 1921, Northern Ireland was a contested
society with a permanently defined majority which was
Protestant and whose leaders functioned like a permanent
government. There was also a permanently defined minority
– about 47% of the population –, which was Catholic and was
excluded from government and any real political power.
In 1947, from London, the British Government passed an
Education Act that made it possible for young people from less
well-off families to gain access to higher education and, in time,
to join the professions. This reform had huge implications for
the Catholic community in Northern Ireland.
By the mid 1960s, a new generation of Catholic lawyers,
teachers, doctors and other professionals had come of age
and, along with university students, they provided much of
the intellectual leadership for a new civil rights movement
that brought thousands of Catholics onto the streets in protest
against religious discrimination and inequality.
By mobilising ordinary citizens at community level, Catholic civil
leaders successfully stepped outside of an ineffectual political
system to challenge the legitimacy of the regime. Through
civil leadership, the Catholics of Northern Ireland – who for
generations had been alienated and disempowered – found an
effective political voice. In time, a significant number of Catholic
civil rights leaders stood for election and became professional
politicians, providing the political leadership that would work
for 30 years until a historic peace agreement was reached in
1998.
Therefore, in the Northern Ireland context, before observing the
role of civil society in mediative activity we must first notice,
Mediation Brief #3 ‘Civil Society and Mediation’ | November 2013
within the large minority community, civil society’s
seminal contribution in leading popular protest
against injustice and in producing a new cadre of
political leaders.
The primary civil task of mediation was to intervene
in conflict. ‘Conflict Intervention’ was a more
plausible notion than ‘Conflict Resolution’ in a
society where resolution seemed a long way off.
At this stage, the early 1970s, most civil leaders
from the Protestant majority did not identify with
their Catholic counterparts. However, a number of
Protestant and Catholic civil society leaders formed
a new, cross-community, centre party, which exists
to this day.
By the time a so-called ‘peace process’ took hold
from 1993 onwards, Protestant and Catholic civil
leaders were almost totally united in a common
desire for a political settlement. Nevertheless, the
paradoxical nature of civil society persisted: on the
one hand, like the divided, wider society around
them, Protestant and Catholic civil leaders held
opposing or, at least, differing views on issues such
as arrangements for negotiations: the nature of
power-sharing; the release of political prisoners;
decommissioning weapons; and the reform of the
police. Like the rest of society, civil leaders reflected
the range of opposing political allegiances. On the
other hand, civil leaders, on all sides, encouraged
the search for agreement. In the media, in the
workplace, in public places and within community
life, an implicit understanding of the imperative
of peace took hold. Civil society helped to create
a climate conducive to dialogue and negotiation.
People were tired of violence and political deadlock.
Unfortunately, by the early 1970s, Northern Ireland
descended into violence, and divisions between
Protestants and Catholics deepened across society.
Over more than two decades until the early 1990s
Northern Ireland was characterised by political
breakdown, communal violence and division. Within
this context, the concept of peace-building and the
methodology of mediation gradually evolved.
“As the impulse for peace
evolves, civil society will
express it.”
The NGO which I led from 1992 to 2008 – ‘Mediation
Northern Ireland’ – was a prime example of civil
society playing a hands-on role in the development
of mediation within the conflict. However, there is
insufficient time today to present an analysis of its
contribution.
Across Northern Ireland, the role of civil society was
paradoxical. In many respects, much of civil society
mirrored the divisions of Northern Ireland society.
Therefore, bringing Protestant and Catholic civil
leaders into dialogue was often a mediative task
in itself. On the other hand, outside the political
parties, Protestant and Catholic civil leaders engaged
in numerous initiatives to protest against violence,
encourage political leaders into dialogue, and
promote grassroots peace projects at ground level.
Then again, across society, citizens and communities
lived in fear of violence or the threat of violence. An
instinct for caution and self-preservation developed,
summed up in the maxim: “whatever you say, say
nothing.”
In mediation terms, civil society in Northern Ireland
was part of the problem and part of the solution; it
was a target for mediation work and a resource to it.
2
The peace settlement itself remained the business of
political parties. There was a “talks process” within
the wider peace process. It was the main show in
town. It involved Track One mediation, driven by
the British and Irish Governments, with Washington
and Brussels playing influential supporting roles.
Meanwhile, in the body of society, Track Two
mediation provided politicians with opportunities to
engage with opinion formers and to take soundings
within their constituencies.
During the 14 years of political negotiations,
tensions and anxieties actually increased on the
ground, reflecting a widespread apprehension
and nervousness about the dangers of political
compromise. Many Protestants feared that Northern
Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom would be
fundamentally weakened. Many Catholics feared
that they would remain second class citizens. Civil
society reflected these anxieties.
A second civil task for mediation now emerged: to
promote good relations.
Track Two mediation involved civil society figures
and politicians discussing issues around which
the idea of peace would find practical expression:
political consensus; agreed law and order; economic
development and social progress (on matters such
Mediation Brief #3 ‘Civil Society and Mediation’ | November 2013
as housing, health, education, community life and
cultural traditions).
Against this background I would offer several
observations:
At the same time, Track Three mediation has
gone on at community level, helping to manage
tensions or outbreaks of violence and disorder. Track
Three mediation has featured community leaders
finding ways to engage with each other to agree
arrangements for managing conflict.
1. If there is division, enmity and discord in a
society, civil leaders will reflect all of that.
2. In a context of violence or coercion, civil society
will be inhibited by fear.
3. As the impulse for peace evolves, civil society
will express it.
4. By involving civil society, mediators can help
create spaces where politicians can more easily
engage each other and take counsel from civil
leaders.
5. Elements from civil society can act as surrogates
when politicians cannot engage in dialogue but
wish to have certain things said.
6. Civil society can help create a climate that is
conducive to peace.
7. Civil society is an essential target for mediation
as well as an important resource to it.
The political settlement finally took hold in 2007.
In the six years since then, anxieties have grown
about the slow pace of change. The power-sharing
government (known as the Northern Ireland
Executive) is criticised for under-performing on the
economy, job creation, education, healthcare, and in
dealing with the legacy of a violent past. Civil society
leaders are to the fore in these criticisms.
The impact of change is percolating down to
grassroots levels and sections of society are failing
to grasp the implications of living in a state of
compromise. There is a danger that people will pull
back from the challenge of creating an integrated
society and settle instead for co-existence and
polite division.
A third civil task of mediation is at hand: to help
build social partnership across society.
In this regard, the responsibility of civil society
is beyond question, but a whole generation has
emerged from our conflict exhausted. After the
huge civil effort at ending violence and political
breakdown it is difficult to infuse energy into civil
society for the follow-on task of securing the deeper
foundations of peace.
Fig. 1. The Civil Task of mediation:
3