We often talk about conflicts or peace processes being complex, but what does that actually mean? What insights can we gain from the study of complex systems for the design of mediation and peace processes? Our societies are not like a bridge that can be built, or a machine that can be fixed, or a rocket that can be sent into space again and again with the same result. And yet, for far too long, mediators and peacebuilders have relied on engineering linear-type causal theories of change when they have attempted to design peace processes.
In the everyday use of the term, “complex” often implies that there are a multiplicity of actors involved. A complex emergency in the United Nations (UN)’ context suggests that the problem requires the response of more than one UN agency. Complex can also indicate that the drivers of a conflict are multidimensional, i.e. there are economic, political, security and other dimensions that need to be taken into account to understand the dynamics driving and sustaining a conflict system. We can also add a third element, namely that many developments are taking place and interacting with each other at the same time. The compounding effects of these factors mean that it becomes impossible to meaningfully isolate causality, and that we are therefore unable to predict with certainty how a specific conflict system will develop, or how it will respond to a specific intervention.
Complexity is also a scientific term, and in the context of the study of complex adaptive systems, a complex system is a particular type of system, including social systems, that exhibits a number of characteristics. I will highlight four. First, that they are highly dynamic – meaning they are continuously changing. Second, that they are non-linear – meaning that at times a small input may produce a large output. It also means that outcomes are irreproducible, something that worked here and now cannot necessarily be reproduced with the same outcome in a different context. It is not possible to reproduce the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that worked relatively well in SA in the early 1990s elsewhere and achieve the same effect. A third characteristic is that they are emergent, meaning that together the elements of a system are capable of generating outcomes they cannot achieve on their own. Peace process that emerge from the active engagement and trial and error experiences of the stakeholders involved in the process is more likely to become self-sustainable because it emerged out of a shared experience. The fourth characteristic is that these systems are self-organising. It means that a complex system does not need a controller to regulate itself. An ecosystem does not need a central brain, and a social system organise and regulate various aspects, such as culture, language and values, itself. The self-organising process works through positive and negative feedback generated by the behaviour of all the individual agents, including leaders and institutions, and collectively these behaviours generate, sustain and adapt overall system level behaviour.
Applying insights from the study of complex adaptive systems to the design of mediation and peace processes has several implications for how we understand conflict, how we influence social change and how we undertake peace interventions.
If we recognise that social systems are complex, then we need a different approach to making sense of, or understanding the conflict systems we are dealing with.
Tweet
First, regarding how we understand conflict: If we recognise that social systems are complex, then we need a different approach to making sense of, or understanding the conflict systems we are dealing with. These systems are highly dynamic, non-linear and emergent, so we cannot rely solely on our previous knowledge to make sense of them. We also need an inductive approach – learning from what we can observe and experience – to enhance our understanding. And because the system is continuously changing, our knowledge of the system also needs to be continuously updated. Conflict analysis should not be just an initial step in a linear process. It needs to be an iterative part of an ongoing adaptive process of learning through doing.
Second, regarding how we influence social change: Complexity has many implications for influencing social change. I will just mention two. When we, as mediators or peacebuilders, try to influence a complex adaptive system we can never generate only the desired effect. Unlike building a bridge or rocket, the building blocks we work with in social systems are free agents who decide for themselves how to respond to our interventions. Do they go along with us or do they resist? Every intervention generates consequences. Some consequences may be what we intended, but there will also be others that are unintended. It is important therefore that we do not only monitor for intended outcomes. Some unintended outcomes may be positive and we may want to latch on to those and try to scale them up. Others would be negative, and we would want to change those as soon as possible to avoid causing harm. We do that by introducing positive and negative feedback to influence how the system is self-organising.
The second aspect of influencing social change relates to self-sustainability and participation. If mediators and peacebuilders want the desired change to become self-sustainable – i.e. it will become part of the system’s own behaviour even when they are no longer exerting any influence on the system – then society must develop its own institutions to promote and safeguard and sustain those new values and behaviours. This implies that those values and behaviours need to be generated by the social system itself, integrating over time with the society’s history, culture, structure and self-organising processes in meaningful ways.
We will always need to develop and negotiate context specific processes, and then adapt them as needed.
Tweet
Ideally, mediators and peacebuilders work in support of partners that lead the process, but sometimes our catalytic role is needed to reset a process interrupted by conflict. In these contexts, the people we work with need to be more than the subjects of our interventions, they need to become change agents themselves. This necessitates their involvement in co-designing and co-owning the process design from the earliest stages and taking over leadership from external mediators and peacebuilders as soon as they are ready to do so.
This implies that mediators and peacebuilders need to learn to let go. They need to give up the illusion that they can control the process or its outcome. The process will evolve in ways that external mediators and peacebuilders cannot foresee or control, but as long as it does not cross the red lines defined by international humanitarian and human rights law, the self-organising processes of the society in question need to be given the opportunity to develop the social institutions needed to self-sustain peace. This implies allowing the system to learn and adapt from its own failures and achievements.
Lastly, on implications of complexity science for undertaking peace interventions: Our regional, continental and international peace and security architectures are equally complex and resist coordination and influence as much, if not more, than the systems we are trying to influence. We need to cope with this complexity in the same way all complex systems do: we need to iteratively experiment and probe, learn and adapt. There is no stopping point. We are not going to find the right or best way to coordinate ourselves. We will always need to develop and negotiate context specific processes, and then adapt them as needed. What works well in a crisis does not necessarily work well in a period of calm, and how we coordinate and cooperate will need to adapt to the needs of the different phases a particular peace process is going through. We can identify principles that can guide us across context, and we can develop process tools for managing this adaptive approach, but this will not make the outcome more predictable.
However, we also require linear causal planning to make sure we have the necessary human, financial and material resources that we are going need at a given time in the future. Our ongoing challenge lies in integrating these two approaches. We need to have the people, money and equipment available in say Haiti or Sudan one year from now, while recognising that how we use them at that point in time is likely to differ significantly from how we anticipated a year earlier. What complexity science tells us, is that difference is not due to a lack of information or poor planning – but because the systems we work with are highly dynamic and non-linear.
That is why we need to leave linear causal assumptions for the accountants and rocket scientists, and why we have to use Adaptive Mediation and Adaptive Peacebuilding for the design and management of mediation and peace processes.
Cedric de Coning is a Research Professor with the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and a Senior Advisor at ACCORD.
