Mac Ginty (2011:48): Local approaches cannot easily be reduced to observable techniques, and they implicitly embed context and culture. [Focus is on formal peacebuilding initiatives]
Mac Ginty (2011:51): “There is a danger in romanticising all things local, traditional, or indigenous. It is possible to develop a simplistic binary narrative in which ‘indigenous’ and ‘traditional’ aspects of society are equated with being organic, natural, unpolluted, sustainable, authentic, and normatively good. In contradiction to this, ‘modern’ or ‘international’ aspects of society may be characterised as being artificial, inorganic, inauthentic, unsustainable, and normatively bad. Such a simplistic binary easily overlooks the fact that there are traditional and indigenous ways of warfare, torture, exclusion, and degradation.”
Mac Ginty (2011:52): “Many indigenous and traditional approaches to peacemaking, dispute resolution, and reconciliation are conservative and reinforce the position of powerholders. Women, minorities, and the young are often excluded, and an emphasis is placed on conformity and a numbing of activism, criticism, and radical change.”
Mac Ginty (2011:144): Identifies concept of ‘local liberalism,’ or “a recognition among citizens that society – often at the micro level of streets and hamlets – depends on reaching accommodation with neighbours, including those with different national or ethnic affiliations.”
Mac Ginty (2011:208-209): Also highlights the problems with the term local liberalism, as it “risks colonising local norms and practices with western conceptions of liberalism. In many local communities such on-the-ground practices of tolerance and pluralism are embedded within daily life and do not necessarily have a name.”
Autesserre (2021:43-44): Criticises what she calls ‘Peace, Inc’ for focusing on external support and top-down, elite-driven activities. Instead, should be localised, drawing on local processes and cultures and traditions. This doesn’t mean top-down initiatives are not important — because major national-level events can destroy grassroots initiatives. However, peace initiatives need to involve “local leaders, intended beneficiaries, and ordinary citizens.”
Autesserre (2021:94): Sees most intervention strategies designed around the idea of trickle-down peace: conflicts are between elites, governments, and countries, and if you can resolve these and get elites to stop fighting and bureaucracies to start working, all will be well. Focusing on grassroot tensions is pointless in this model, because the average person is powerless to affect elite relations.
Autesserre (2021:109): “Bringing attention to bottom-up causes of war does not mean ignoring the impact that elites have on conflict and peace. In many cases, it is because of a combination of local, national, and international issues that violence starts, becomes pervasive, and continues during peace processes and after the signing of peace agreements. National and international leaders often instigate fighting as a way to pursue their own agendas. They manipulate armed groups. They fuel hatred among ordinary people. They launch large-scale attacks that hard thousands of civilians. Thus, the top-down approach that aims to reconcile these elites remains crucial. […] Conflicts must be resolved from the tree-tops and the grassroots.”