'We need a peace process.'

Were you shocked by the assassination attempt on Donald Trump? I wasn’t.

I was surprised, certainly, as with any dramatic, unexpected event. But my almost immediate thought was to wonder – with hindsight – whether this had been almost inevitable.

After all, Trump is a hate figure for many; US society is bitterly divided on political, cultural and ethnic faultlines; and the country is awash not just with guns but people ready, willing and able to use them. Hence the extremely tight security around him (and other high profile politicians), which this time clearly fell short.

Then, as the oft-repeated calls came for the anger to be dialled down and civility to return to political debate, another thought popped into my head.

‘America needs a peace process.’ 

Yes, there are already many valuable projects working hard to bridge divides between different groups at various levels across the States, and I sincerely applaud their efforts.

But how much more effective might they be, I wonder, if they were part of a coordinated process that sought to transform hostilities nationwide?

A peace process.

A wider application?

Which got me thinking about other conflicts that might benefit from this approach.

For example, I'm part of an organisation that's struggling with the issue of gender identity and transgender rights. Suffice it to say that 'passionate debate' has led to angry polarisation between the different groups, which the organisation's leadership has been unable to resolve.

Neither have internal systems for dealing with complaints and disputes proved adequate in the face of the very strong feelings the issue prompts.

The organisation needs a peace process.

Again, I was asked recently about facilitating a series of conversations between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine residents in an area of London strongly affected by the situation in Gaza.

I said that was certainly possible, could be beneficial to those involved – and would have the best chance of succeeding if those conversations were part of a wider, well-planned and well-supported initiative.

A peace process.

I didn't put it in those terms but, in effect, that's what I was describing.

What’s a peace process?

Now, the term 'peace process' might seem inappropriate for the three situations I've touched on above, not least because peace processes are a mystery to most people. They’re run out of sight, in faraway places, by specialists no one sees, using techniques very few know (let alone could implement), to end violent conflicts.

Much of which may be true. 

Even so, I think we can learn lessons from the history of successful peace processes that can be applied to any conflict, anywhere and at any scale.

For example, peace processes are most successful when they’re

• convened by a neutral authority that’s trusted by all the parties to the conflict

• seen as being the best alternative to a conflict none of the parties think they can ‘win’ at an acceptable cost 

• as inclusive as possible – although it often takes more time for some parties to decide to join in than others

• run by experts in the dynamics of mediation and conflict, who don’t expect progress to be made quickly or in a straight line

• designed (ideally co-designed) as a process – the clue’s in the name – with a before, during and after, so that any agreement that’s reached stands the best possible chance of enduring

In other words, there are several conditions (and this list is not exhaustive) that have to work together, as part of a method and a system, for a peace process to succeed.

What do you think?

So, might it be possible for those conditions to be met at a national level in the USA, to help heal division and create a more united United States? 

Or – at an organisational level – to help bring some mutual understanding and respect to the heated controversy over gender identity and transgender rights?

Or – at a community level – to help neighbours live alongside each other with some degree of harmony, while still feeling passionately about different sides in the ongoing conflict in Israel-Palestine?

To put it another way, is it time for the peace process to be brought out of its specialist silos and made available to all?

I'm really interested to hear your thoughts on this question, so please feel free to comment.

And I'll be writing more in my next blogs about the peace process and how it can be made relevant to everyone.