While my GIST topic is peace leadership, my experience these past three months has taught me more about gender-based violence than anything else. Of nine participants in this EWC program, I am the only man. I’m also the only man working at my organization, Sarus. Furthermore, GIST has taken me to places where gender is cut in sharp relief by culture and religion: Aceh, India, and Bangladesh. Experiencing these places as the only man with groups of women has been eye-opening and deeply disturbing.
Aceh is the only region in Southeast Asia that is officially under sharia law. This has major implications for women, including restrictions on their clothing, expression, and bodies. I had the opportunity to meet with women peace leaders in Aceh who overcame incredible adversity in order to advocate for peace and push forward a stalled peace process in the protracted armed conflict between Acehnese nationalists and the Indonesian military. In spite of being the first advocates for peace, these women were excluded from the formal peace process and as such were not represented in the terms of the final agreement. Among other things, this meant that female victims of the conflict did not receive compensation. And yet, against all odds, a woman, Illiza Sa'aduddin Djamal, was elected mayor of Banda Aceh. In spite of a solid performance, the political opposition used religion as a tool against her in her recent reelection efforts, telling would-be supporters that it was against their religion to vote for a woman. In the end, she lost her reelection effort. For women in Aceh, it’s often been two steps back for every step forward. And yet they persist relentlessly. In India, I was part of a team of GISTers learning about women’s empowerment in West Odisha and consulting for a woman-run organization called Parinaama that promotes women’s livelihoods, education, and healthcare. West Odisha is one of the poorest places in India, and women experience poverty more severely than men because of structural and cultural violence against women. I saw few women on the streets during my time in Odisha. Men ran the shops and even dominated the local markets, which I’m accustomed to seeing run by women in Southeast Asia. I saw male government officials talk down to women who knew more than they could ever dream to know about the issues under discussion. I witnessed and heard story after story from my female colleagues from EWC being stared at by men, catcalled to, talked down to, ignored, or otherwise discriminated against. I was particularly outraged when we visited a government run soup kitchen that was only feeding men because the stigma against women going out in public was greater than their hunger. Attending a colleague’s wedding in Bangladesh shortly after my trip to India, I heard stories from my female colleagues from various countries in South and Southeast Asia about being harassed and followed by men in assorted contexts. They spoke of men exposing themselves to them on the streets and of male police officers that didn’t take them seriously or even blamed them for what happened. Around the same time, an American woman friend of mine in Indonesia bravely wrote about being sexually assaulted in broad daylight in public in an upscale neighborhood in Jakarta. The next day, an Australian friend told me about first dates with men that became physically threatening and the damaging psychological effects these experiences had on her. I also watched my GIST colleagues adjust their travel plans and ways of traveling in inconvenient and costly ways in order to avoid various forms of gender-based violence. The sum effect for me of watching and hearing all these stories is disgust and anger. What I find most disturbing is the degree to which these instances of violence are normalized. When I heard some of these stories, the storytellers at first didn’t even acknowledge the events as forms of violence, even those working in the field of peace and conflict. Ever so sadly, these occurrences are just part of ‘normal’ everyday life for women around Asia and the rest of the world. While shocking to me, of course none of this is new to women everywhere who experience myriad forms of gender-based violence on a daily basis and must constantly consider the threat in their daily decision-making. I’m trying to figure out right now how I could be so blind to this before. I’ve been hearing stories and learning about this issue for years, but somehow it never hit me on a gut level the way it does now, and I never was able to connect all the dots. For me, it took a rather dramatic series of circumstances including traveling to extraordinarily oppressive environments with other women and hearing a string of horrifying stories. How can we get more men to have this realization given that most folks don’t have the luxury and privilege that I’ve had over the past three months? And how can we as men best join the fight against gender-based violence? I don’t know the answers to these questions quite yet. But I’m starting to feel in my heart that I want to work with men on this issue. I’ve been working in peace and conflict for seven years, but it’s only just now hitting me how the importance and extent of gender-based violence. It’s been staring me right in the face across all the countries and contexts in which I’ve been working. And of course I’m part of the conflict as a gendered human being. More men need to understand this issue and fight against it. I’m only just beginning to see how my empowerment as a man is inextricably linked to the empowerment of all women everywhere. I’m eager to continue this journey, to transform my disgust and anger into positive action. It’s a journey of finding my voice and helping us move towards greater peace and equality when it comes to gender. I want to find men (because women are already there) to join me on this journey.
0 Comments
In a famous 2009 TED Talk, author Chimamanda Adichie speaks eloquently of the danger of the “single story.” The single story is a simplistic story that we use to define the entirety of a person. It’s reductionistic, demoralizing, and leads to misunderstanding and conflict. An example of a single story she cites is how people in the UK felt sorry for her simply because she was from Africa, even though she did not come from a poor family and did not identify as African.
I’ve seen the single story told about places too. The international media storyline of Myanmar is an example. Prior to constitutional reforms beginning in 2011, the single story of Myanmar was that of a country under military rule. Aung San Suu Kyi, as the beacon of human rights and nonviolent resistance to the regime, played the role of heroine in this single story. Living in Myanmar in 2008 and 2009, I observed the limitations of this particular single story. While the military rule was undoubtedly real and oppressive, leading to immense loss of life and human suffering for millions of people, there were many other stories also taking place in Myanmar that were untold and remain untold today in the international media. For example, there were dozens of local and international NGOs as well as religious and other civil society organizations serving communities. There was an art and music scene in urban areas, and there were innovative schools and educational programs teaching critical thinking and civic engagement. Millions of people went about their daily lives, working jobs in a wide range of sectors, taking public transportation, shopping in bustling markets, and chatting at teashops. Contrary to perceptions in the international media, the country was not completely closed off. There were always foreigners in Myanmar: western English teachers, NGO workers and diplomats from around the world and ample business folks from ASEAN countries, China, and India. The story of the military regime was and remains an important story, but it’s never been the only story of Myanmar. The international media’s love affair with Aung San Suu Kyi and her subsequent fall from grace is what occurs when we reduce a place to a single story. Our single stories can even create or exacerbate conflict. The single story of Myanmar informed Western government’s policies towards the country and arguably empowered the tatmadaw to continue its rule for as long as it did. I’ve spent much of time on GIST in Aceh, Indonesia. While the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami was part of the international story of Aceh for several years, today the single story of Aceh is that of an island of religious extremism under sharia law* in Southeast Asia. Hundreds of articles have been published over the last few years in English media around the world about the practice of sharia law in Aceh, and it’s almost universally negative coverage. Stories abound of public canings, oppression of women, and religious extremism. While these stories are important and bear truth, they are only part of the story of Aceh. Though my experience is undoubtedly shaped by my identity as a white, foreign, man and the limited time I’ve spent here, I have seen many things here that do not resonate with the international media’s single story of the place. A good place to start is with the hospitality I’ve received in Aceh. In spite of being a national of a country whose president is desperately trying to institute a so-called Muslim ban, I’ve been welcomed with kindness, generosity and openness by everyone I’ve met here. Strangers regularly approach me to engage in conversation or help me out if I appear lost, and many of these folks have given me their phone numbers, invited me for coffee, or even asked me to their homes. On the political front, the previous mayor of the Acehnese capital was a woman, hardly the western stereotype of politics under sharia law. Vendors at retail stores and markets are predominantly women, the service industry employs many women, women drive motorbikes and walk on the streets, and they can be found in restaurants and cafes. Although this is a land under sharia law, I can see far more women in the public sphere than I have seen on recent visits with EWC to Bangladesh, which is under secular law, and Hindu-dominated parts of India. In short, what I’m seeing and experiencing in Aceh does not resonate with the single story of Aceh ubiquitous in the international media. Lest I unintentionally confuse or offend here, the point of this piece is not to defend the Myanmar military dictatorship or sharia law in Aceh. I’m critical of both. But think pieces criticizing these institutions are a dime a dozen, and I have nothing unique to add. Nor is my intention to offer any kind of expert assessment of what’s going on or what was going on in either of these places. My intention is only to suggest the danger of the single story when it comes to places. Though personally a visiting a place is not always possible, we can still exercise a degree of nuance and complexity in our storytelling about places, as well as our consumption of stories about places. Next time we’re presented repeatedly with the same story about a place, let’s take this is an opportunity to dig deeper and hear more stories. With curiosity, nuance, and appreciation for multiple stories, we can develop a more sophisticated understanding of a place. And this can be the foundation for authentic connection, human-centered solutions, and ultimately a more peaceful world. Notes: *I include sharia law in quotation marks because technically the word sharia itself signifies law. However, when used in international media, sharia law refers to Islamic law as the law of the land. Peace leaders I interviewed so far in my research stressed the importance of understanding the context in which conflicts take place. This includes the historical, social, economic, and political dimensions of the conflict setting. Understanding context enables peace leaders to design interventions that are both relevant and effective.
With sufficient contextual knowledge, a conflict analysis should then be done. Conflict analysis is essential for successful peacebuilding interventions. Conflicts are dynamic and ever changing, so conflict analysis needs to be done on an ongoing basis. It should always be seen as a work in progress. Conflict analyses can be done in collaboration with different conflict parties and others affected by a conflict. Peace leaders told me that they use conflict analysis as a way of engaging in dialogue with different actors involved in a conflict, and I even heard one story of how two conflicting villages actually transformed conflict through the process of drawing a conflict map. Conflict analysis is also essential for peacebuilding organizations to ensure that everyone within the organization is on the same page about the nature of the conflict and rational for intervention design. The Center for Peace and Conflict Studies in Siem Reap uses a systems approach to conflict analysis in all of their programs, including an advanced peace education program for women peace leaders in Asia. This analysis approach is grounded in systems thinking and involves creating a map that indicates the connections between the underlying issues at play in a conflict. Once a map has been established, peace leaders can consider which part of the system might be ripe for change. Strategic interventions can then be designed to alter parts of the system in such a way that deep systemic change can occur and conflicts can be transformed. Peace leaders I spoke with also stressed the importance of conflict sensitivity for those working in conflict settings. Well-intentioned individuals and organizations undertaking development projects can unwittingly exacerbate conflict. An example cited in my interviews is recent INGO projects in Rakhine State of Myanmar, which was not sufficiently sensitive to the Rohingya conflict in their project design. INGOs lost their credibility in the region, and several were even forced to leave at threat of violence. “Do No Harm” is a framework created by CDA in 1993 that has been employed by thousands of peacebuilding and development organizations globally. It entails doing regular analysis of development projects to ensure that sufficient conflict sensitivity is in place. The analysis requires looking at connectors and dividers between all communities affected by a prospective on ongoing project. Well-designed projects will increase connectors and decrease dividers. “Do No Harm” has helped mainstream conflict sensitivity and a peacebuilding perspective into the development sector. Peace leaders I interviewed highlighted the crosscutting nature of peace work. They told me there are many peace leaders out there in the world who do not identify as peace leaders because their work is framed in development terms. In conclusion, good peace leaders do regular and inclusive conflict analysis, and responsible development workers do it as well. My fellow GISTer, Yati Oo, and I had the opportunity last week to meet with the highly regarded Acehnese peace leader, Suraiya Kamaruzzaman. She shared with us about her remarkable leadership journey through the violent conflict of the early 2000s and the post-tsunami recovery. A theme resonant throughout our chat was the importance including women at all levels of the peacebuilding process. Full participation of women is essential for a sustainable peace.
During the war, men left the villages to join the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). Women were left to manage all the affairs of the village. They were harassed and abused by the Indonesian military, including sexual assault. Suraiya spoke of the great solidarity and bravery displayed by women. She recounted the story of a commander who raped a woman and threatened to do the same to anyone who tried to help her. That evening all of the women went to support the woman in spite of the commander’s warning. Women led the way in the peace process. In the early 2000s, with the conflict between GAM and the Indonesian military at a stalemate, women were the first to speak out for peace and take action for peace. It initially took place informally with women from different villages sharing information at the market and supporting each other in effort to protect villages and preserve human life. Later women became peace activists and civil society leaders, organizing the first Acehnese women’s peace convention with diverse women representing every district of Aceh traveling to attend the three-day meeting. “On the final day, we met until four in the morning.” This was the beginning of a process that eventually led to the signing of a peace agreement in Helsinki in 2005. Unfortunately women were not included in the formal peace talks, and as such, their needs and perspectives were not included in the agreement. While male ex-combatants were offered reintegration services and support, female victims of sexual assault and other crimes received no such support. The exclusion of women in the peace process is not unique to Aceh. Irene Santiago, a peace leader in Mindanao and founder of Women’s Peace Tables, said: “I saw a situation where mostly men were trying to solve the problem. And I knew that if women did not participate in the negotiations, not only in the peace making but the peacebuilding, there was no chance for a peace agreement.” The essential nature of women’s participation in peacebuilding is not restricted to formal negotiations. The US Institute of Peace reports that women’s participation in nonviolent movements is essential to a sustainable peace. UN Resolution 1325 promotes the full participation of women in all parts and all levels of the peace process. This resolution was passed in 2000, however, women, like those in Aceh, are still excluded from the peace, especially formal, high level talks with long-lasting implications for post-conflict societies. It’s time for this to change. Suraiya spoke eloquently of the “need for men and women to understand the essential role of women in the peace process.” Suraiya, her colleagues at Flower Aceh, and many other resilient women peace leaders of Aceh have been fighting for equality and inclusion over long decades of conflict and natural disaster. “Fairness is our dream.” As is so often the case, fairness and peace go hand-in-hand. This past week in Bangkok I had the opportunity to interview five Rotary Peace Fellows from Africa, the Pacific Islands, Europe, and the Middle East. I was interested in learning about their peace leadership journeys and was deeply inspired by what I heard. While their stories were vastly different from each other because of their unique contexts and life experiences, common themes emerged across the interviews.
Emerging from the Ashes – All five interviewees experienced childhood trauma or personal or community tragedies that helped lead them to their work. Whether it was living through violent conflict, losing parents, having to stop studying because of civil unrest, the experience of extreme poverty, or becoming a refugee, these hardships became sources of meaning, motivation, and wisdom for the peace leaders I interviewed. The particular types of peacebuilding work in which these energies were channeled differed from person to person depending on their interests and contexts and included academic research on interethnic marriages in Georgia, rural holistic community development and university-level peace education in Kenya, empowering women refugees in the Netherlands, and national-level post-conflict policy making in the Solomon Islands. The Vocation Finds You – No one I spoke to intended to enter the peacebuilding field. Rather a series of circumstances and events led them to the field in a way that could only make sense in retrospect. A common story was that they didn’t know they were doing peacebuilding work until others told them they were doing it. They were just doing what the situation called for. Several described this journey to peacebuilding in mystical or spiritual terms. Context Matters & It’s Always Personal -- I kept the interviews open-ended and started out each interview by asking people to tell me how they got into their current work. In four of the five interviews, people began with lengthy explanations of the context in which they’re working, giving detailed information on the cultural backdrop as well as an analysis of the conflict. It’s impossible to understand the work of a peace leader without understanding the context in which she is working. Furthermore, peace leaders are deeply connected on a very personal level to the contexts in which they are working. It’s a Way of Life – Interviewees spoke of the importance of values in guiding their work. The most common values highlighted were respect and inclusion. People noted the need to see beyond ‘stereotypes,’ ‘skin color and religion’, to not ‘put people in boxes’, and to find the ‘the common humanity’ in all other human beings. These values do not stop when peace leaders leave the office. Informants spoke of how these values deeply inform their relationships with their families and how they raise their children. Peace leadership is not just something people do at work; it’s a way of being, it’s who you are. Leading is Building – The metaphor of building came up several times in the interviews. One informant working in national-level public policy told me: “You cannot do statebuilding without peacebuilding, and you cannot do peacebuilding without statebuilding.” Others spoke of the importance of building communities and networks. Connecting individuals, organizations, resources, and information is a key part of leading peace. The desire to connect to and learn from a global network was a primary motivation for all of the informants to apply for the Rotary Peace Fellowship. Building alone is not sufficient. As one person said, “It’s easy to build networks but difficult to maintain them.” ‘Peace from the Soil’ -- The importance of a holistic approach to peace leadership that incorporates environmental justice was voiced in several interviews. For one peace leader in Kenya, leading peace begins with observing and listening to nature. “If we can treat the soil well then we can other people well.” His philosophy of ‘peace from the soil’ informs all agricultural and educational activities at his rural community center in Kenya for disadvantaged youth. He spoke passionately of the fundamental need for people who want to peace to first “reclaim their relationship with nature.” Don’t Forget Women -- Four of five informants highlighted the importance of women in the peace process. Two peace leaders noted that even when women are excluded from the process, they still have a significant impact on it. “Imagine what would happen if they were actively included.” The theme of women’s inclusion was stressed by both female and male informants alike. A Little Goes a Long Way – While there was not universal agreement on this one, four of the five peace leaders said that scale is not as nearly as important as quality of intention and action in peace leadership. “Do what you can in your own position, it can go a long way. You don’t need an opportunity on the global stage.” Peace Leadership is a new area of study. These five interviews with Rotary Peace Fellows from around the world offer general insights into the nature of peace leadership and starting points for further inquiry. Sarus is a Phnom Penh-based nonprofit working to build peace through two-way exchange programs that build community between youth from demographics with a history of conflict. Our programs challenge emerging leaders to explore conflict and empower them to transform the structures and conditions that catalyze physical, structural, and symbolic violence on the interpersonal and society level. The design and curriculum of our programs have changed significantly over the last seven years, and our organization has evolved and matured as we have responded to challenges and expanded to new countries and contexts. Time and time again when our team sits down to look at the big picture of our organization, we struggle to determine whether we are first and foremost in the business of developing the next generation of leaders or next generation peacebuilders. The answer, we’re coming to realize, is both. Leadership and peacebuilding are inextricably linked and overlapping to the point that one could argue it is not possible to do one without the other. This relationship is the subject of my GIST project for APLP. I will be meeting with leaders and peacebuilders in Southeast Asia in order to seek answers to the following question: To what extent does effective leadership entail effective peacebuilding and vice versa?
In order to answer this question, we need to first define our terms and limit the scope of our inquiry. The range of definitions and models for both leadership and peacebuilding are vast to the point that a general comparison would be of limited value and practically impossible. Therefore, I’ve chosen to focus on particular models or approaches for leadership and peacebuilding that are on the respective cutting edges of their fields. For leadership, I’ve chosen the adaptive leadership model established by Alexander Grashow and Ronald Heifetz. For peacebuilding, I’ve chosen to focus on the wing of the field known as conflict transformation, advocated by John Paul Lederach. By selecting these two models of leadership and peacebuilding, we can be more clear and specific. The results of such a comparison can then hopefully be used to elicit broader similarities and overlap points between leadership and peacebuilding more generally. The word effective in this study will signify actions and approaches to leadership and peacebuilding that yield results deemed desirable by proponents of the two models under analysis. While I have not yet conducted my field research, I can comment on potential convergence points from my seven years experience as a peace leader at Sarus, as well as my formal inquiry into peacebuilding and leadership as Rotary Peace Fellow and East-West Center Leadership fellow. To date I have found the following points of convergence in the states of the art in these two fields: (1) Systems and Agency – Systems thinking has demolished the notion of linear approaches to problem solving in the context of leadership and leadership. While people change the world, no individual can change the world alone. Understanding of the complex systems underpinning social structures is required of leaders and peacebuildings. The role of the agent in today’s world is to identify the levers or trigger points within these systems and then mobilize people and resources to strategically pull upon these levers to catalyze change. (2) Holism and the Body – The fields of leadership and peacebuilding have both rediscovered the body, so to speak. This has entailed an increased focus on physical identity markers and recognition of the importance emotions in both leadership and peacebuilding. There has also been a recognition in both fields that reducing complex human issues to their parts is not always the best way to solve problems. (3) The Art of Improvisation and Emergence – Science is dead. The new discourses of peacebuilding and leadership speak of them as arts. There are no exact skills, models, and practices that can be taught in workshops and then applied universally. Today’s world is filled with VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Changing, Ambiguous) situations that cannot be solved with the science of yesterday. Instead, each context and situation is unique and calls for peacebuilders and leaders to improvise and create conditions for creative emergence to occur. Leading and building peace both require agility, sensitivity, and the art of wayfinding (in adaptive leadership) and serendipity (in conflict transformation). There are no one-size fits all solutions in today’s peacebuilding and leadership dilemmas. (4) Reflection and Self-Care – Both leaders and peacebuilders experience high levels of stress on account of the demanding nature of their work which can lead to burnout. This coupled with an increased awareness of the effects of trauma in both fields has led practitioners to recognize the importance of self-care and rest. New insights into implicit bias, structural power dynamics and new types of violence (symbolic and quotidian), and unintentional harm have led to a realization in both fields of the importance of ongoing reflection and professional development. (5) Relation and Co-Creation – There is a movement in both fields away from the ego. Leadership and peacebuilding narratives are becoming less about bold, courageous hero journeys and more about teams and communities that share responsibilities and co-create with different individuals filling different roles at different times. Both fields highlight the importance of stepping forward and stepping back depending on context and situation. Even the concept of charisma is being challenged by the emerging concept of co-charisma. (6) Authenticity, Voice, and Dialogue – There increased recognition that both peacebuilding and leadership require the genuine expression of needs and emotions, even when this elicits vulnerability on the part of the agent. Leaders and peacebuilders alike are encouraged to develop their authentic voice and hold spaces for dialogue and exchange between teams, stakeholders, communities, and conflict parties. Full participation, engagement, and ownership by all parties is required for sustainable change and honesty and vulnerability are necessary preconditions for this to occur. (7) Path and Vision – Both fields speak of the personal journey of the peacebuilder and leader and how this journey relates to the journey of her team, community, or stakeholders. The requirement of the leader and peacebuilder, alike, is to connect her personal journey to the collective journey and articulate a vision for this shared path. This merging of the individual and the collective is built upon self-awareness, empathy, authenticity, and dialogue. This creative act of visioning is an art of improvisation, almost spiritual in nature, which requires deep self-knowledge, wisdom, and voice on the part of the leader or peacebuilder. These points of convergence illuminate the potential value of greater collaboration and dialogue between those studying and practicing peacebuilding and leadership. It also gestures towards the added value of mainstreaming a conflict or peacebuilding perspective into leadership training, as well as integrating a leadership perspective into peacebuilding training. In short, the intersection of these two fields provides an exciting avenue for future research and collaboration. In my decade of work at the intersection of peace and leadership education in Asia, I’ve noticed an increasing convergence in in how practitioners and academics speak about peacebuilding and leadership. Based on my personal experience and observations, I have two correlated hunches:
|
Wesley HeddenI've been living and working in Southeast Asia since 2006. I'm the founder of Sarus, a peacebuilding and youth empowerment organization operating in Cambodia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Archives
April 2017
Categories |