Mediators, not combatants

Wherever there is a need for development, there is not only material hardship, but, in most cases, also socio-economic disparity and injustice. Such imbalances are the root cause of conflicts, and are likely to trigger the escalation of violence. When a religious or ideological element is added to disputes over land, resources, wealth or influence, such disputes fast become value-driven, tackling issues such as truth, justice, identity or systems of governance. Such controversies over worldviews are difficult to control.

Religions imply – and teach – sets of moral values. Accordingly, faith-based development programmes do not only strive to satisfy needs and alleviate symptoms, they also tend to address underlying causes. The goal should be to sustainably reform existing structures in society, law and economy. Therefore, faith-based development agencies touch upon crucial political questions. Another matter is even more important: faith-based agencies often act in support of the poor, the disadvantaged and the oppressed, those who have no political power or lobby. Therefore, these agencies inevitably become embroiled in conflicts between social and/or political forces, sometimes even with governments.

Faith-based approaches to development always imply some form of conflict management. Normally, that should take place in a peaceful and constructive manner, but there is nonetheless a real risk of religious agencies contributing to an aggravation of conflict. They inevitably operate somewhere in between the conflicting roles of “mediators and combatants” (AG KED 1999: 66).

It is well-known that the force of religion can make conflicts escalate. The daily news is full of religiously-motivated violence, assassinations and “holy wars”. Reports abound of oppression of peoples of different faiths and aggressive missionary zeal.

Important peace-making potential

For a long time, research on peace and conflict virtually neglected religion. But ever since the so-called “return of religion” to the political stage, the potential for conflict and violence has been scrutinised and analysed in depth. In the past few years, however, awareness has grown that religion can also play a role in making peace and ending conflicts. In other words, religion is ambivalent. The politically relevant potential for peace inherent in religions, however, is still not getting the attention it deserves (Weingardt 2007).

Spiritual leaders have made crucial and significant contributions to preventing crisis, de-escalating violence and ending hostilities in dozens of conflict situations (see box next page). Pope John Paul II, for instance, brokered a stable peace and friendship agreement between Argentina and Chile on the Beagle conflict, the Protestant Church helped to make possible the peaceful reunification of Germany, and Mahatma Gandhi – as well as his largely forgotten Pashtun ally Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan – inspired the non-violent independence movement in British India in accordance with their Hindu and Muslim beliefs.

Faith-based actors who intervene constructively in conflicts are extremely varied. They include individuals as well as mass movements, dignitaries as well as laymen, formal institutions as well as loosely networked initiatives. It is virtually impossible to define common specifics, and they do not share any striking characteristics that would make them succeed. After all, they operate in entirely different historical and political settings.

Nonetheless, faith-based promoters of peace do display some similarities. Apart from the relevant professional competence, these common features include, on the one hand, intimate knowledge of the conflict concerned and close ties to the people affected, and on the other hand, credibility in discourse and action thanks to their independence and integrity.

Above all, they enjoy a degree of trust among the people and political leaders. That kind of trust is usually denied to non-religious mediators. The instruments of choice are not force, pressure or material incentives, but sincerity and forceful conviction. Often representatives of religions are granted a measure of trust in advance, which can open doors, and give scope to negotiation.

The ethical basis for such (inter-)religious peacemaking is quite simple. It consists of
– a clear religious stand combined with tolerance for people of other faiths and non-believers,
– a repudiation of violence as an expression of the respect for human beings’ lives and physical inviolability, and
– recognition of the inherent dignity and rights of others.
On the basis of these principles, it is not necessary for faith-based peacemakers to drop their claim to religious truth and absoluteness, provided they oppose the use of violence or material enticements to enforce their views, and provided they accept that others will not abandon their own claims to religious truth and absoluteness.

Just like the faith-based peacemakers themselves, their methods and activities are extremely diverse. They include mediation, courier services, provision of transport or neutral venues, guarantees of security and escorts, professional expertise, media contacts, mediation behind the scenes, direct conduct of negotiations, convening of discussions, assistance as a “shadowing partner”, prayer and church services as elements of negotiation or inter-faith dialogue, public statements as well as individual influence on political leaders. Again, the spectrum is so wide that an attempt at categorisation would have little merit. Nor is faith-based conflict management conceptually limited to any particular types or stages of conflict escalation.

The empirical examples are all unique, and of quite complex natures. Nevertheless it is obvious just how great the potential for constructive conflict management inherent in religion is.

All “holy scriptures” of the world religions can be interpreted as either promoting violence or peace. Every verse which exalts violence can be balanced out by a verse denouncing violence. Often people interpret one verse (or the scriptures of another religion) in very literal terms, while another verse (or one’s own “holy scripture”) is read in its historical context and toned down benevolently. It is equally trivial – and absurd – to try to offset the number of positive or negative statements against each other, in order to draw conclusions on a religion’s predisposition to violence or peace. Moreover, it is meaningless and unfair to compare the “good practices (or doctrine)” of one religion with the “bad doctrine (or practices)” of another. Any Religion is just as ambivalent as secular ideologies. Today, wars are waged and justified even in the name of democracy.

True peace is not served by continually emphasising the conflict potential of another’s religions, or even by enforcing repressive measures against them, no matter whether that is done for the sake of “national security” or in the context of a “global war on terror”. It would make more sense to raise awareness of religions’ positive potential, and to build on that insight. Moderate forces and groups within religious communities should be identified and supported. They need access to the media and the general public, they benefit from networking both inside and outside their home country, and they deserve professional training in how to deal with conflict constructively. Not least, they need encouragement.

Socio-economic development

Just as religious sources can be interpreted as being for or against peace, so too can they be construed as being for or against development. The religious rationale for socio-economic injustice or political abstention can be found in all religions and cultural circles. It can be used to legitimise authoritarian regimes, feudal structures and inequitable economic conditions, and even to entrench them. Promoting development in the sense of changing existing structures then becomes a religious sin, or guilt before God.

To give an example: female circumcision is practised by Christians, Muslims and followers of traditional African religions. In all cases, the justification lies (also) in religious beliefs. A refusal to circumcise is therefore perceived as a religious transgression, and leads to expulsion from villages, communities and families, resulting in social isolation, economic ruin and defencelessness.

In a similar way, development and change can be justified and promoted on religious grounds: equality (under the law), equitable economic opportunities, the right to life and dignity, solidarity with the weak and disadvantaged, and so on. It is no coincidence that religious organisations organise health care as well as provide school education and vocational training in poor countries – doing so gives them an opportunity to exert influence, an opportunity which is, in principle, open to any agency ready to become involved. Where the state does not perform, religious and/or social forces step in, competing for influence and even dominance. If moderate organisations do not have sufficient resources and the necessary foreign support to compensate for the shortcomings of the state, fundamentalists and extremists will seize the opportunity to considerably boost their own political and religious influence.

Again, this phenomenon is not new; and it is to be found in all religions. And yet, the international community is often slow – even too slow – to respond. Empirical evidence lies in the gradually growing influence of Islamists in the Middle East or some radical Evangelical churches in Africa. Instead of investing in early prevention (development cooperation and moderate religious partners), much more costly interventions are funded later on (UN missions and even military action).

Faith-based development actors from wealthy countries, such as Misereor, Bread for the World or Germany’s Protestant Church Development Service, have years of experience and expertise in development-related conflict management. They are sensitive to the problems, and they are familiar with appropriate methods of cooperating with partners on the ground. They know the root causes and the areas of conflict, the parties involved and those who are affected, the background and the context. They become aware of developments that are likely to escalate early on, long before they erupt into violence, and before they attract the attention of politicians and the media. These agencies have the skills needed to supplement political or religious mediation efforts effectively.

All religious denominations must act responsively. They must boost their capacities in the fields of peace and development, and they should act more assertively. International policymakers, on the other hand, would be well advised to work more closely with religions in general, religious (and non-religious) development agencies, and to enlist their support as helpful, sometimes central agents of constructive conflict management.