Citizen engagement in peacebuilding: A communication for development approach to rebuilding peace from the bottom-up

I Introduction

This article wants to bring together notions of peacebuilding, citizen engagement and communication for development (C4D) to demonstrate how C4D can offer citizens a tool to become active participants in the reconstruction process that takes place after large-scale violence. At the same time, it aims to put forward some reflections on C4D’s contribution towards participatory governance.

The disconnection between citizens and political leadership in the aftermath of conflict can be regarded as a concern in the peacebuilding process. In addition, the lack of communication and access to information, particularly for certain groups, that often characterizes these fragile environments represents a major obstacle in the advancement towards a stable peace. This calls for the creation of a parallel space to the mainstream process that allows citizens to have a say in rebuilding peace.

Citizen engagement forms a component of participatory governance, and it is key in reaching joint decision-making between government and civil society. In post-conflict contexts, this is crucial to introduce and also to amplify citizens’ voices in the peacebuilding process. Through participatory communication and a tailored use of the media and technology, C4D can create new platforms and channels for citizens to be agents in the national reconstruction.

By unearthing the connections between the literatures on peacebuilding and development in violent contexts, participatory communication and civic engagement with the reality of post-conflict peace, this article demonstrates how a communication for development approach to engaging citizens contributes to strengthening the reconstruction process at the end of the violence, while engendering a bottom-up process based on dialogue and inclusivity. After offering an overview of the peacebuilding contexts, this article presents a theoretical discussion that brings to the surface not only the role of C4D in facilitating citizens’ participation in government decision-making, but also its significance in creating an inclusive peacebuilding process that starts from the community. At the same time, this discussion begins to shed light on the relationship between communication for development and participatory governance.

II Peacebuilding and development in violent contexts

In the aftermath of civil conflict, the reconstruction process that needs to take place requires careful planning in order to avoid producing new causes of tension. This can occur both when resources are distributed unequally and when the chosen course for the political process is not successful in gaining people’s support. Social reconstruction must take place alongside the physical one. However, too often, what this approach achieves is mostly escaping further conflict (Stauffacher et al., 2005).

In the conflict and development policy, an interpretation of peacebuilding as a process is provided by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD):

Peacebuilding […] focuses on long-term support to, and establishment of, viable political and socio-economic and cultural institutions capable of addressing the root causes of conflicts, as well as other initiatives aimed at creating the necessary conditions for sustained peace and stability. These activities also seek to promote the integration of competing or marginalised groups within mainstream society, through providing equitable access to political decision-making, social networks, economic resources and information, and can be implemented in all phases of conflict. (DAC, 1997: 10)

While this process includes, among other factors, rebuilding trust between communities that were fighting, addressing disputes peacefully and promoting access to governance institutions (Kelly and Souter, 2014), peace can be built by way of different approaches. The literature on conflict makes a practical distinction on the basis of the actors involved. More specifically, track 1 peacebuilding sees the state as the main implementer of negotiations and other activities that are primarily outcome-oriented. Track 2 and track 3 peacebuilding, on the other end, can be looked at as relationship-oriented and seek the engagement of non-state actors at different levels, from organized civil society for the former to more grassroots association for the latter (Paffenholtz, 2000).

Reconstruction efforts need to be sensitive to risks, as the possibility of a return to violence overshadows the existence of societies living in post-conflict environments. The interests of minorities need to be protected, while majority decision-making must be enabled in order to include the views of the poor and marginalized (Kelly and Souter, 2014).

Initiating a transition process from violence to peace is problematic due to the low level of trust that citizens have towards the government. Different forms of cooperation are hard to implement and targeting the triggers of violence is a complex challenge (World Bank, 2011). In most cases, poor and dispossessed people are inclined to regard the state as a perpetrator or accomplice of the violence that was inflicted on them. Fear and mistrust produce, as a result, a distorted view of their political community and impact on the quality of democratic governance (Benequista et al., 2010). It is only through a participation in governance that the government will begin to be held accountable to respond to the needs of all citizens, and that confidence in state institutions will be rebuilt (Kelly and Souter, 2014). An application of this in post-conflict contexts can also be found in what Paffenholtz (2000: 20) calls ‘complimentary approach’, bringing together track 1, 2 and 3 peacebuilding.

Within this context, development interventions in conflict and post-conflict realities characterized by violence carry distinctive features in addition to those implemented elsewhere. As O’Gorman (2011) emphasizes, one of the pillars of the reconstruction process is the ability of the state to guarantee services to its citizens, and the capacity of citizens to claim those services and demand state’s accountability. The engagement of citizens therefore plays a crucial role in this process. At the same time, since security is a key service in conflict-affected environments, the essence of development theory and practice shifts from the primary goal of poverty alleviation to that of establishing strong state–society relations (O’Gorman, 2011). As further clarified by the Development Assistance Committee, ‘in divided or post-war states, […] poverty reduction remains a goal but is perhaps not the most appropriate overall framework for engagement’ (DAC, as cited in O’Gorman, 2011: 79).

The literature on violent conflict has also typically paid attention to the causes of violence arising from contrasting interests between governments and opposing parties, which constitute its macro dynamics. Little focus has been given to understanding the micro-level dimension of conflict. A major flow in the theory, moreover, is the lack of a clear connection between these macro and micro areas of analysis; in other words, it remains unclear how ‘the dynamics of conflict observed at the local level may explain wider political, economic, or social processes’ (Balcells and Justino, 2014: 1346). Yet, local population’s behaviour and its relations with the institutions are largely dependent on how fighting and negotiations unfold (Balcells and Justino, 2014). Hence, placing an emphasis on capturing voices at the grassroots remains critical.

A further crucial factor that relates to these reflections is the ability of the state to gain legitimacy in driving the reconstruction process. In violent contexts, particularly in the aftermath of conflict, state legitimacy has become a central dimension. As Clements (2014: 13) explains, ‘legitimacy is determined by whether the contractual relationship between the state and citizens is working effectively or not’. One way of strengthening legitimacy in the state during peacebuilding is by addressing informal institutions and community representatives, so that new institutions based on bottom-up, community-oriented values and traditions can participate in the process, enhancing its overall soundness (Clements, 2014). As stressed by the OECD’s DAC:

Broad acceptance throughout society of the legitimacy of the state and the credibility of the institutions of governance is a key aspect of forging […] a civic spirit […] Efforts to support participation, democratisation and peacebuilding, through strengthened institutions of governance, are clearly interlinked. (DAC, 1997: 37)

Clements (2014) also adds that ‘legitimacy is grounded when the system of governance and authority flows from and is connected to local realities’ (p. 15). This movement starts from the bottom-up and it cannot be forced upon people. A process in which elites fail to gain legitimacy from their citizens will not rest on stable ground. Therefore, peacebuilding interventions need to be redesigned with this in mind: ‘every effort should be made to incorporate familial, kin, community and sub-national actors—as well as national elites’ Clements (2014).

III A starting point for C4D and citizen engagement in peacebuilding

The implementation of top-down peacebuilding interventions in a large number of contexts has failed to attain long lasting political and social stability. Rather than focusing on external actors and centralized approaches, these experiences encourage us to start building peace with local capacities and through social structures that are already in place (Schirch, 2005). Citizen engagement is a process that allows government and non-state actors to collaborate on joint decision-making in relation to policy planning and negotiation, and in finding solutions to conflict (Naidoo, 2008). The United Nations (2008, as cited in Gaventa and Barrett, 2010: 12) state that ‘engagement is regarded as an important governance norm that can strengthen the decision-making arrangements of the state and produce outcomes that favour the poor and the disadvantaged’.

Previous research has shown how communication mechanisms and a targeted use of the media play an important role in the achievement of good governance (see, e.g., Servaes, 2009), also in different political systems. These mechanisms can engage citizens in influencing attitude, behaviour and even policy, contributing to an improved system.

The World Bank—particularly through its CommGAP programme (2007, 2008 and 2009)—has analyzed the important role that communication plays in strengthening good governance and has released a series of reports that emphasize how elements such as free media and access to information allow for the creation of an informed public opinion. This is achieved mainly by creating a link between citizens, media and government, and by facilitating the establishment of a vibrant civil society. Another avenue includes the area of media development, where activities such as media professionals’ training, improvement of journalism schools, support for independent news organizations and professional associations, as well as the creation of appropriate legal and regulatory environments that protect press freedom (Moehler, 2013) allow the media sector to thrive.

Hanley et al. (2008) clarify that good governance entails an inclusive public sphere which offers a space for dialogue between different people, institutions and decision-makers. The distinction with the concept of good government is its element of participation (ibid. ). Here, communication clearly plays an important role. It is through its use that communities can recognize and articulate their needs, citizens can become aware of their rights and give rise to a public dialogue, information about government performance can be circulated and accountability can be instated (Coffey International Development, 2007).

In relation to peacebuilding, most of the research has focused particularly on the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in engaging people and communities. The works of Mancini (2013), Kahl and Larrauri (2013) and Kelly and Souter (2014), among others, have contributed to clarifying the potential that new technologies have both in responding to and in preventing conflict. It has also shed light on the use of specific types of technologies that have been employed to allow people to participate in peacebuilding processes. While providing a conceptualization of ‘communication for peace’, Hoffmann (2014) also discusses the importance placed on new media within this area of work, including humanitarian response, and on the application of what has been termed as ‘ICT4Peace’.

Maina (2015) provides a useful illustration of the ways in which new technologies have been employed to promote peace in Kenya. These involved particularly mobile phones through text messages, selected online platforms for information sharing and Facebook for the circulation of peace messages. The author highlights how new information and communication tools have not only enhanced dialogue between groups since the end of the 2007 or 2008 ethnic conflict, but they have also provided citizens with the opportunity to engage in a discussion on governance issues and demand political accountability.

Yet, as Shoemaker and Stremlau (2014) point out through an assessment of the available academic literature on the media influence in societies affected by conflict, there is a lack of evidence on the actual effects that most research appears to claim. The authors recognize the current emphasis placed on the potential role that ICTs have for democratization and peace in post-conflict states. However, through an analysis of existing studies, they conclude that not enough evidence is brought forward to suggest that media and technology inform political choice and empower citizens in conflict-affected contexts. In particular, the description and investigation of individual case studies and programmes provided in the literature—characterized by a lack of examination of the wider context and of a critique of prior theory—is not sufficient to determine the role that technology plays in governance processes in fragile environments.

This leaves space for an alternative approach to the implementation and analysis of media and communication interventions aimed at engaging citizens in peacebuilding, which takes on a broader perspective. Moving away from a focus on ICTs, this new approach adopts communication for development as the guiding lens for the design of media and communication activities, whose objective is not only that of enabling citizens to have a say in the reconstruction process, but also of attaining sustainable peace in conflict-affected communities. Communication for development has been indicated by the 1996 United Nations General Assembly to involve ‘two-way communication systems that enable dialogue and that allow communities to speak out, express their aspirations and concerns and participate in the decisions that relate to their development’. ¹ Hence, its adoption provides a useful framework for studying effective strategies to engage citizens after conflict.

IV Rethinking citizen engagement in peacebuilding through a participatory approach to communication for development

Within the literature on democracy, the first theory of participation was articulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century. For Rousseau (1968, as cited in Mansuri and Rao, 2013: 21), participation was a way for an individual to learn how to become a citizen, and for community members to acquire a sense of belonging. Following John Stuart Mills (1859, as cited in Mansuri and Rao, 2013: 22), who also regarded participation as an education function, it was with Henry Maine (1876, as cited in Mansuri and Rao, 2013: 22) in the second half of the 19th century that the notion of participation in civic life gained particular importance. Maine (1876, as cited in Mansuri and Rao, 2013: 22) advocated that when individuals participate in decision-making, they begin to identify themselves with their role of citizens and are more inclined to think in terms of the public good than their private interests. This process also provides them with the skills for collective action and with a sense of agency.

A similar line of thought in the development literature and practice arose with the acknowledgement of the flaws of the theories of dependency and modernization, and with a move towards a people centred development approach from the 1980s, strengthened through the work of Robert Chambers (1983). Progress occurred almost concurrently also in the field of C4D. In the 1990s, authors such as Agunga (1997) were arguing that rather than information transmission, communication should be looked at as a process aimed at creating and stimulating an understanding that forms the basis of development. More recently, through their work, Servaes et al. (1996) have stressed how a participatory approach to communication incorporates the concepts that highlight the importance of cultural identity, as well as democratization and participation at all the levels. Gumucio Dagron and Rodriguez (2006) have, in turn, emphasized how people and communities are at the centre of development and participatory communication allows their local knowledge and perspectives to come to the surface and thus influence the development process. A definition of this concept has been provided by Singhal and Devi (2003: 2), who refer to it as ‘[…] a dynamic, interactional, and transformative process of dialogue between people, groups and institutions that enables people, both individually and collectively, to realise their full potential and be engaged in their own welfare’.

When we take on this perspective, we begin to see communication outside of its traditional model of message transmission. Within this view, communication gains a more holistic dimension that is not simply confined to persuasion and behaviour change, but it involves deeper mechanisms such as building trust, exchanging knowledge and stories, identifying problems and defining solutions (Mefalopulos, 2005). Participatory communication ‘[…] is based on the rhetoric and practice of liberation, of freedom, of emancipation, of struggle, of the “preferential option for the poor”, and of transformation and change’ (Thomas, 1994: 55). As a result, it lies on the other side of the spectrum from the type of communication that preserves the existing state of affairs and sustains inequality (Thomas, 1994).

Mudgal has begun to explore the connection between participatory communication for development and what the author terms ‘citizen communication’, which refers to ‘citizens’ involvement in matters of policy, legislation and development choices’ (Mugdal, 2015: 114). The author emphasizes also the distinction between these two types of communication, as the latter is recognized as a matter of right where communication is used to speak out (right to communicate), rectify public grievances and expose corruption (right to be heard). Hence, while participatory communication gives poor people a voice in their choices, citizen communication gives them the right to an institutional space (Mudgal, 2015). As Mudgal (2015), again, highlights, all deliberative processes at the micro-level that deepen civic participation arise from citizens’ ability to come together, interact, exchange information and take decisions in a democratic fashion.

Agencies such as the World Bank have recognized Local Participation & Community Empowerment as one of the entry points to good governance (CommGAP, 2007: 3). From a C4D perspective, this includes elements of participatory communication, deliberative decision-making, community media, community level consultations and ICTs (CommGAP, 2007). Applying these to the peacebuilding design allows citizens to take an active part in the process, and opens the path towards a participatory type of governance. As emphasized by Naidoo (2008: 33):

[P]articipatory governance is vital in providing opportunities for various stakeholders, aside from those in government, to have a say in decision-making processes. A sense of collective responsibility and ownership is ensured when policies are formulated with the consent of those who will be affected by these policies. It is also a means of enhancing democracy […].

Within this framework, citizens have access to spaces—which can be either opportunities or channels—that they can use to address policies, discourses and decisions that have an impact on their lives. Unlike ‘closed spaces’, where decisions are taken behind closed doors by a group of actors, citizens in ‘invited spaces’ are encouraged to participate, either by government or by inter and nongovernmental organizations (Gaventa, 2006). As Gaventa (2006) reminds us, these spaces have a transformative potential for participatory governance. This article argues that communication for development plays a major role in the creation of these spaces, as it makes available a set of instruments that can be used to both consult and actively engage citizens and pave the way for a reconstruction process that is shaped from the bottom-up.

Advocacy, for example, is a useful means through which citizens, with the help of development organizations, can create new spaces and connect with the government (Price et al., 2014). While discussing the role of advocacy communication in peacebuilding, Servaes and Malikhao explain how more recent perspectives see advocacy as a bottom-up, participatory type of approach whose starting line is in the community. The authors emphasize that ‘active involvement in the process of communication itself will accelerate change’ (Servaes and Malikhao, 2012: 231) and an advocacy effort is more likely to succeed when it engages different groups and sectors of society.

While ‘invited spaces’ are necessarily framed by the institutions that create them, Cornwall and Coelho (2007: 11) remind us that they are also ‘spaces of possibility’, where power is productively used by citizens to assert their rights. This can happen when authentic communication is placed at the centre and no party is left silenced. Many positive efforts to bring citizens into participatory spaces— such as, for example, activists and social movements—do not always equip groups and communities, especially the most disadvantaged ones, to enter those communication processes that will enable them to participate in the debate (Cornwall and Coelho, 2007).

Nabatchi (2012) discusses the role of communication in citizen engagement by differentiating three communication modes in public participation:

one-way communication goes from the state to the citizen, typically through websites, pamphlets, media briefings and so forth. Citizens have no opportunities for feedback;

The latter offers a useful framework to begin to look at the use of communication for citizen engagement, as a flexible and yet targeted approach is needed to provide citizens with an active say in the peacebuilding process. Kalathil et al. (2008) openly acknowledge the importance of engaging with a more participatory approach to communication for initiatives that involve post-conflict situations. The authors state that ‘when a participatory approach underlies even rapidly executed […] communication activities, it is more likely to find receptive audiences and a change for a genuine programme’s success’ (ibid.: 54).

Mansuri and Rao (2013) recognize two types of participation in relation to participatory governance: organic and induced participation. The first one arises spontaneously and is typically led by social movements, whose leaders attempt to mobilize citizens to voice their concerns and confront powerful individuals and institutions. The second one is implemented through policy actions from external (governmental or nongovernmental) organizations and can progressively take the form of decentralized and community driven development. The authors suggest that a useful alternative approach would have the capacity to scale up organic participation in more organized projects by means of policy interventions. Also Tiwari (2014) points out that civic engagement can be initiated by different types of organizations, and that the impact of those efforts is dependent upon both the issues at stake and the citizens themselves.

Again, what follows from these views is that C4D can play a role in facilitating participation in the peacebuilding process through the implementation of targeted participatory communication and media activities. If we look at development as a ‘transformation of society’, as described by Servaes (2009: 51), then not only must we ensure that communication is built into each intervention, but also that transformation involves a society’s shift towards peace.

During the peace process in Guatemala, for example, a Civil Society Assemble was created under the leadership of the Catholic Church, an important non-state actor in the country. This brought together a large number of social, economic and religious organizations, which discussed the main issues on the negotiating agenda and submitted a consensus paper to the relevant parties. This allowed different views to be taken into account (Arnault, 2014). National dialogues have also been another avenue for participation in the peace process. These are fora ‘for political transformation, whereby local and national peacemakers […] work together to resolve their conflicts through the creation of joint instruments and supporting peace infrastructures’ (Siebert, 2014: 25). They can either be formally mandated by the state or take the form of informal national dialogues. Rios (2014) recounts the experience of the Basque Social Forum held in 2013:

More than 700 people took part in two sessions, with 12 international experts speaking on subjects such as disarmament, reintegration of prisoners, human rights, and dealing with the past, memory and reconciliation. The organisers opened different channels of participation so that all interested people and groups could contribute. In addition to the event’s web page, there was intensive work on social networks like Twitter and Facebook. The experience and knowledge that international experts brought was crucial for helping to define solutions and overcome obstacles. (p. 25)

This led to the inclusion of new ideas in the process and, rather than driving an alternative process, urged institutions and political parties to generate more spaces to interact with the civil society. As a result of the forum, issues that were not previously included gained a place in the agenda and cooperation between people espousing different ideologies was achieved (Rios, 2014).

These are only some examples that show possible applications of participatory communication, and encourage us to begin to study a more strategic framework for communication for development to engage citizens in peacebuilding.

V Dialogue and inclusivity

The discussion that has taken place in the previous section of this article demonstrates how the strengths of C4D in citizen engagement for peacebuilding can be found primarily within two concepts. The first one is dialogue, which is connected to the participatory nature of communication for development discussed previously. The second one is inclusivity, and it relates to one of the aims of the mechanisms of citizen engagement. These two concepts and the association to their respective fields are clarified in the next pages.

VI Dialogue

A participatory framework in communication for development is what Mefalopulos (2007) refers to as ‘dialogic communication’. This concept is linked to the involvement of local stakeholders in the definition and implementation of specific activities aimed at development: ‘dialogue is needed in order to build trust, ensure mutual understanding, explore different perspectives and identify the best course of action to successfully address a situation that needs to be changed’ (Mefalopulos, 2007).

The dialogic model encompasses aspects of the diffusion model, such as the internal and external flow of information, as well as the introduction of innovations. However, its key component is the process of creation, sharing and contestation of meanings and values. What is integral to the dialogic model is the context in which communication occurs, where economic, social, political and cultural factors play an important part. It is through these factors that meanings are shaped (ibid.).

Also the definition of participatory communication from Singhal and Devi (2003) provided previously in this article emphasizes how the concept of dialogue is central in order to initiate a meaningful and sustainable process of development. As we are frequently reminded in the literature, when we want to engage with participatory communication, the starting point for all activities must be the community. This is where problems are discussed and interaction between different members occurs. This is also made clear in the approach promoted by UNESCO, which progresses the Freirian notion of dialogic communication as a tool for liberation from oppression. While Freire considered group dialogue to be an instrument for subjugated people, UNESCO’s work emphasizes that participation should comprise the public’s inclusion in all the stages of communication systems’ production (Servaes and Malikhao, 2005).

As Mefalopulos (2005: 254), again, asserts, ‘by using dialogue to compare different realities or different perceptions, communication not only plays an instrumental role in building trust among stakeholders but, through the systematic use of dialogue, it also plays a crucial role in problem analysis and problem solving’. Manyonzo takes these ideas further in his definition of participatory communication, which the author regards as ‘a major strategy towards community (and stakeholder) engagement that is based on dialogue, respect for local knowledge and collective decision-making’ (Manyonzo, 2012: 155).

This idea of dialogue has a strong connection to participatory governance since, as Naidoo (2008) highlights, participatory governance is strengthened by a growth in confidence between the various stakeholders. Approaches can range from simple information dissemination from the government, to formal and informal consultations, debates and discussions with the final aim of decision-making (Naidoo, 2008). These are all vital components of communication for development, and their implementation—both at the local and national level—is essential in the formulation of policies that do not reproduce the causes that led to violent conflict.

VII Inclusivity

The UN General Assembly Security Council (2012: 11) has defined inclusivity as ‘the extent and manner in which the views and needs of parties to conflict and other stakeholders are represented, heard and integrated into a peace process’. This designation demands the reformulation of peacebuilding as an inclusive process that is locally owned and locally led, and which rejects what is merely a symbolic engagement of local stakeholders (Gruener et al., 2014).

This idea is also connected to the concept of participatory governance, which incorporates the notion of inclusion and has, among its objectives, that of offering citizens the opportunity to have their views integrated in government’s decision-making. This will progressively lead to the formulation of policy that is in line with the real needs of people. While not everyone can be part of the process, a fair representation of all groups (and especially minorities) should be guaranteed (Naidoo, 2008).

Citizen engagement ‘opens up dialogue between the bureaucratic institutions and the local people’ (Tiwari, 2014: 32). Yet, in order for dialogue to be representative of all parties, different voices must be given the chance to participate. In realities affected by large-scale violence, exclusion is one of the primary causes that trigger a relapse into conflict. Hence, an effective peacebuilding process based on inclusivity will allow both for the creation of mechanisms that involve different groups and perspectives, and for the facilitation of an interaction between these groups (UN General Assembly Security Council, 2012).

Gaventa and Barrett (2010) explain how previous research has demonstrated that participation in governance has positively influenced the confidence and self-esteem of excluded groups and has concurrently shown how an increased political inclusion can bring a shift in development priorities. The authors emphasize how citizen engagement can not only lead to greater inclusion but also to an increased social cohesion within groups characterized by strong inequalities and tense social relations connected to issues of identity. This gains vast importance in societies emerging from conflict. As the UN General Assembly Security Council (2012: 11) observes:

Political or economic exclusion […] undermine sustainable peace. A successful peacebuilding process must be transformative and create space for a wider set of actors […] to participate in public decision-making on all aspects of post-conflict governance and recovery. Participation and dialogue enhance social cohesion and national ownership, and they leverage resources and knowledge for peacebuilding existent within post-conflict societies.

It follows that C4D plays a fundamental role in providing the means to an inclusive dialogue that contributes to social transformation and to the establishment of a durable peace. Its community-centred approach to the use of communication helps to shape the reconstruction process by laying the basis for a more participatory type of governance through which different groups in society can offer input in the formulation of policies that will prevent any further conflict.

At the same time, it remains crucial to consider how to tackle effectively the ideas of dialogue and inclusivity in the context of complexity that characterizes post-conflict realities. When designing individual approaches for C4D in citizen engagement, attention must be paid to a country’s historical background, the nature of the conflict that has ended, the communication ecology of that reality and the communication barriers that might be present for certain groups as a result of the conflict dynamics, particularly at the cultural and social level.

VIII Some considerations on the limitations of C4D to engage citizens in peacebuilding

In order to shed light on some of the limitations of the role of C4D for citizen engagement in peacebuilding, one needs to begin from the criticism that surrounds the idea of participatory communication. Such criticism highlights that the poor and disadvantaged do not often have the resources to take action and/or speak out in their best interests, and that for these reasons they often remain excluded despite the opportunity for participation (Mugdal, 2015: 117). In addition to that, even when local participatory peacebuilding approaches are adopted, their implementation carried out by external actors is involuntarily conceived on the basis of preexisting unequal structures (Gruener et al., 2014).

The absence of institutional communication systems that allows people to become involved in issues related to policy and legislation has led to an exclusive system that is mostly dominated by the vested interests of those who have access to it. Even elections, which are usually regarded as a forum for people to express their voice, have not necessarily seen improved participation, better governance or social justice (Mugdal, 2015: 117). This shows how the participatory ‘spaces’ discussed previously in this article are not inevitably neutral, as the power relations that shape them decide not only what is possible to do within those realms, but also who can enter those spaces and who is excluded (Gaventa, 2006).

Where local social dynamics are not adequately taken into account, rather than facilitating greater participation and inclusion, citizen engagement initiatives will produce very little effects (Gaventa and Barrett, 2010). In cultures that are based on patriarchy and patronage, in contexts that are characterized by poor education, and in realities where ethnic and religious divides are profound, certain groups will be less visible than others, and their access to and awareness of the peacebuilding process will be substantially restricted (UN General Assembly Security Council, 2012).

An additional important limitation is put forward by Goetz and Gaventa (2001) who explain that citizen participation is not always what citizens desire in the first place. The authors remind us that it is important to not take for granted citizens’ interest and capacity for participation, as this may often be constrained by a lack of time as well as work and social commitments.

IX Conclusion

This article has shed light on the connection between communication for development, citizen engagement and the context of peacebuilding, where the way in which governance is exercized plays a significant role for the achievement of a stable peace. In particular, the discussion has demonstrated how the different theoretical frameworks surrounding each area find their intersection in the notions of dialogue and inclusivity, which are two important components of a participatory approach to governance. Both concepts are enhanced by the use of participatory communication, whose course of action promotes the involvement of different groups of society in having a say in decision-making at various levels.

In post-conflict realities, reframing citizen engagement through a participatory communication for development approach allows us to begin to rebuild peace from the bottom-up, and to place the voice of local communities at the centre of the reconstruction process. Despite its challenges and limitations, a communication for development design for citizen engagement in peacebuilding facilitates both the inclusion of different stakeholders and the creation of a space for their interaction.

On the whole, this article provides the theoretical foundations for further research on the application of C4D methods and their effectiveness in strengthening local peacebuilding initiatives encouraged from the grassroots. This is particularly crucial at a time in which development interventions are increasingly being implemented in contexts of violent conflict.