Introduction

Community-based organizations (CBO’s) are a huge factor in the functionality of

society in the context of the welfare and livelihood of the people. CSO’s have a presence in

public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, and are based on

ethical, cultural, scientific, religious, or philanthropic considerations. They are non-

government organizations that focus on the area of welfare and livelihood of the people rather

than the political and economic power/status of society. CSO’s are major actors in sustaining

peacebuilding. A strong civil society plays a vital role in striving to achieve good governance,

democratization, and poverty reduction.

Harpviken and Kjellman (2004), identifies the roles of civil society in peacebuilding

to include: (i) promoting reconciliation; (ii) engaging in non-violent forms of conflict

management and transformation;(iii) directly preventing violence; (iv) building bridges, trust

and interdependence between groups; and (v) monitoring and advocating in favour of peace,

and against human rights violations and social injustices. Peacebuilding should create

conducive conditions for reconstruction and development efforts, but should not be equated

and thus confused with these concepts. There are three phases of peacebuilding: prevention

prior to the outbreak of violence, conflict management during armed conflict, and post

conflict peacebuilding for up to 10 years after the conflict ends.

Peacebuilding often covers all activities related to preventing outbreaks of violence,

transforming armed conflicts, finding peaceful ways to manage conflict, and creating

socioeconomic and political pre-conditions for sustainable development and peace. It is

argued that a strong democratic political institution ensures political representation and

market economy that sustains economic growth and provides basic public goods. A strong

liberal peacebuilding community’s benefit outweighs it’s negative effect.

 Background of the study

John Locke was the first in modern times to stress that civil society is a body in its

own right, separate from the state. The first task of civil society according to Locke is to

protect the individual, his rights and property against the state and its arbitrary interventions.

Civil society organizations and activities are found in all the continents and countries of the

World, but their level of involvement in peacebuilding varies from one place to another

depending on the enabling environment created by the state and international organizations.

The growing importance attributed to civil society initiatives goes hand in hand with

the recognition that peacebuilding entails numerous societal reconstruction tasks that official

diplomacy and reconstruction programs cannot achieve. CSO typologies have been

developed based on characteristics such as organizational form, purpose, scale, scope and

activities. From a donor perspective, it can be useful to make a basic distinction between

membership-based organizations (trade unions, women’s groups, self-help groups, social

movements, networks) and non-membership or intermediary organizations (NGOs and

support organizations). Another distinction can be made based on the level at which a CSO is

established and functions (community, local, regional, national or international).

The Reflecting on Peace Practice Project has examined the roles of civil society actors

in building peace at local and broader societal levels. The range and types of civil society

efforts described in RPP cumulative cases are very familiar to seasoned peace practitioners

and those who fund peace work. Recently published research studies that focus entirely on

the functions that civil society actors perform in peacebuilding have already catalogued these

quite comprehensively.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
 The perspective of civil society organizations’ peacebuilding initiatives can be better

explained in relation to liberal peace theory and its concepts. Peacebuilding refers to the

development of a socio-political structure capable of mitigating the outbreak or relapse of

war and sustaining peace (Shinodan 2002). Richmond (2006) identified within liberal peace

several models or generations of peacebuilding. Each approach of liberal peace focuses on

particular goals, strategies, and methods of peacebuilding.

A conservative perspective on liberal peace emphasizes top-down approaches aimed

at maintaining security and sovereignty as a foundation for statebuilding, with peace imposed

by armed forces and maintained through coercive conditionality and dependency measures. It

focuses on providing security as a prerequisite for peace.

In the orthodox model of liberal peace, although it is likewise dominated by top-down

and state-centric efforts to establish the Institutions for a market-oriented and democratic

state nevertheless recognize local ownership and culture, as seen by several bottom-up

activities. Elite-level negotiation predominates in this peacebuilding approach, but there is a

stronger emphasis on citizen participation in the peace process, as well as local ownership

and involvement with civil society. In this concept, security and institutions that ensure order

are considered important elements in bringing about a lasting peace. Nonetheless, there is

also an understanding of the political and economic purposes of governmental institutions.

The emancipatory concept of liberal peace seeks emancipation and transcendence.

Identity and sovereignty concerns through contextual legitimacy in relation to local Societies,

encompassing issues of social justice, human security, and welfare. This approach is

uncertain of universalistic liberal peace objectives, emphasizing local ownership and

opposing top-down coercive, conditional, and dependence approaches. The bottom-up

approach emphasizes local communities’ needs and rights, with a primary focus on delivering
social welfare and justice. The peacebuilding process focuses on private and social initiatives

facilitated by external investors, rather than state organizations.

Therefore, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) associated with community-based

peacebuilding hold a flexible tools of strategies, influenced by Richmond’s models of liberal

peace, allowing them to fully optimize what they do according to the particular circumstances

and demands of the communities they engage with. By prioritizing security, CSOs may

undertake actions that minimize conflict, such as establishing discussion mechanisms,

encouraging reconciliation processes, and providing protection for vulnerable populations.

Additionally, developing democratic institutions involves offering communities with

instruments for participatory decision-making, establishing transparent governance structures,

and advocacy in accountability provisions at the local level. This not only promotes

community ownership of peacebuilding processes, but it also fosters a culture of inclusivity

and legitimacy, which is necessary for long-term stability and resilience to future conflicts .

Civil Society’s Engagement in Formal and Informal Peace Processes

 Advocating for inclusion of key parties in negotiations. In many cases, local and

international civil society groups have advocated for broader participation and more

inclusive peace negotiations (argued by many to be a requisite condition for success

and sustainability of a negotiated agreement). To that end, civic groups and coalitions

exerted significant influence to pressure key parties to enter into negotiation

processes.

 Engaging with the “hard to reach.” RPP cases suggest that civil society organizations

that are seen as credible and non-partisan can be effective at influencing groups with

differing ideologies and political views. In Northern Ireland, local civil society actors
 were able to sustain their engagement with armed paramilitary organizations and

political prisoners, providing crucial contacts by capitalizing on their low profile.

 Facilitation of Track II / Political Dialogue. Civil society groups (local and

international) in Mozambique, Angola, Northern Ireland, Tajikistan, and Aceh were

involved in facilitating dialogue and,at times, mediating between contending factions,

parties, or armed groups, often when official group were not able or willing to do so.

 Placing important issues on the negotiation table. In a number of cases, civil society

groups successfully lobbied for inclusion of critical issues into the negotiation

process, when the direct negotiating parties had neglected those matters, or considered

them less important.

Importance of Community-Based Peace Building

Community engagement in peacekeeping is not an end in and of itself. It is a means of

achieving and promoting increased inclusiveness and resilience in communities that have

lived through repeated cycles of violence with limited participation in societal agreement. A

2018 DPKO Practice Note on Community Engagement noted how peacekeeping missions

engaged communities to implement a broad range of mandated tasks including improving

situational awareness, protection of civilians strategies, supporting inclusive political

processes, monitoring the violation of human rights, strengthening the legitimacy of state

institutions and fostering the effective implementation of disarmament, demobilization and

reintegration activities.

Structured and consistent community engagement has been part of effective

peacekeeping strategies to address threats to civilian populations whether they originate from

armed groups or as a result of intercommunal violence. UN peacekeeping missions have

implemented several different tools to this end, but one common feature has been to promote
the establishment of local community committees at the village level, which not only play an

early warning role but, most importantly, one of threat analysis and of initiating mitigating

measures that may include dialogue with potential perpetrators or between communities in

the aftermath of incidents.

Strengthening local capacities for conflict resolution and reconciliation is an

important step towards sustainable peace, but local political solutions are limited and

vulnerable to national dynamics and, in the absence of a viable and comprehensive political

settlement, relapse into conflict is always a risk. Supporting the engagement of local

stakeholders, and especially those that are typically marginalized or even excluded, in

political peace process represents a fundamental step towards broader inclusivity, durable

peace, joint leadership and stronger legitimacy of the proposed solutions.

Strengthening capacities and resilience as well as promoting inclusivity are all

ultimately intended to create a stronger bond between the state and its citizens in order to

reinforce the social contract and enhance the responsiveness and accountability of state

institutions, and local authorities. Peacekeeping missions have a particular opportunity to

bring communities closer to their authorities and institutions in conflict-affected settings

where trust between the two has been eroded and the legitimacy of the latter is often disputed.

By working simultaneously with the government and local authorities, as well as civil society

and local communities peacekeeping missions have often bridged the gap between the

institutions and the population in ways that contribute to sustaining peace.

Role of Civil Society Organizations

In the Philippine case, CSO peace interventions have been categorized in two ways:

according to activities, and according to aims. These provide a good overview of the scope of

civil society peace work not necessarily limited to the Philippines. According to activities, we

have the following: Peace constituency-building, Conflict-reduction efforts, Conflict

settlement efforts, Peace research and training, and Social development work. An important

attribute of the more effective peace CSOs is their autonomy from the state and for that

matter rebel groups. Peace CSOs generally have their own peace agenda and strategies,

elements of which may or may not coincide or interface with those of the official parties.

Citizen participation contemplates more than just mediation but rather involvement in various

capacities and in a multiplicity of roles to realize the objectives of an eventual peace

settlement. Civil society could bring a stronger commitment to neglected political values such

as justice, participatory governance and inclusion, which could be the foundation of a real

vision for peace to which the main parties could be held accountable.

The Philippines is among Southeast Asia’s most dynamic economies. Gross domestic

product grow this expected to reach 6.0% in 2023 and 6.2% in 2024, driven largely by rising

employment, public investment, the resumption of tourism after the coronavirus disease

(COVID-19) pandemic, and expanding production and retail sales.c Remittancesare an

important source of income and reached a record high of $3.49 billion in December 2022.

The Philippines officially joined the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the

world’s largest trade bloc, in February 2023.

Civil society occupies a large and vibrant space in the Philippines. Its roots reach back

to the period of colonization by Spain and the United States, when a broad concept of basic

political, civil, and human rights was at the heart of the struggle for independence. Civil

society emerged as a major force in the Philippines in the 1970s and 1980s, when massive
“people power” demonstrations led to the removal from office of President Ferdinand

Marcos, Sr. in 1986. Today, CSOs work across the country to represent the interests and meet

the needs of disadvantaged populations. As Philippine CSOs have especially strong

relationships with poor communities, they engage mainly in poverty alleviation, especially in

rural areas, and the delivery of social services to women, youth, people with disabilities,

indigenous peoples, internally displaced persons, and other disadvantaged groups. Advocacy

organizations work on national policy issues and the monitoring of government projects.

International CSOs cooperate with local organizations and the government on concerns such

as climate change, conflict transformation, and good governance.

As of 2022, approximately 378,500 CSOs were registered with various government

agencies. This number includes 172,747 CSOs listed as nonstock, nonprofit organizations

(2020), 85,833 labor organizations (2019), 66,407 workers’ associations (2019), 28,784

cooperatives (2018), and 24,693 homeowners’ associations (2022).3 Many other registered

and unregistered groups are also active.

Challenges and Barriers

Critiques of liberal peace practices emphasized that liberal peacebuilding recurrently

reveals three shortcomings: 1) failure to take into account domestic local conditions and

appropriately engage local stakeholders in externally steered peacebuilding efforts; 2)

tensions and contradictions between different objectives and instruments of peacebuilding as

well as different practices of different international donors and agents present on the ground;

and 3) a tendency to premature withdrawal from missions due to both insufficient

commitment of resources and unclear criteria for assessing successes and failures of

peacebuilding (Paris 2010: 347). Bearing in mind these critical voices, the underlying tension
in the liberal peace approach is between arguably universal liberal peace principles and the

need to respect local communities’ cultures and values. Critical voices argue that

universalistic assumptions of liberal peace doctrine – premised on standardized and

technocratic templates of promoting liberal democracy, liberal human rights, market economy

values, integration into globalization processes – frequently clash with the values and cultures

of local stakeholders.

Civil society can make unique contributions to peacebuilding during all phases of

conflict, with or without external support. Peacebuilding research has shown that civil society

involvement in peace negotiations is directly proportional to the sustainability of peace

agreements (Wanis-St. John and Kew 2006). Channeling support through civil society is not

fundamentally easier than other peacebuilding options. This report highlights numerous risks

and challenges, including inadvertently doing harm; disempowering local CSOs;

concentrating support on a few NGOs and turning CSOs into mere implementers and service

providers. Challenges also arise from conflict-induced changes to enabling environments and

civil society’s own nature.

Conflict is generally driven by macro-level factors. There is a broad consensus that

peacebuilding should also try to address the root or structural causes of conflict. Underlying

structural factors may reside in geo-political power imbalances, historical or colonial factors,

social and ethnic marginalization, and socio-economic tensions due to modernization and

globalization. CSOs tend to operate and act on the local space, while the scope to scale up

and influence change at the structural and macro levels remains limited.

Case studies and examples

The Philippine government's involvement with civil society organizations has historically

proven helpful in improving the lives of those who are less fortunate. Particular initiatives
include the involvement of various organizations in promoting peace and development in

Muslim Mindanao's Bangsamoro Autonomous Region, such as the Center for Humanitarian

Dialogue, Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services,

Non-violent Peaceforce, and others.

Furthermore, initiatives such as the Philippine OGP's Fifth National Action Plan, which is

supported by the International Organization for Migration and Australia's Peacebuilding in

Conflict-Affected Mindanao program, shows an interdisciplinary approach to addressing

public concerns, improving service delivery, and promoting inclusivity and resilience within

communities. Australia's Coalitions for Change Phase 2 program increases these efforts by

establishing partnerships to promote economic growth and social development.

Evaluation and Effectiveness

Philippine CSOs face no legal obstacles in obtaining financial support from domestic

and international sources. Among current funding programs, the United States Agency for

International Development has allocated approximately $5 million to CSOs to implement

biodiversity conservation projects across the archipelago under the Partnership for

Biodiversity Conservation program, and Australia is helping CSOs improve early-grades

education in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region with its $60 million Education Pathways

to Peace in Mindanao program. Domestic sources of income for CSOs include national

government agencies and LGUs. CSOs contract to implement many national government

programs, including the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s Comprehensive

and Integrated Delivery of Social Services program, one of the main community

empowerment and poverty alleviation programs. Numerous projects of the Department of

Agriculture and Department of Agrarian Reform also involve CSOs as local partners.
 Civil society has unique potential in peacebuilding, but analyzing CSOs from an

actor-oriented perspective denies one a deeper understanding of its contributions to

peacebuilding. The civil society has proven to be a major actor in delivering the objective of

peacebuilding from this perspective. The main enabling and disenabling conditions for CSOs

peacebuilding functions comes from the possibility of a coercive state, the level of violence,

and level of influence from strong regional actors. Thus, the engagement of the international

community in initiatives that can reduce violence and enhance protection and supporting

initiatives that can strengthen the creation of an enabling environment can secure the

fundamental precondition for CSOs to act.

Some initiatives are undertaken to improve the responsiveness of the UN

peacekeeping mission while others are directly related to the strategic objectives of the

mission. When undertaken as part of a deliberate strategic vision and through integrated

interventions, community engagement activities have contributed to sustaining peace through

three broad ranges of interventions: a) supporting community-based mechanisms to address

threats to civilians that increase community resilience; b) promoting inclusive processes that

can best address the roots of societal grievances, including by supporting the reintegration of

former combatants and countering narratives that capitalize on disenfranchisement tobreed

extremism and radicalization; c) supporting opportunities and avenues for dialogue between

state authorities and local populations to promote institutional responsiveness and

accountability.

Policy Implications and recommendations

The different ways in which civil society organizations, in particular social movements,

become involved In policymaking, entail contradictory relations with the State and the

political system. Bringing together the interests of different actors is a challenge: while there
is no doubt that civil Society organizations are working to achieve policy reform, they also

have other objectives, in particular Ensuring their own sustainability. The structuring of civil

society organizations around issues related to the environment, gender and Human rights has

been analysed as a sign that a global society is emerging (Walker 1994). This includes

Participation and Inclusivity, Civil society organizations contribute an important role in

promoting community engagement and highlighting the perspectives of marginalized

communities their policy implications involves in advocating for inclusive policies which

allow equitable participation and representation of different communities in decision-making

processes. Therefore, advocacy and influence of the civil society organizations serves an

important part in driving for policy change, social equity, and human rights. Policy

implications include conducting policy analysis, research, and advocacy campaigns that

influence decision-making processes at the local, national, and global levels.

Civil society Organizations should organize workshops and forums focused mainly at

marginalized communities, allowing them to speak about their concerns, needs, and points of

view. Additionally, Leadership training, advocacy skills development, and legal literacy

programs are all examples. These initiatives enable those from marginalized communities to

effectively campaign for their rights and participate more effectively in decision-making

processes.

Conclusion

References:

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/912361/civil-society-brief-philippines.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep14480.4

The liberal peacebuilding approach: debates and models debates and models from The

European Union Peacebuilding Approach:: Governance and Practices of the Instrument for

Stability on JSTOR. (n.d.). www.jstor.org. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep14480.4

Oda, H. (2007, March 1). Peacebuilding from Below: Theoretical and M ethodological

Considerations toward an Anthropological Study on Peace. Hdl.handle.net.

http://hdl.handle.net/2115/20475

Institutionen, G. U. (2021, June 23). REACHING ACROSS A CLOSED DIVIDE –

Peacebuilding from below: a phenomenological study on the CSOs of Cyprus and the impact

of regional tensions and COVID-19. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/68689