United States Institute of Peace • www.usip.org • Tel. 202.457.1700 • Fax. 202.429.6063

UNITED STates institute of peace

© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

“The long and messy process of all stakeholders coming to understand each other’s 

underlying interests through 

wide consultations and public 

dialogue is necessary for all to 

understand why certain provisions in an agreement may be 

the best possible outcome.”

July 21, 2011

Afghan Civil Society and a 

Comprehensive Peace Process

Summary

•	 A successful, legitimate and sustainable approach to peace in Afghanistan requires the inclusion of Afghan civil society and their interests. For the most part, Afghan peace negotiations 

exclude representatives of civil society and center on a narrow agenda featuring concerns 

of armed groups. Attempts at a quick fix settlement could compromise the foundations of 

durable peace, resulting in more costs to the international community, and more death and 

destruction on the ground. 

•	 Half of all peace agreements fail. One of the reasons why they fail is that too few people 

support them. Building a national consensus requires participation by and support from civil 

society. 

•	 Afghanistan requires a peace process that is both wide and deep, with structured mechanisms 

for participatory deliberation and decision-making involving diverse stakeholders from the 

top, middle and community levels of society. 

•	 Based on examination of successful peace processes, there are four broad models of public 

participation in peace processes relevant for Afghanistan. These include direct participation in 

local peace processes, a national civil society assembly, representation at the central negotiation table and a public referendum to vote on a final agreement.

•	 The international community, the Afghan government and Afghan civil society can each take 

steps to ensure a comprehensive, successful and sustainable peace process.

Introduction

The transition from war to peace in Afghanistan requires much more than high level official 

negotiations and low level reintegration efforts. A comprehensive Afghan peace process would 

also facilitate discussion amongst diverse civil society sectors about their relationship with the 

Afghan government and on the future relations between diverse groups in Afghanistan. A political 

settlement without significant progress on these two other dimensions is unlikely to produce a 

national consensus supporting sustainable peace.

Excluding or limiting civil society input into formal negotiations creates long-term problems. 

First, it rewards groups who use violence with political influence and positions of power, further 

entrenching illegitimate and ineffective governance. Second, a peace agreement that excludes 

public input and interests will lack public ownership of the agreement and the political will 

required to implement it. 

Lisa Schirch

E-mail: schirchl@emu.edu

peaceBrieF99
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

Afghan Civil Society and a Comprehensive Peace Process

page 2 • PB 99 • July 21, 2011

Members of civil society fear that government and armed actors will use negotiations to achieve 

narrow political goals that will benefit particular ideological, ethnic, tribal or religious groups 

and undermine the Constitution, human rights and justice, further fragmenting the country.1

Civil society leaders flag the continued exclusion of public interests in the National Peace Council 

and current peace talks, and before that in the 2010 National Peace Jirga and the 2001 Bonn 

Agreement.2 Public discussions on how to tackle corruption, and how to enshrine Islamic values 

supporting human rights and women’s rights, for example, are important elements of building a 

national consensus on the future of Afghanistan. The long and messy process of all stakeholders 

coming to understand each other’s underlying interests through wide consultations and public 

dialogue is necessary for all to understand why certain provisions in an agreement may be the best 

possible outcome. 

Benefits of a Comprehensive Peace Process in Afghanistan

Research comparing successful with unsuccessful peace agreements illustrates that civil society 

engagement is often the critical ingredient.3 According to the research, comprehensive peace 

processes have at least four interrelated benefits:4

•	 Public Support: Half of all peace agreements fail, in part, because too few people support them. Involving the public in a peace process helps to cement public support for an 

agreement. 

•	 Legitimacy: Peace negotiations that include only armed actors inadvertently legitimate 

the use of arms to achieve political power. A comprehensive and inclusive peace process 

creates a more legitimate outcome and builds public consent for the national government. 

•	 Sustainability: Public participation in peace processes more often address a range of 

driving factors fueling conflict, such as reforming state institutions. This can prevent the 

recurrence of violent conflict. 

•	 Democratic Governance: Unlike elections that can heighten inter-group tensions, a 

peace process uses participatory deliberation and dialogue that can lay the ground for 

democratic governance.

Understanding Afghan Civil Society

Stable governance and a durable peace require a citizen-oriented state working in partnership 

with an active civil society that has adequate space and resources to hold government to account.5

An active local civil society at the national and community levels is an indicator of a functioning 

and democratic state. Yet the international communities’ strategy in Afghanistan focuses almost 

exclusively on supporting state institutions rather than civil society. 

While there are competing definitions of civil society, for the purposes of this brief, Afghanistan’s 

civil society includes traditional or tribal structures such as jirgas and maliks (leaders), religious 

leaders and structures such as the Shura-e-Ulama, along with trade unions, universities, media, 

women’s groups, youth groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), Community Development Councils (CDCs) and other sectors.6

 Many Afghan civil society sectors are already playing 

significant roles in peacebuilding and could desire a more active role in an Afghan peace process.

Structuring Public Participation in Peace Processes 

A peace process is essentially about creating structured mechanisms for participatory deliberation and decision-making involving diverse stakeholders. There are four broad models7

 of public 
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

Afghan Civil Society and a Comprehensive Peace Process

page 3 • PB 99 • July 21, 2011

participation in peace processes relevant to the design of a comprehensive peace process in 

Afghanistan. 

Direct Local Peace Processes and Agreements

When the authority to stop a war is not centrally located, high level negotiations cannot create a 

national ceasefire or political settlements. In Mali, civil society initiated direct traditional decisionmaking processes based on local rituals and traditions for dialogue. These local processes resulted 

in local level ceasefires and agreements that enabled previously stymied high level negotiations 

to advance. These local level peace processes can take place simultaneously across a country and 

involve thousands of people. Each locality may work through a similar agenda of issues to identify 

stakeholder’s core grievances and develop local security guarantees, political power sharing deals 

and address economic and identity issues. Local communities then are responsible for implementing the agreements they make. These local peace processes can help create a national consensus 

able to eventually lead to an end to the war. Local peace councils already exist in many areas of 

Afghanistan to resolve local grievances, facilitate reintegration and to address local disputes over 

land, water, debts, domestic violence and other community related issues. If carried out across the 

country simultaneously, local level negotiations could help build ceasefires, political power sharing 

and security guarantees that would result in a more sustainable outcome and make a national 

peace accord possible. 

Participation through Consultation in Civil Society Assemblies

Other peace processes design mechanisms for civil society participation through consultation 

bodies such as a National Civil Society Assembly and regional assemblies that run in parallel 

to official negotiations and/or are sequenced and coordinated with an official process. In this 

“accordion model” peace process, a sequence of small, private and large public meetings move 

back and forth like an accordion opening and closing. A small select group of key stakeholders 

negotiates over key issues while large, open processes seek input from the public. In the Philippines and Guatemala, national peace processes included civil society assemblies that brought 

together representatives of diverse sectors such as labor, agriculture, human rights and indigenous 

communities. A national level Afghan Civil Society Assembly, like that held in Guatemala, could 

play a key role in assuring that a wider set of issues makes it onto the formal negotiation agenda, 

such as women’s rights or past and present human rights violations. It could also play a key role 

in a peace process to build structures for public consultations on these and other issues such as 

corruption, ethnic tensions and how to address the Taliban. 

Participation by Representation at Central Negotiation Table

A third type of structure for peace processes includes electing a representative group to work out 

the details of a peace agreement and/or a new constitution. Each group at the official negotiation 

table represents a group of constituents from a certain sector of society. In this type of a process, 

civil society sectors such as women’s groups, religious leaders, human rights groups and labor 

unions have a representative participating in national level negotiations. This form of public 

participation can incentivize the creation of new political parties or organizations that organize 

themselves to represent others’ interests. In South Africa, for example, a national level, elected 

constituent assembly including civil society leaders negotiated a new constitution. The benefit of 

this model is that the key issues of unarmed groups can be directly communicated to other key 

decision makers. An Afghan Civil Society Assembly could elect representatives to sit on the 
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

Afghan Civil Society and a Comprehensive Peace Process

page 4 • PB 99 • July 21, 2011

National Peace Council and represent diverse civil society interests at formal, high level 

negotiations. 

Participation by Post-Agreement Referendum

At the most minimal level of public participation in a peace process, media advertisements 

attempt to garner public support for the peace agreement after it is already signed. In some cases, 

the public takes part in a referendum on a peace agreement developed through negotiation Referendums allow the public to either say “yes” or “no” to a negotiated agreement. In Northern Ireland 

and Macedonia, for example, media outreach programs and national referendums accompanied 

other structures for public input. One of the benefits of public referendums is that it requires the 

authors of a peace agreement to have a stake in fully explaining it to the public and urging their 

support. The public, on the other hand, has the opportunity to oppose the agreement and at the 

same time the responsibility for supporting it should the referendum pass. The Afghan government’s legitimacy gap requires a variety of strategies. Ensuring that the public have a referendum 

vote in any peace deal is one way the Afghan government could increase public trust. 

Conclusion and Recommendations

A comprehensive peace process in Afghanistan requires a much more deliberate design than 

currently exists. 

•	 Afghan civil society could develop a diverse and representative Civil Society Assembly to 

create an ongoing mechanism and forum for identifying key issues and work with the High 

Peace Council to represent a broader array of civil society voices. 

•	 The Afghan government could consult with Afghan civil society in the design of a comprehensive peace process, including a Civil Society Assembly. 

•	 The Afghan government and civil society could invest time in training from technical support teams on principled negotiation and mediation processes.

•	 The international community could initiate robust consultations with a broad range of 

diverse local civil society leaders to identify the ideal model of public participation in a 

peace process.

•	 The international community could support calls for a comprehensive Afghan public peace 

process and provide financial support, coaching, negotiation training and capacity building 

measures to all groups in an Afghan peace process.

Endnotes

1. The Statement of the One-Day Conference on Justice and Reconciliation. November 10, 2010, 

Kabul, Afghanistan.

2. Peace Watch Committee. “Afghan Civil Society Statement on Peace and Reconciliation.” April 

25, 2011.

3. Anthony Wanis-St. John and Darren Kew. “Civil Society and Peace Negotiations: Confronting 

Exclusion.” International Negotiation. 13. 2008. Pp. 11-36. 

4. See “Public Participation in Peace Processes.” London: Conciliation Resources, 2009.

5. Supporting Statebuilding in Situations of Fragility and Conflict, (Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD), January 2011).
© USIP 2011 • All rights reserved.

USIP provides the analysis, training and 

tools that prevent and end conflicts, 

promotes stability and professionalizes 

the field of peacebuilding.

For media inquiries, contact the office 

of Public Affairs and Communications, 

202.429.4725

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

About This Brief

This brief is based on research 

undertaken during five trips to 

Kabul, Afghanistan and one trip 

to Pakistan between 2009 and 

2011. The peace brief summarizes 

key findings of the field research 

that will be discussed in detail in 

a forthcoming USIP special report. 

The author’s conclusions and 

recommendations are her own.

Author Dr. Lisa Schirch is the 

founding director of 3P Human 

Security: Partners for Peacebuilding Policy, a university-based 

nongovernmental organization, 

and a research professor at 

Eastern Mennonite University’s 

graduate Center for Justice & 

Peacebuilding.

6. See Mary Kaldor and Marika Theros. “Building Afghan Peace from the Ground Up.” Century 

Foundation Report, 2011. And Elizabeth Winter, “Civil Society Development in Afghanistan.” UK: 

London School of Economics’ Center for Civil Society. June 2010.

7. This section draws on “Public Participation in Peace Processes.” London: Conciliation Resources, 

2009. and Catherine Barnes. “Owning the process: public participation in peacemaking: South 

Africa, Guatemala and Mali” London: Conciliation Resources, 2002.

Afghan Civil Society and a Comprehensive Peace Process

page 5 • PB 99 • July 21, 2011