This construction, however, does not acknowledge the complexity of the range of roles and functions required to sustain many peace processes. Similarly, professional conflict resolvers, while well-skilled in process management, may not have a high enough national or international profile to convene talks. Furthermore, actors involved in one stage of the process, such as the convening of talks, may not be appropriate or acceptable in other stages. It is important for those intervening to identify the types of roles required in a given conflict resolution stage and both ensure that acceptable people fill these roles and decouple actors from the process who might impede progress. The second concern relates to the role integrity of actors who are performing multiple roles.
Some roles operate on fundamentally contradictory principles.
For example, one of the characteristics of the role of a third-party facilitator is impartiality. If the facilitator is also seen as an advocate or patron for a party to the conflict, other parties may feel that the process is biased. There are other role combinations, such as enforcer and reconciler, which can compromise an intermediary's credibility or continued participation. Intervention teams need to periodically assess the roles that different entities are playing and ensure that they are complementary. Current efforts at negotiating a transition to democracy in Burundi highlight some of the problems which can damage peace processes when actors play contradictory roles.