Conflicts are often described as “religious” or “not religious,” but the reality is far more complex. A new action guide from the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) equips practitioners to “more effectively organize, facilitate, or support mediation where religion is relevant to the participants, the process, or the issues.” The report was co-authored by Ayse Kadayifci and Tarek Maassarani and is the second in a series of USIP action guides for religious peacebuilders.
In this interview, Religion & Diplomacy editor Judd Birdsall speaks with Ayse Kadayifci. Dr. Kadayifci is a research affiliate at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security at Georgetown University.
Judd Birdsall: When policymakers think about “religion” they often think in terms of beliefs and values or of institutions. The guide is framed around a much more multifaceted understanding of religion. Why is this important?
Ayse Kadayifci: In my experience religion is much broader than just beliefs and values or institutions. As part of cultural frames, religion is a powerful constituent of cultural norms and values. But it is more than that. Religious traditions inform individuals’ worldviews, behaviors and perspectives in a number of different ways. Religion, as a system of beliefs and practices relating to the Divine, and uniting its adherents in a community can provide a deep sense of identity and often has a powerful hold on people’s way of thinking, acting and perception of interests. Religious feelings can mobilize people because religion touches upon deep levels of identity. Religion addresses some of the most profound existential issues of human life, such as “freedom/inevitability, fear/security, right/wrong, sacred/profane. Religion can provide meaning to the life of the faithful and an explanation to why things are the way they are. Moreover, religion offers a language and symbolism through which human beings interpret reality as well as get comfort for trauma and injuries. Moral and spiritual forces of religion encourage people to act and change, and rituals are powerful means of communication in which followers of a religion connect to their spiritual sources and observe their values and beliefs.
Birdsall: How do these facets of religion help us analyze and mediate conflicts with a religious dimension?
Kadayifci: Violent conflict and war normalize the actions that are often considered abnormal or immoral during peace times and involve every individual in the society.
At times of conflict, especially intractable conflicts, transition from a war-like behavior to peaceful relations is extremely difficult as the parties have invested significant material, spiritual and emotional resources to continue the conflict. Parties in conflict, who may have experienced deep injuries and traumas, are often filled with resentment and anger and dehumanization of their opponents. These intense feelings often block communication and empathy, making it difficult to come to a common understanding.
A mediator who understands the centrality of religious identity, religious traditions, and the ways in which they inform conflict can help parties resolve their conflicts more effectively by adjusting his/her approach to address the religious aspects of the conflict. Understanding how religion contributes to escalation of the conflict and how religion is used to legitimize and mobilize parties to continue fighting can help develop better strategies to de-escalate the conflict. Understanding what emotional and other needs these religious dimensions of the conflict fulfill can help us find ways to address these needs constructively.
For example, understanding religious dimensions can help us determine who can be most effective and credible mediators in the conflict. In order for mediation efforts to be successful, parties in a conflict must be willing, committed and motivated to accept and engage in mediation. So, an analysis of religion’s role can help us identify the whether in this particular conflict, faith-based actors may be able to mediate the conflict more effectively as inside mediators. It is important to note that faith-based actors cannot be effective in every conflict or in every community. We can explore if religious leaders and faith-based organizations may have a unique opportunity and an advantage in the conflicts.
When considered legitimate and credible, faith-based actors can move parties towards an agreement by building trust between disputants by engaging the moral and spiritual resources that emphasize shared identities and experiences, common moral and spiritual values. By encouraging parties to see commonalities between their values and by invoking trust in a higher power they can open a window to the deeper and spiritual realities of the disputants. Often perceived as trusted, credible and legitimate, faith-based actors can employ spiritual and religious values and varieties of communicative, procedural and directive strategies to help parties overcome mistrust and suspicion, and to reach an agreement. Through religious rituals such as prayers, they can ease the tensions and break the ice. Faith-based mediators can also help parties enhance shared identities during the mediation process. During identity conflicts, shared identity aspects are often undermined and identity cleavages are overemphasized due to mistrust and perceived threats.
Even if the mediators may not be faith based, still understanding the role of religion can help mediators identify key religious values, norms and issues that inform parties’ perceptions, motivations, and interests among others.
Birdsall: The guide makes some helpful distinctions between secular and religious contexts as they relate to conflict. To what extent does this secular-religious distinction simply map onto the Global North-Global South geographic and cultural divide?
Kadayifci: I do not think it maps onto the Global North-Global South geographic divide equally. I think within each context there are those who are more religious or more secular.
Birdsall: On page 17 you underscore that these secular-religious distinctions exist along a spectrum. For instance, actors in a conflict can view themselves to varying degrees as individuals or as part of a community, or place varying degrees of emphasis on solutions or on relationships. Tell us why appreciating this spectrum is so important.
Actors in conflict carry multiple religious, traditional, and secular identities and roles. Individuals are mutli-dimensional. Our identities are not fixed but ever evolving and changing. Also secular-religious distinction itself is very limiting, very binary. “Secular” is at times associated with being anti-religious, but if you can be a religious person in your personal life and at the sametime consider yourself secular because you see religion as a personal matter, and believe in separation of church and state. So, if we make the assumption that actors can be boxed into one of these aspects of their identities we may be not only limiting opportunities for consensus, compromise, deeper understanding but also may be doing injustice to them.
Birdsall: What advice do you have for “secular” governments that want to help mediate conflicts where religion is a key factor? Do they have the competency and credibility to serve as mediator–of even as an organizer that selects a mediator?
Kadayifci: In my experience, that depends on what government and when. There have been times when a government official in his personal capacity was able to understand the role of religion and mediate (I am thinking of Jimmy Carter for example). But institutionally most governments are not equipped to mediate conflicts where religion is a key factor. My recommendation to governments would be to not underestimate the role and power of religion but try to understand and analyze its role in each context, and offer religious literacy training as part of their training programs for those officials who may be involved in mediation or other foreign policy efforts involving conflicts involving religion as a key factor.
Birdsall: The guide encourages us to “embrace complexity.” One impression I got from reading the report (as a non-specialist in conflict mediation) is just how immensely complex—and time-consuming, arduous, and even dangerous—this field can be. Is this an area of work that non-specialists should stay away from lest they do more harm than good?
Kadayifci: I think that is a challenging but important question. Complexity comes with the domain. All conflicts are complex and by trying to simplify them without respecting their complexity often leads to more harm than good. Paying attention to potential harm is a very important norm in our field and I wish more practitioners would pay more attention to how our best intentions can cause harm in ways that we might have not considered. Still I am hesitant to say that those who are not specialists should not be involved. There are ways in which non-specialist can engage in mediation and we have many examples of that. I think the key is to try to understand, listen, and respect the parties as well as willingness to learn and think critically.
Birdsall: How should those seeking to mediate a conflict deal with spoilers who use religion to discredit a mediation process?
Kadayifci: I think engaging spoilers, trying to understand their needs, fears and concerns is also important. Understanding that religious narratives and religion within a tradition is diverse. In addition to engaging spoilers and understanding where they are coming from, it is also important to collaborate and work with other religious actors to empower them. But that has to be done carefully as well. They should be asked how external actors could support them, what are some of the best tools and strategies we can employ to help them.