 |
 |
|
Introduction:
Palestinian Mohammed Abu-Nimer discusses how individual transformation can be scaled up to reach the policy-making level.
| |
This rough transcript provides a text alternative to audio. We apologize for occasional errors and unintelligible sections (which are marked with ???).
Scale-Up of Individual Transformation
Mohammed Abu-Nimer
Professor of Peace and Conflict Resolution at the School of International Service, American University
| |
Q: So there is a sort of problem in dialogue where you have
individual transformation and the Christian says, "You are not a terrorist,
and not all of your cousins are terrorists. All Muslims are not
terrorists." How do you go then to social transformation?
A: This is the expensive question in peace building and conflict resolution.
We all go around and do our own training. I think we have, relatively speaking,
developed techniques and strategies that are effective in introducing change on
a perceptional, attitudinal change on an individual level. I think we still lack
this ability to effectively link the micro with the macro, or the individual
level with the small groups and the communities with the policy making level. In
some cases you manage to introduce these ideas, and form an NGO in a
neighborhood or even have two or three neighborhood organizations work together,
but how do you take their work and the individual's work into the policy level?
I don't think that we have had enough experience and paid enough attention in
the field to be able to do that. There are some ways to accomplish this.
One of
the ways would be to insure that in any work you do you will have one or two
representatives from the policy making level. For instance, if you are doing a
Christian-Muslim-Jewish dialogue group in Washington then you constantly
continue sending your reports to a local, regional, and federal officials
informing them about the progress that you did and the nature of your work,
urging them to be involved in what you are doing. That link to the policy we
lack.
A second element as a possibility is to target people who work in policy
and most of our work is on the grassroots, middle range intervention as opposed
to policy making. There are a few of us who work on the policy level, but I
think those who work on the policy level also lack mechanisms how to link their
impact into the grassroots and the middle range levels. These linkages are
essential for any introduction of change.
An example in particular I am thinking
about is in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict when you have a sleeping Israeli
peace movement that was very highly effective and very active in the late 1980s,
yet from 1994 to today I think, especially in the past two or three years of the
Intifada, did not pick up as much as it can. There are many people that are
doing work in the grassroots level as well as professional, middle class peace
activists. How do you transfer that into a policy level? We don't know. If you
don't take that case, take us in the US when thirty million people were
protesting against the war in Iraq, yet we went to war in Iraq and dropped bombs
and killed civilians as well as soldiers. We claimed that we won the war and the
global peace movement did not stop the war. The impact of the global peace
movement was big, but did not translate into actual policy change.
|
 |
 |
 |