Comparative consultation: The theory and practice of ‘sharing lessons’ between peace processes
| Author | David Mitchell |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836720920914 |
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720920914
Cooperation and Conflict
2021, Vol. 56(1) 65 –82
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836720920914
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Comparative consultation:
The theory and practice of
‘sharing lessons’ between
peace processes
David Mitchell
Abstract
Exchanges of expertise and experience between personnel involved in different peace processes
are now a common feature of peacemaking worldwide. However, the goals, methods and impact
of such interactions have been subject to little research. This article is the first scholarly analysis
of what is here called ‘comparative consultation’. The article begins by conceptualising this work
as a unique form of Track Two unofficial diplomacy, sharing the practical format and theoretical
grounding of other Track Two approaches but differing in content. The empirical section is
based on semi-structured interviews with 16 practitioners – primarily conflict resolution non-
governmental organisation personnel and academics – who have facilitated dialogues on peace
process topics (such as negotiation, transitional justice, grassroots peacebuilding) between
peace process actors at various levels and from many contexts. It also draws on the author’s
participation in a series of comparative consultation events. The findings focus on aspects of
the organisation, purpose and potential, and limitations and possible risks of the practice. The
conclusion sets out a model of the dimensions and potential impacts of comparative consultation
and argues for its recognition as a distinct peace methodology. Avenues for further research and
practice are outlined.
Keywords
Comparative consultation, dialogue, peace processes, sharing lessons, Track Two diplomacy
Facilitated by a third party, a group of peace process actors (referred to throughout as
‘participants’) travel to another conflict/peace arena and take part in a series of work-
shops with local interlocutors. These individuals possess first-hand experience in a range
of peace process domains such as negotiation, transitional justice, or civil society peace-
building. Within each workshop, the speaker, or a panel of speakers, ‘tells their story’ to
Corresponding author:
David Mitchell, Trinity College Dublin at Belfast, 9 Lennoxvale, Belfast, BT9 5BY, UK.
Email: damitche@tcd.ie
920914CAC0010.1177/0010836720920914Cooperation and ConflictMitchell
research-article2020
Article
66 Cooperation and Conflict 56(1)
the participants who have similar roles within their own situation. Participants can ques-
tion the speakers and engage in facilitated discussion on topics raised that are of particu-
lar interest. Built around these workshops is a programme of educational field visits and/
or tourism and debrief sessions in which participants reflect on what they have heard and
its possible resonance for their own conflict.
An event such as this will be widely recognisable to individuals and organisations
involved in conflict resolution. Exchanges of expertise and experience between person-
nel involved in different peace arenas has been a feature of peacemaking worldwide at
least since the proliferation of negotiated settlements in the early 1990s (Darby, 2008).
Figures from transitions reputed to be largely successful, such as South Africa and
Northern Ireland, have been particularly visible in such outreach. However, this work is
uncoordinated, usually private and often unpublicised. The aims, methods and impact of
what is often described as ‘sharing lessons’ between peace processes have been subject
to little research.
This article is the first effort to systematically analyse what is here called ‘compara-
tive consultation’: the activity, usually organised by unofficial third parties, of peace
process experience-sharing designed to promote the resolution of intractable conflict.
The article begins by conceptualising comparative consultation as a unique variety of
Track Two diplomacy, having a similar practical format and theoretical grounding as
other Track Two approaches but departing in content. The empirical section is based on
qualitative research among a sample of facilitators of this activity as well as the author’s
participation in a series of comparative consultation events. The findings are reported
and analysed according to themes which reveal aspects of the organisation, purpose and
potential, and limitations and possible risks of the practice. The conclusion sets out a
model of the dimensions and impacts of comparative consultation and argues for its rec-
ognition and further development as a distinct peace methodology.
Comparative consultation as Track Two diplomacy
The lack of formal analyses of interactions between peace process actors is immediately
suggested by the fact that such dialogues have not, hitherto, acquired an adequate or
standardised name. Several of the practitioners who participated in this research used the
term ‘sharing lessons’ and acknowledged its shortcomings. Other labels mentioned
included ‘comparative study visit’, ‘study tour’, ‘capacity building’, ‘peace sharing’,
‘facilitated dialogue’, ‘exchange’, and ‘informal dialogue platform’. However, none of
these fully capture the activity which in its totality comprises aspects of mediation, edu-
cation, capacity and relationship-building, and tourism (see conclusion).
The term ‘comparative consultation’ is proposed for three reasons. First, it avoids
words like ‘lesson’ and ‘study’, which may imply that the activity solely entails, or seeks,
simplistic knowledge transfer. The potential impact, as this article shows, is broader.
Second, the deep analysis of a comparison case is the defining aspect of comparative
consultation, hence ‘comparative’. Third, the facilitated sharing of experiences between
peace process actors is a variant of Track Two diplomacy1 (Davidson and Montville,
1981; Jones, 2015), something that has also been described as ‘third-party consultation’
(Fisher and Keashly, 1988). Since the third party acts as consultant by providing
To continue reading
Request your trial