Looking Back After Showing up for 32 Years

Looking Back after Showing Up for 32 Years By John Marks

John Marks is the founder and former president of Search for Common Ground in Washington, DC. His e-mail address is [email protected]. This article originally appeared without the photos and links in the October 2014 edition of The Negotiation Journal published by Harvard University’s Project on Negotiation.

The Need for Institutions

“Nothing changes without individuals. Nothing lasts without institutions.” – Jean Monnet

On a beautiful summer day twenty years ago, my wife, Susan Collin Marks, and I sat together on a rock in the middle of Virginia’s Rappahannock River and talked about our professional futures. At the time, Search for Common Ground, the non-profit organization that I had founded in 1982 and that Susan had subsequently joined, had about forty employees. It had grown large enough that we were no longer able to know everything that was happening throughout the organization, and the administrative burdens were rapidly increasing. Our staff was – rightly – concerned about things like health benefits, pension plans, and holiday policies. We needed to update our financial systems, and we had even heard demands for an employees’ manual.

Susan and I were faced with important questions: Did we really want to keep growing? Would management and financial issues prevent us from having enough time to do the conflict management work that we loved?

We talked about our vision: namely, to transform how the world deals with conflict, away from adversarial, “win-lose” approaches toward non-adversarial, “win-win” solutions. We concluded that to work on a global scale – which was what we wanted to do – we would need to have a large, effective organization, able to address major conflicts.

Thus, we opted for continued expansion, despite the obstacles that we knew we would face. We vowed to build an organization with sufficient structure to function efficiently, but not so much bureaucracy as to limit creativity and innovation.

We recognized that the conflict resolution field in the United States mostly consists of individual practitioners, consulting practices, and academic centers. Sometimes practitioners combine forces in networks or ad hoc partnerships, but for reasons of both temperament and economics, they mostly avoid large organizations. Our approach is different. We employ full-time peacebuilders who live and work in countries where there is conflict, and we pay them by the year – not by the day.

We subscribe to what we call the “Woody Allen principle”: namely, that “80 percent of success is showing up.” So, we keep showing up. For example, we have kept a program going on the ground in Burundi since 1995, worked on improving U.S.-Iranian relations since 1996, and maintained an office in Indonesia since 2002. (To see a short video about our work in Iran, please click here.) We avoid dropping into a conflict for a one-off training or workshop. We are convinced that even the most skilled conflict resolvers cannot parachute into a country and be as effective as practitioners who live and work there. But we also believe that short-term consultants – both external and internal – can play an important role, provided that resident staff and/or partners can prepare the way and be available to follow up.

We think of ourselves as applied visionaries who combine social entrepreneurship with conflict transformation. We believe our organization should be a haven for creative program directors who operate autonomously, but within a common ground framework. We seek those rare individuals who are both master builders and good managers – who combine the transformational and the technical. We provide a home base - a place to stand - from which they can carry out groundbreaking work.

Our model involves both challenges and contradictions. We seek to combine innovation with effective administrative systems. Unfortunately, creating such systems is rarely exciting to social entrepreneurs, who are not turned on by the need to improve accounting procedures – or to conflict resolvers who would rather be out mediating. Nevertheless, our systems must comply with our funders’ rules and expectations, and they also must be workable and pass legal muster, even in complex and unpredictable environments.

We respond to opportunities pro-actively. Sometimes we become involved when we see an overwhelming need, as we have done in the Sahel region of Africa where we have opened programs in Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, and the Central African Republic. Sometimes, our reputation leads donors to seek us out. For example, in 2010 the European Union requested that we launch a major project in Yemen. And sometimes we simply move into a neighboring country, as we did in 2001 when Sierra Leonean refugees, who worked for us in Liberia, made the case that their native country needed similar programming – and then guided us through the start-up phase.

We have found that there are never enough hands to do everything. The passionate, talented people who are drawn to us are usually stretched to their limits. Thrilling work is accompanied by financial challenges that drain energy from everyone. Even in the Internet age, communications are often difficult. Violence can flare up and wipe out years of progress. Our offices have been sacked and looted in Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire. After more than twenty years of engagement in the Middle East, we find peace to be ever more elusive. Funding often falls through for reasons that have no connection with our work or the conflict at hand – and everything to do with reacting to the crisis du jour or simply meeting the donor’s bureaucratic needs. But despite the setbacks, my colleagues and I remain optimistic. Indeed, we would not see much point in working for an organization called Search for Common Ground if we did not think that our efforts make a substantial difference.

The Struggle for Resources

“I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” --Willie Sutton

Ninety percent of our funding comes from government and multi-lateral organizations. Individuals, corporations, and foundations contribute the rest. The European Union is our largest single donor, followed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. State Department, United Nations agencies, and the governments of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

While we are grateful for the support we receive, we suffer acutely from a lack of core funding. Most of our donors only pay for specific projects – like youth councils in Tunisia or community reconciliation in Nepal. Almost no one wants to directly fund essential functions including management salaries, financial systems, communications, information technology, and human resources. In our view, funders are imprudent in their unwillingness to pay for necessary infrastructure and, paradoxically, this short-sightedness diminishes the likelihood of success for the very same initiatives that they support.

Until 2006, the Hewlett Foundation was the only large donor that provided funding specifically for the field of conflict resolution. After Hewlett closed its program, no other foundation or government agency filled the gap. Certainly, funds can be found for short-term projects, such as training corporate executives, mediating labor conflict, and settling a dispute over where to cite a dump. Unfortunately, relatively little money is available for prolonged interventions in complex problems. One result of inadequate funding is that the conflict resolution field, as a whole, does not have a track record for resolving major issues, which might, in turn, create substantial demand for its services from either policy-makers or the general public.

While we make it clear in all our proposals that our organizational vision is conflict transformation, our funders usually support us for other reasons. Almost all our funding is available under such categories as human rights, refugees, democratization, and security sector reform. Consequently, we frame projects in ways that are both true to our non-adversarial mission and consistent with our funders’ priorities. For example, in the Congo we use human rights funds to open communication between oppressed minorities and the army; in Lebanon, we seek to improve relations between Syrian refugees and the local population; and in Burundi, we establish systems to mediate land disputes.

New Ways of Peacebuilding “I wonder if you realized at the time you first set Search up that you would invent a new field and a new way of building peace.” – Dan Smith, Secretary-General of International Alert

Twelve years ago, I was at a meeting when a well-known professor declared that there are only two kinds of conflict resolution: the problem-solving model, as pioneered by Roger Fisher, and the therapeutic model, as developed by Herbert Kelman. I was taken aback because neither model fully captures what we do at Search for Common Ground. Afterward, I told the professor that, while our activities include both problem-solving and therapeutic processes, we work within a broader framework. He asked how would I describe our approach. On the spot, I invented a new term. I said we are practitioners of "societal conflict resolution.”

Our societal model entails creating an environment across entire countries and regions in which conflict can be resolved peacefully and for the common good. We do this on a multi-pronged, multi-project basis because we believe that if we carry out numerous activities in a wide range of sectors, we enhance our effectiveness and generate synergy. In other words, the more people we reach, the greater the chance that our work will succeed.

Each morning, 560 conflict professionals – whom we call “Searchers” – representing fifty nationalities, come to work at our offices in thirty-five countries. They are Israeli and Palestinian, Hutu and Tutsi, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu. We believe that our staff members must reflect the same diversity as parties in conflict. While they retain their ethnic, religious, and social identities, they have courageously chosen to be peacebuilders – often in the midst of fear and hatred. They must have a personal commitment to the process of making peace, because for reconciliation to take place out there, we believe, it also must occur on the inside. As an organization, we think it is crucial to walk the talk and, as best we can, live lives that are consistent with our vision.

We view peace as a process, not an event. Although we appreciate – and yearn for – those wonderful moments when agreements are signed, we recognize that real peace requires more than signatures. We seek to create opportunities for people to step back from fear, see beyond stereotypes, and find their common humanity. We work both top down and bottom up, and we seek to counter extremism by promoting moderation and cooperation. We become immersed in the local culture, and we try to make maximum use of indigenous wisdom and creativity. In every place we operate, we combine what we have learned globally with our understanding of unique local customs and cultures.

We strive to work deliberately and methodically and to be incrementally transformational. We appreciate that people and nations act in their perceived best interest. We believe, however, that everyone’s best interest is served by win-win solutions that benefit all parties. Current problems – whether ethnic, environmental, or economic – are simply too complex and interconnected to be settled on an adversarial basis. We are convinced that the earth is running out of space, resources, and recuperative capacity to deal with wasteful conflict. The methods we use vary as greatly as the places where we work, but our methodology – our toolbox – is built on one simple idea: understand the differences, act on the commonalities.

Within this framework, we use traditional conflict resolution methods, such as mediation, facilitation, and training. And we also utilize less conventional ones, including television and radio production, community organizing, security sector reform, participatory theater, sporting events, music, and people-to-people exchanges. We reject ready-made “off-the-shelf” approaches and thus constantly adjust – and re-adjust – our tools to adapt to local needs and conditions.

In essence, we are weavers who knit together multiple strands to help mend societies that are torn and broken.

Fixing What’s Broken

“We had the option to exterminate them. It would have been done within two hours. But given our recent background in human rights and international humanitarian law, we proceeded differently. This is why we systematically encircled them and summoned them to surrender. We are not a terror arm anymore.” – Colonel Prince, 811th Regimental Commander

Few places are more broken than the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where more people have died violent deaths than anywhere else in the world since World War Two. The DRC is about the size of the United States east of the Mississippi, and it is our largest single program. We have six offices, a staff of 110, and we have more than one-hundred local partner organizations. We work particularly on conflicts between the civilian population and the army – which has been guilty of massive human rights abuses, particularly sexual violence.

Faced with repeated denunciations by human rights groups, the military has tended to react with denial and defensiveness. In such an atmosphere, we recognized the opportunity to create a different kind of relationship, and in 2006 we made a decision to work with the Army to help transform it into a force whose main job is to protect – not harm – civilians. Within the military hierarchy – and then the police – we identified key leaders who understood the need for change, and we launched an initiative to promote protection of civilians. Our methodology includes multiple “sensitization” sessions led by Congolese trainers, along with anti-rape messages delivered through films, comic books, radio and TV drama, and participatory theater. We also sponsor joint military-civilian activities such as harvesting projects, clean-ups, repairs, and sporting events. (To watch a short video about the impact of this work, please click here.)

Here is an example of our impact: The 811th Congolese Regiment was one of twenty-five regiments – comprising forty thousand soldiers – that have completed our program. Previously, the regiment had had a notorious record of rape, looting, and murder. In 2013, after more than one thousand soldiers from the regiment had undergone thirty-six sensitization sessions, the unit was redeployed to the Katanga region just as a rebel militia was attacking the capital city. The 811th was ordered to counter- attack, and for the first time in its history, the regiment carried out an armed operation without sexual violence, pillage, or premeditated killing.

In addition to our work with the Congolese Army and police, we carry out numerous other activities to defuse conflict across the DRC.

 We use participatory theater as a peacebuilding tool. Since 2005, we have trained actors who have performed more than ten thousand times for audiences in the millions. The actors improvise drama around local disputes and invite spectators to replace them and act out possible solutions. A study found that 78 percent of those present believe that the performances taught them a great deal about how to resolve conflict without violence. (To see a short film on this work, please click here.)

 We sponsor mobile teams of Congolese peacemakers – called “Peace Commandos.” In 2010 and 2011, they went into Dongo, a remote region where a tribal dispute over fishing rights had killed hundreds of people and created one-hundred- thirty thousand refugees. After months of painstaking mediation and facilitation, coupled with participatory theater and peace festivals, they facilitated the signing of a peace agreement. As a direct result, the refugees came home, and the violence stopped. (To see a subtitled clip from French TV about this initiative, please click here.)

 We reach large numbers of Congolese civilians with mobile cinema screenings at which we show films with social messages. Screenings are followed by discussions led by trained facilitators. Altogether, more than 1.5 million Congolese have attended these sessions. (To see a clip on our mobile cinemas, please click here.  We produced a twenty-four-episode, dramatic television series and a thirty-seven-part reality series designed to prevent sexual violence and demonstrate the impact that individuals can have on the society around them. (To see a short clip from our dramatic TV series, please click here.)

 We have established a network of eighty-five community and national radio stations that air soap operas, talk shows, public service announcements (PSAs), and news magazines that our staff members produce.

The Healing Power of Stories

Search for Common Ground knows first-hand the subtle healing power of storytelling. – Christian Science Monitor

Because violent conflict usually depends on stereotyping, demonizing, and dehumanizing, in the DRC – and everywhere we work – we make extensive use of popular culture to help reverse the process. We have our own media division, Common Ground Productions, and we have pioneered in the production of television and radio programming to promote dialogue, mutual respect, and collaborative problem- solving. About fifty percent of our activities involve media production.

Outside evaluators have regularly examined our shows and confirmed our conviction that well- crafted, entertaining programming can have a profound impact on how people think about themselves, their neighbors, and their society.1 Our work intellectually and emotionally engages tens of millions of people. Rather than produce one program at a time, we make multi-part series because our experience has shown that repetition greatly enhances the likelihood that these programs will help bring about positive change – as long as episodes include a gripping plot and interesting characters

While our media programming includes talk, call-in, news, and reality shows, we are best known for producing episodic drama. We call this “soap opera for social change.” We started in Burundi eighteen years ago when we produced our first dramatic series – a radio soap about a Hutu family and a Tutsi family who, during 616 episodes, succeeded in peacefully resolving their disputes. Listener surveys showed that the series was heard by 87 percent of the population. The series became a national institution, and ABC Nightline’s Ted Koppel called our Burundi radio programs “the voice of hope.” In 1998, we expanded into television drama with a forty-five-episode children’s series in Macedonia, produced in partnership with Sesame Workshop. We followed with additional children’s series in Lebanon and Cyprus, and we expanded into adult drama in Nigeria, Lebanon, Egypt, and the Palestinian Territory. Then, in 2009, we launched The Team, which has become our signature drama series, and, to date, we have produced local versions in eighteen different countries. In each place, the plot focuses on a fictional soccer team (except in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, where we use cricket). The core metaphor is simple: if players do not cooperate, they will not score goals. Altogether, we have made over three-hundred episodes of the Team for television and more than 1300 for radio.

Our media productions use indigenous storytelling traditions to promote conflict transformation. While we retain final script control, local writers, directors, and technicians make the shows. In each country, the characters in The Team reflect the diversity of the place and its conflicts – whether ethnic, tribal, religious, or socio-economic. So, in Kenya, the soccer players come from different tribes. In Côte d’Ivoire, they are Muslims and Christians. In Indonesia, the action takes place inside a prison, and the players are from rival ethnic gangs. In Morocco, shows focus on bridging gaps between rich and poor. In the DRC, The Team is 100 percent women, and the central issue is preventing sexual violence.

In addition to The Team, we use several other formats:

 Madame President. We are currently producing in Amman, Jordan a new, Arabic- language series, called Madame President. It will consist of fifteen, hour-long episodes and will be broadcast by satellite TV across the Middle East. Set in a fictional Arab country, it will resemble The West Wing – except that the president will be a woman. She will not try to save face or exact revenge. She will resolve problems fairly, be willing to compromise, avoid violence, and generally act in a manner that directly contrasts with the path followed by male leaders in the Middle East – and almost everywhere else.

 Reality Shows. In the Palestinian Territory, Rwanda, and the DRC, we have produced or co- produced reality TV series that promote positive values. The Palestinian series is about electing a young person to be the next Palestinian President. (Please click here to see a CNN clip about the series.) It follows the American Idol model with judges and SMS voting. The Rwandan series focuses on empowering business entrepreneurs, and the DRC series features social entrepreneurs.  Feature Film. In 2013, we made our first feature film, entitled Under the Same Sun. Set in the near future, it is the fictional story of two businessmen – an Israeli and Palestinian – who set out to make money together and wind up making peace. It was simulcast on Israeli and Palestinian television, and it has won awards at several film festivals (please click here to see trailer).

 Public Service Announcements (PSAs). In the DRC, we have worked with a well- known rapper, Celeo Scram, to produce video and audio PSAs showing that “real men” do not commit violence against women. In Burundi, we enrolled Rastafarian rapper, Ziggy Marley, to make appeals for peace (please click here).

Looking Forward

Entrepreneurs face two major challenges: to launch the operation and to institutionalize after the launchers pass on. Congratulations on both. – William Zartman

Looking around today, I see a largely polarized and violent world. But I continue to believe that the common ground approach will prevail. Failures in peacemaking do not justify giving up – they compel us to find another route toward our destination.

After heading Search for Common Ground since 1982, I am now stepping down. I will continue to work full time for the organization, but I will shed my leadership responsibilities and concentrate on project work and fundraising.

I admit to mixed feelings about this transition. On the one hand, I am sad to leave the job that I have loved for thirty-two years. On the other, I am confident that the organization will thrive under the leadership of my successor, Shamil Idriss, a dynamic, 42 year-old who worked at Search for thirteen years and subsequently served on our board.

I am proud to have put in place the groundwork for continued success. I am convinced that our work is more needed than ever, and I am excited about being able to contribute in my new role. I would hope that what my colleagues and I have accomplished will provide a model for what is possible for the field as a whole. (To get a sense of the legacy my wife Susan and I have left please click here.)

In any case, looking back over these last 32 years, I have had the extraordinary privilege of doing work that makes my heart sing, and I consider myself to have been blessed. What a run it has been! What more could I ask for?

References Brown, W. J.and A. Singhal. 1995. Ethical dilemmas of prosocial television. In Eberly, D. (ed), The content of America’s character: Recovering civic virtue. New York: Madison Books.

1Notes

William J. Brown and Arvind Singhal (1995: 336) wrote: “Research indicates that exposure to even a single pro-social television program can produce enduring cognitive and behavioral change in viewers.”