Recently, scholarly debate on peacebuilding and reconciliation is making a “local-turn”, pointing towards local actors, such as civil society organizations, to achieve inclusive and locally...Show moreRecently, scholarly debate on peacebuilding and reconciliation is making a “local-turn”, pointing towards local actors, such as civil society organizations, to achieve inclusive and locally grounded peace and reconciliation. Despite this interest, little studies have examined if, and how, these local actors make a contribution to these goals. Such a case is Lebanon, characterized by protracted, sectarian conflict, but where a group of CSOs is active within this contentious nexus between conflict and peace. How does the work of these CSOs fit in the paradigm of reconciliation? Can they contribute to reconciliation in Lebanon? Following these questions, this research suggests that these CSOs can be understood through the framework of political reconciliation of Schaap (2005). Furthermore, they exhibit various functions to a reconciliation process: They advocate new narratives on identity, conflict and history, and the rights of victims. It arises that participatory and grassroot approaches are most conducive to successes of the CSOs. At the same time, the strategy and goals of the CSOs are negotiated by constraining factors. In what I call a ‘negotiated reconciliation process’ sectarian and corrupt structures on the one hand, and resource-based problems and international donor wishes on the other, mitigate the level of success of the CSOs.Show less
