Search

Despite a rapid proliferation of conflict-sensitivity approaches and tools over more than two decades, a key question is largely unanswered: Why does conflict sensitivity remain a resisted concept in post-conflict peacebuilding? Regardless of socio-political contexts of armed-conflict termination, authorities in post-conflict countries, such as Nepal and Sri Lanka, often deny the existence of conflict, despite situations in which social division and polarisation continue to threaten peace and stability. This conflict denialism at the political level often engenders a type of conflict-sensitivity dilemma. This article highlights two types of conflict-sensitivity dilemma: operational dilemma and thematic dilemma. It argues that implementing conflict sensitivity requires peacebuilding and development actors to overcome these dilemmas and enhance their engagement with political elites, with consideration of the political settlement framework that shapes peacebuilding and the dynamics of conflict denialism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines issues facing peace and conflict scholars, peace practitioners and policy-makers in developing countries, wherein the rise of populism and right-wing extremism intersect with armed violence and social conflicts. Topics discussed include the inverse relationship between democracy and populism in these countries, a three-dimensional framework to understand the interplay between populism and peacebuilding in these countries, and the value of populism for peacebuilding.

Focusing on a case study from Nepal, this article argues that as the private sector is a heterogeneous constituency consisting of a variety of actors who can perform in favor of or against peace, generalizing the entire sector as either a builder or spoiler of peace can be deeply misleading. Instead, this article proposes an alternative approach that may help to understand the personal and structural dimensions that make up a business response to peace and conflict. These two dimensions, which can be better understood in terms of a business actor's self-interests, motivations, and the economic incentive structures and mechanisms, are central in shaping businesses' attitudes and responses toward peace and conflict. The personal and structural dimensions may provide an analytical framework that distinguishes between business actors who might want to benefit from political instability and conflict and those who may want to support peace initiatives. In this article, these two categories of the private sector are referred to as 'conflict profiteers' and 'pro˗peace entrepreneurs' respectively. While the business activities of a conflict profiteer may exacerbate conflict dynamics, by contrast a pro-peace entrepreneur can contribute to building peace in Nepal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]