Technology holds particular promise as a means to reach the goal of inclusion in mediation and peace processes. Digital tools are able to address concrete barriers that otherwise hinder participation, such as geographic distance, language needs, limited access to information, low literacy, and siloed networks. Minimising these barriers, while also addressing political obstacles or objections, peacemakers can use technology to create inclusive processes that offer more equitable access and paths of participation to marginalised or otherwise excluded groups.
Yet digital tools also come with barriers of their own, creating new forms of harm and exclusion or threatening centralised or representative systems of power. It is therefore important to approach the use of technology with a critical lens, acknowledging and addressing such barriers in order to maximise technology’s strategic potential. This article explores the goal of inclusion through digital means, outlining the practice, promise, and latent perils of employing technology to further inclusion in dialogue and mediation processes.
Digital innovations in mediation practice
The benefits and challenges of using digital tools no longer need to be discussed in the abstract. A growing number of initiatives have used digital technologies alone or to complement offline processes through different levels of engagement, whether grassroots, political, or in-between. A focus on tools and processes that directly engage or otherwise include the perspectives of more people allows exploration of how digital tools are being used in practice, and what impact they are having on the field.
Broadly, the use of digital technologies for peacemaking can be categorised and understood within three primary functions – data, communication, and connection. Digital tools can be used to gather, analyse and disseminate data; to amplify and diversify important messages; and to connect actors in ways that enable coordination or collaboration between them.
Mediation and peacebuilding teams are using new data sources and methods for conflict analysis and agreement monitoring, including online opinion polling, participatory action research, social media listening, and GIS (geographic information systems). Since 2018, UNDP Lebanon has used Facebook and Twitter (now called X) data to support regular monitoring of how tensions are discussed on social media, contributing to their situational awareness for conflict programming. Also in 2018, USAID partnered with various actors in Myanmar to develop a virtual mapping of women’s expertise and influence, primarily relating to policy issues in the formal political dialogue. The project provided donors and implementing partners with better information about whom to include in negotiations, training, and other initiatives. Meanwhile, in 2020–21, the UN DPPA Innovation Cell partnered with the software company Remesh to launch a series of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled ‘digital dialogues’ for UN missions with citizens, first in Yemen and then in Libya. Facilitators were able to use sophisticated polling and open-ended questions to engage up to 1,000 people in each dialogue and gain qualitative insights into the participants’ opinions, which then informed the UN missions’ respective peace efforts.
There are also opportunities to share information, manage rumours, amplify messages and supportive messages, and build capacity and opportunity for participation and engagement. Mediation teams have used transparent meeting reporting, public Q&A sessions, online training, social media campaigns and partnerships. The Colombian Truth Commission (2018–22) created an expansive digital platform to be hosted in perpetuity to share data, historical accounts, testimonies, cultural productions, and more related to the peace accord and its legacy.
Finally, mediation teams are connecting stakeholders remotely in new ways for dialogue, consultation and collaboration. In 2021, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD), working in support of the UN-led political process, held e-dialogues about Libya and shared perspectives from the country’s regions with political stakeholders and members of parliament. These complemented in-person meetings that had been held before pandemic restrictions and laid the groundwork for meetings that would follow. During the 2020–21 peace talks, the acting head of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) recognised that 75 unelected representatives were making major decisions for the country, and convened virtual sub-track meetings for women, youth, and municipalities. Rapporteurs conveyed their findings into the political dialogue. In another example from 2020, swisspeace designed negotiations between different actors in Syria, in support of UN-led efforts, using a hybrid combination of offline and online events, and ultimately transitioned from a fully physical to a fully digital process. The goal was to reach people who could not participate offline because of their political opinions, gender, or class. In March 2021, in partnership with the Office of the Special Envoy for the Secretary General in Yemen (OSESGY), Build Up held ten focus group consultations over WhatsApp with 93 women from different governorates across the country.
These examples speak to the strategic use of digital tools by mediators and peacebuilders to further inclusion in ways acceptable to conflict parties. However, this also belies their ability to also not use inclusion. In other words, the power to decide who is and isn’t at the table with the use, or not, of digital tools fundamentally remains the same.
The instrumentalisation of technology for inclusion overlooks another important area of practice in which digital technology also decentralises organising power in ways that allow for grassroots and resistance movements to define inclusion on their own terms. By facilitating low-cost and efficient means of organisation and advocacy, digital tools have created new possibilities and norms for challenging established structures of power. During the 2019 anti-government protests, Sudanese women set up women-only Facebook groups to circulate relevant information. The groups became safe spaces for women to raise their voices, and later played an important part in mobilising protests. In Afghanistan, #MyRedLine was a Twitter hashtag used by women to share their red lines for peace talks on Twitter. Launched in 2019 by Farahnaz Forotan, those who participated sought to communicate to the then Afghan authorities that they would not accept peace at the expense of the rights, freedoms, and happiness of women. In Burundi, the Conflict Alert and Prevention Centre (CENAP) challenged the exclusion of young people from discussions about Burundi’s future by building an online dashboard to allow young people with little statistics training to analyse data visually, draw their own conclusions, and present them to policymakers. Such efforts can act as a leveller of power imbalances present in mediation and dialogue processes, amplifying the voices of those previously unheard.
From niche impact to emerging norm
Assessing the impact of a single intervention within a complex process is always difficult. Of note is that the majority of the examples shared above were ultimately a part of ‘failed’ processes, in that they did not reach durable settlements. Digital inclusion isn’t a panacea, of course. And indeed, whether and how inclusion itself leads to better peacemaking is a much larger question. The impact question to be asked is whether the integration of digital tools within a broader strategy of inclusion makes inclusion better. To that, there would seem to be a clear case to make for the benefits of such integration.
The examples suggest that digital inclusion is creating new standards of practice in dialogue and mediation and helping foster greater participation in peace processes, particularly by women, young people, and marginalised groups. The ability to create these new opportunities raises the question, ‘why not?’ If we know digital tools help overcome barriers to inclusion, why are they not more frequently engaged? Why does the practice of digital inclusion still feel niche?
As offline and online worlds continue to flatten, influence and impact each other, we need to think about how to further integrate digital tools effectively and ethically into peace efforts. This requires considering a range of practical and operational questions, among them how to ensure equitable access to digital resources, how to anticipate and address potential barriers to digital inclusion, and who should be responsible for leading digital inclusion efforts in dialogue and mediation. It also requires looking at how local communities are shaping and implementing digital practice, and how their experiences can advance digital inclusion efforts in peace processes.
Risks and good practices for sing digital tools for inclusion in dialogue and mediation
Emerging practice has highlighted a series of challenges and risks associated with digital inclusion. This section outlines four key risks and accompanying strategies for their mitigation.
Risk: limited digital access and digital divides reflecting differences in gender, economic status and location are further compounded
Mediators already use various means to encourage broad participation and ownership in a process. Working to ensure that connectivity, literacy, and access do not limit participation involves making sure stakeholders have access to resources, the necessary skills to use them, and the opportunity to participate actively online. Gaps may be closed by the provision of data packages, equipment, meeting spaces, translation, and/or training if needed, noting that the use of photo, voice, and video can overcome literacy challenges. When the choice is available to use a popular pre-existing platform rather than a new app or website that requires additional learning and access, it is a good practice to adapt existing tools. Human-centred design provides an important framework. It underlines the importance of involving individuals with relevant identities from the outset, and making sure design teams themselves are inclusive and representative of those who will be engaging with the outputs. Human-centred design also promotes testing and iterating processes, tools, and mechanisms based on feedback from diverse participants to arrive at solutions responsive to the needs of people using them.
Risk: not ensuring digital safety and security, including not protecting against surveillance
Mediators are used to putting the safety and security of participants in a process at the forefront of their efforts. Safety in online spaces is equally important and can be harder to achieve with certainty. Mediators should practise safe data management protocols and use encryption for messaging and protected conferencing settings when possible. They also can suggest process rules for limiting identifying public communications, as part of a collaborative effort to respect and protect the privacy of all participants. Because there are limits to these strategies, mediators will also need to make participants aware of the limits to anonymity and the risks of unexpected visibility in order to gain informed consent for their participation or communications.
We know that women and gender minorities face particularly high levels of abuse and threats online. Participants should be consulted on what their avenues for safety or recourse are, if any, should they be unduly exposed.
Risk: expectations and power dynamics
Ambitions to translate priorities into substantive decisions or changes often remain aspirational. While mediators and facilitators already understand the importance of managing expectations, a gap in expectations can be amplified by the perception of technology as an easy solution for inclusive participation. Remaining honest about the capabilities and limitations of technological tools and approaches is therefore important. At the same time, the introduction of digital tools can – whether intentionally or not – challenge existing power hierarchies and create real or perceived threats. Mediators must consider and navigate the potential implications of technology-induced shifts in power dynamics, ensuring that the push for digital engagement does not marginalise certain segments of the community or exacerbate distrust. Mitigation strategies may involve being transparent about potential pitfalls and working collaboratively with stakeholders to foster a digital environment that serves the interests and needs of those involved. They should underscore the value and limitations of digital inclusion, with emphasis on the enhancement of communication and connection rather than the technology itself.
Risk: a lack of trust
This is often at the forefront of the objections to digital inclusion among mediators, for whom building relations of trust is always a priority. And with good reason. There are significant challenges to building trust between people via tech-mediated communication, and in the tech-mediated process itself. Participants are rightfully wary of data manipulation and abuse.
In digital spaces, trust is eroded by disinformation and behaviours that incentivise sharing attention-grabbing content. These challenges affect trust in online processes, as digital communication disrupts established norms and processes of traditional dialogue and mediation. Mediators and facilitators must contend with the perceived loss of control, overwhelming speed and volume of digital communication, and differing cultural views on online confidentiality and sensitivity. To help transform these dynamics, there are several things that those leading digital processes can do. They can incorporate group and direct-line communication channels to enable back channelling and communication among participants when necessary. Creating an ‘online communication code of conduct’ among participants can help. They should also take steps to ensure that the workings of any technology or process are transparent and understandable, preventing the perception of a ‘black box’ of unfamiliar tech tools. Once provided with clear explanations of the technology and the process, participants can make informed decisions about how they engage with it.
Hybrid processes are both pragmatic and beneficial for trust-building. A mix of offline alternatives to online processes and digital alternatives to offline dialogue forums can be complementary, maximising the value of each approach. At a minimum, mediation teams should shift away from narrowly thinking about an online component as a simple mirror of an offline meeting. Instead, it is important to consider the different kinds of interactions a digital engagement offers, and how these can enhance the process overall.
Digital tools integral to mediation strategy
Innovation is a vital and long-practised component of peacemaking in addressing the complex challenges facing societies affected by conflict. New innovations and technologies will continue to have an impact. Generative AI, data processing, augmented reality, computational propaganda, and citizen-targeted cyber warfare represent only a handful of the emerging technologies that are or could significantly affect conflicts or peace processes. Looking ahead to the likely future developments in digital technologies, lessons can be taken forward from current practice.
A mediation or peace process strategy for inclusion should automatically include consideration of how it can be supported by digital tools for data, communication, and/or connection. The integration of digital tools increases inclusion by overcoming distinct barriers to participation. There are risks, but they reflect existing challenges and are surmountable. Using digital technologies can enable dialogue and mediation practitioners to engage more deeply with communities, enhance collaboration and connection, and ensure that individuals and groups have the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes that affect their lives.
