Journal of Development Policy, Research, & Practice

ISSN (P): 2522-3410

ISSN (E): 2663-3698
Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of
Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues
Muhammad Talha Shakil
School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-I-Azam University,
Islamabad, Pakistan
Correspondence:
Muhammad Talha Shakil: [email protected]
Article Link:
https://journals.sdpipk.org/index.php/JoDPRP/article/view/109
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59926/jodprp.vol08/002
Volume 8, 2024 Citation:
Shakil, T. M. (2024). Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of
Article History Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues. Journal of Development Policy,
Submitted: Research & Practice, vol. 8, pp. 4-22.
May 08, 2024 Conflict of Interest: Authors declared no Conflict of Interest
Last Revised:
October 05, 2024 Acknowledgment: No administrative and technical support was taken for
Accepted: this research.
October 24, 2024 Licensing:

Funding
No licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright
The Authors

An official publication of the

Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad,
Pakistan
Scan here to read
 Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice

Vol. 8 (January – December 2024)

Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of Pak-Afghan

Track III Dialogues
Muhammad Talha Shakil*

ABSTRACT
Peacebuilding is as sensitive an issue as it is important. Societies that have suffered
localized or national conflicts are prone to lingering underlying tensions. Conflict
transformation theory highlights that these tensions can be transformed through strategic
interventions, one of which is dialogue. Dialogues enable conflicting parties to address
preconceived notions and work toward mutual understanding, making them a valuable tool
for policy practitioners in conflict-prone areas. This paper examines grassroots
peacebuilding efforts between Pakistani locals and Afghan refugees, focusing on the role
of dialogue in changing perceptions. The study uses convenience sampling to survey 70
participants, with a control group of 20, assessing the impact of dialogues on intergroup
relations. Findings indicate that dialogues have a positive effect on participants’
perceptions and demonstrate a multiplier effect, influencing non-participants within the
broader community. These results underscore the importance of dialogue in fostering
sustainable peace between conflicting communities.

Keywords: Peacebuilding, Dialogue, Track III Dialogue, Afghanistan-Pakistan Bilateral

Relations, Sustainable Peace.

JEL Classification Codes: D74, F51

*
Muhammad Talha Shakil is associated with the School of Politics and International
Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University in Pakistan.

5
Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice Vol. 8 (Jan. – Dec. 2024)

1. INTRODUCTION
Peacebuilding has largely remained focused on post war reconstruction. The narrow view
has been under criticism and most academics now adopt a broader definition outlined by
UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. This definition takes a much more holistic
approach and argues in favour of a series of actions to identify and support structures which
solidify peace (Menon 2019). Barnett et al. (2007) argue that peacebuilding extends to
include the process through which war can be avoided altogether. He argues that
peacebuilding is not just the absence of war, it includes debate on elaborate investment
towards fostering a peaceful environment; creating a new kind of ‘positive peace’, which
can help in, ‘the elimination of the root causes of conflict so that actors no longer have the
motive to use violence to settle their differences’ (Ibid., p. 36). Academics have gone
several steps ahead and argued that conflict prevention and peacebuilding do not
necessarily have to be looked at as separate. If peacebuilding is done right with well-placed
investments, it removes the need for war in the first place. In this way, peacebuilding can
play a crucial role in conflict prevention and can assist in rehabilitating people with
openness towards each other (Ibid.).

An important aspect of peacebuilding is the conflict transformation process. ‘Conflict

Transformation Theory’ states that through the use of proper mechanisms, destructive
conflict can transition into relatively constructive ones. This transition involves debate on
interpersonal relations and international mediation. The idea that this theoretical framework
posits is that conflict can be transformed from violent physical forms to a more negotiable
kind that can be had through discussions.(Middlebury College n.d.). The theory affirms the
shift in attitude towards peacebuilding which is highlighted by numerous academics in the
discipline.

Dialogues are an important part of conflict transformation in the peacebuilding process.

This is highlighted in the work ‘Peace Building through Dialogue’ (Stearns 2018, pp. 6-
15). In this volume, Hicks’s chapter in the same volume emphasises the importance of
meaningful dialogue in conflict resolution. She argues that the advancement in different
sciences have allowed humans to redesign their approach towards conflict resolution. She
argues, ‘What this new knowledge has revealed is that we can no longer ignore the human
dimension of conflict.’ Furthermore, ‘Resolving conflict, including post conflict healing
and reconciliation, does not happen without opportunities for dialogue’ (Hicks 2018, pp.
79-80). The point she intends to make is that communication is crucial in the peacebuilding
process. Through engaging parties in meaningful dialogues, they can develop an

6
Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues

understanding of the ‘dignity’ of the other that has been harmed through this process. This
allows for developing understanding on both sides and an opportunity for peace.

The next section reviews the literature and examines different frameworks that earlier
academics used to study peacebuilding dialogues. It also explores how various countries
successfully implemented peacebuilding exercises to create meaningful and sustainable
peace. This section also analyses different perspectives on peacebuilding and how conflict
can be transformed from violence to dialogue. After that the case study is given that
measures the effectiveness of peacebuilding dialogues in Pakistan between Pakistani
citizens and Afghan nationals. It provides the context, details the methodology employed,
and reports the results obtained. As the results are presented, they are also discussed and
analysed. These results fall into two categories: the first demonstrates the impact of
peacebuilding activities on dialogue participants, while the second examines how these
activities influence non-participating members.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Conflict, like other definitions in the social sciences, needs to be understood as a subjective
concept. Ian Doucet, a renowned theorist argued that the term ‘conflict’ is ‘a very fluid,
mobile, ambiguous word’ (1997). In different contexts, it can mean different things to
different people. He showed how conflicts evolve and the different forces among
individuals that lead them to like or dislike each other to the point of war. He found conflict
to be a natural phenomenon, one that can be avoided and transformed. The parties involved
in conflict resolution include the heads of states and other high-ranking officials. Lederach
(2007) argues that for peacebuilding, the discussion and dialogues run much deeper and
require careful treading which states might often overlook (Ramírez et al., 2024). They
posit a much more senile image of the impact that such carefully worded discussion
between parties can have. Their works outline a sensitive approach to building peace.
Lederach argues about three possible tracks of dialogues, each of which engage different
levels of population.

The discussion on the breakdown of dialogue to smaller levels has also been taken up by
other academics. Macdonald (2003) also insists on taking the peacebuilding effort to
multiple tracks. Diverging from Lederach, he argues through a different framework centred
more on a practical approach. Instead of focusing on the different tracks of dialogue, he
highlights the different approaches which are needed to be engaged:
1. Political peacebuilding
2. Social peacebuilding
3. Economic peacebuilding

7
Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice Vol. 8 (Jan. – Dec. 2024)

These three types of peacebuilding highlight that there is a need to focus on different aspects
of peacebuilding. Peacebuilding is not just the resolution of conflict among the head of
conflicting parties since conflict travels vertically as well as horizontally. Thus, in order to
achieve sustainable resolutions, populations of affected nations need to be engaged.

Kaye (2007) expands the debate by examining how sustainable peacebuilding is achieved
through dialogue between opposing parties. She explores both formal diplomatic channels
and informal Track II and Track III dialogues, with a particular focus on regional security
discussions in South Asia. She emphasises the role of people-to-people communication in
peacebuilding and finds that while Track II dialogues are valuable, they rarely influence
broader societal or governmental policies. Through a survey of Track II participants, she
observes a shared understanding that these dialogues have limited sustainable impact on
state decision-making. However, she overlooks the fact that Track III dialogues are only
possible where states are already open to such peacebuilding efforts.

Federer highlights the shift from narrow, discreet interactions to more inclusive and
participatory processes involving civil society, reflecting a broader ‘normative turn’ in
conflict resolution literature. He reviews literature from 1970 to 2020, showing that the
inclusion of norms, particularly regarding inclusivity, have expanded the scope,
participants, and objectives of Track II initiatives. His paper ultimately seeks to understand
how these paradigm shifts have influenced the field and its future direction (Federer 2021).

Mitchell and Hancock (2014) discuss the conflict in Mindanao between the Moro, Catholics
and the Lumad where peace was attempted through the semi-formal institutions established
to enhance community conflict resolution ability. The determination of the impact of such
informal structures remains allusive, however, such a push has an important role in
establishing a ‘culture of peace’. This highlights the process of building peace through the
local agents allowing a greater number of people to become a part of the process ergo, a
larger number of people invested in its survival.

Dialogues have shown to create meaningful peace. This is shown by Jarman (2016) in his
case study of the Northern Ireland peace process. He showed that it was the willingness of
the global community and ultimately the stakeholders in the conflict to engage in discussion
with each other that allowed peace to flourish after about three decades of conflict.

Sustained dialogue harnesses its transformative potential, enabling long-term engagement

to address deep-rooted societal issues. By shifting perceptions between opposing groups,
dialogue creates space for conflict transformation and fosters pathways toward peace.
Ungerleider (2019) demonstrates this by examining historical case studies where conflict

8
Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues

transformation could have mitigated large-scale violence. Their analysis of the Arab-Israeli
conflict and the Irish issue, among others, illustrates how structured engagement between
conflicting parties might have led to less violent outcomes. Through these examples, they
establish a correlation between conflict transformation and sustainable peacebuilding.

There is significant focus on peacebuilding through a bottom-up approach. Annan et al.

(2021) argued that empowering Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) increased the
likelihood of sustainable peace by fostering grassroots efforts. However, they noted that
such peace could only be sustained if favourable conditions persisted and external pressures
did not undermine stability, a challenge that Cameroon’s CSOs faced. This analysis
highlighted that peacebuilding was both crucial and highly sensitive. Properly structured
discussions allowed participants to be vulnerable and express their perspectives openly.
Rather than resolving issues through conflict, fostering mutual understanding enabled
parties to be more receptive to each other’s ideas.

Dialogues are a crucial component in transforming conflict into less violent forms.
However, they were not entirely immune from violence. Despite this, they provide avenues
for non-violent engagement, allowing parties to address mutual concerns in a more
constructive manner.

This study aims to quantify the impact of such dialogues by examining their role in
addressing tensions between Pakistani citizens and Afghan nationals. By surveying past
dialogues, this research seeks to determine their effectiveness within Pakistan’s context.
The following sections will explore this analysis in further detail.

3. CASE STUDY: PEACEBUILDING BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND

AFGHAN NATIONALS
3.1 An Overview of the Afghan Situation in Pakistan
Pakistan and Afghanistan share a long and complex history, shaped by historical
migrations, invasions, and contemporary geopolitical events. Historically, Afghanistan
served as a passage for invaders traveling to India, while in recent decades, both countries
have been linked through the global fight against terrorism. Afghanistan, invaded by the
Soviet Union in 1979, has yet to achieve lasting peace due to internal conflicts and the long-
term consequences of foreign interventions, including the 2001 US invasion.

The impact of this political instability and foreign intervention has been twofold: it has not
only perpetuated internal unrest but also triggered repeated waves of mass displacement.
As a result, large numbers of Afghan refugees have sought safety in neighboring countries,

9
Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice Vol. 8 (Jan. – Dec. 2024)

migrating northward to the Central Asian Republics, south to Iran, and most notably,
eastward to Pakistan.

For over two decades, Afghan refugees have become deeply integrated into Pakistan’s
social fabric. According to UNHCR (2024), approximately 1.4 million Afghan refugees
currently reside in Pakistan, including 250,000 who arrived after the Taliban’s takeover of
Kabul in 2021 (Ahmed 2022). The demographic breakdown of Afghan refugees indicates
that the largest proportion falls within the 18-59 age group for both genders, suggesting a
significant inflow of working-age adults with diverse skills and knowledge.

Figure 1: Demographic breakdown of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan

Source: UNCHR 2024.

State policies toward refugees have been a mix of both humanitarian gestures, such as
providing shelter, and restrictive measures, including racial profiling by law enforcement
and the persistent threat of expulsion. This dual approach has contributed to mixed
emotions among Afghan refugees toward Pakistan. While some acknowledge Pakistan’s
support, others resent the treatment they have received, leading to strained relations
between the Afghan refugee community and the host country. Pakistan also highlights its
role in Afghanistan’s political shifts, particularly in regime changes, claiming influence
over key events. However, many Afghans hold Pakistan responsible for the conditions that
forced them to flee in the first place. On the other hand, within Pakistan, Afghan refugees
have been linked to rising crime rates, further fuelling public scepticism about their
presence. Mulk et al. (2020) highlight this issue through a case study of resettlement
colonies in Chakdara, where they examine the impact of Afghan refugee settlements on
local communities.

10
Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues

Over time, as tensions have grown, the Pakistani government has become increasingly
hesitant to accept Afghan refugees. During 2018-22, the government adopted a policy
allowing refugee inflows from Afghanistan following the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul in
2021. However, this policy faced strong criticism from the subsequent Cabinet, which
deemed it unacceptable, citing the significant burden it placed on the state’s social
expenditure. In response to these concerns, the government launched a repatriation
programme in 2023 to return Afghan refugees to their home country (Fahrney 2023).

Such large volumes of refugee influx into Pakistan poses numerous challenges to the local
populace and the government structure. Among the many issues that the Afghans and
Pakistan face, the most important (and relevant for this paper) is assimilation of such
refugees into Pakistan. This assimilation extends beyond economic and political
integration, encompassing social acceptance and cultural adaptation. The inability to
integrate effectively has contributed to underlying tensions between refugees and host
communities. One method to streamline the assimilation process that allows the social
acceptance of the refugees into the society is through peacebuilding dialogues. It is the
interest of this paper to investigate how effective such dialogues are. To achieve this, a
survey was conducted, the findings of which will be analysed in the following section. This
section examines how citizen-led peacebuilding initiatives can contribute to shifting
perceptions and reducing social tensions. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following
research questions:

1. How effective are peacebuilding dialogues in easing tensions within the Pak-
Afghan context by shaping perceptions?

2. To what extent do these dialogues lead to a positive shift in the views of

participants?

3. Can peacebuilding dialogues create a ripple effect, indirectly influencing non-

participants through their interactions with those involved?

4. SURVEY DESIGN
To assess the impact of peacebuilding dialogues on regional stability, a survey was
conducted among Afghan and Pakistani nationals. The survey aimed to measure how these
dialogues shape attitudes and perceptions between the two communities.

The primary respondents were individuals who had participated in peacebuilding dialogues,
allowing for an evaluation of their direct impact on participants. The survey also included
individuals who had not participated in any dialogue sessions but had engaged with or been
influenced by participants through discussions or shared experiences. The former group

11
Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice Vol. 8 (Jan. – Dec. 2024)

helped determine the direct effects of participation, while the latter assisted in assessing the
multiplier effect - the extent to which peacebuilding dialogues influence broader
communities through indirect exposure. The multiplier effect refers to the broader impact
that such dialogues may have on non-participants, shaping their perspectives through
interactions with those who took part in these discussions

The survey was based on convenience sampling with a total sample size of 70 and a control
group of 20 participants. The sample size was determined by the number of participants
available and the specific context of the study. While larger samples can provide more
statistically significant results, this sample was generated through liaison with Hanns Seidel
Foundation Pakistan (HSF) which provided access to their pool of participants from the
different formats of dialogues they conducted. In this way, although the sample was small,
the results are much more dependable. The survey targeted Pakistani and Afghan students
who were engaged in formal or informal dialogues. In this regard, HSF remained very
useful for providing access to people from both nations. Students who did not participate
in dialogues were also targeted to establish a control group. The sample size was made up
of two thirds of Pakistani nationals while the rest were Afghan. This difference in the
participant ratio was deliberate and meant to capture the actual demographics of the
dialogue process being studied. Efforts were made to ensure that the analysis considered
this imbalance, and care was taken in interpreting results.

5. FINDINGS

5.1 Determining the Effectiveness of Dialogues

This section will present the results of the survey conducted. The first question in this
inquiry was to have the surveyed members undergo retrospection of the views they held
before peacebuilding dialogues. The retrospection was facilitated by asking the participants
to reflect on and self-assess their previous attitudes before engaging in any peacebuilding
dialogues. This question was asked of both participants who had taken part in peacebuilding
dialogues and those who had not. There is an inherent tendency of recall bias in all such
questions, however the survey design (posing multiple questions to measure a single
variable) allowed inconsistencies to be eliminated. The survey showed that before
participation in peacebuilding dialogues 26% of the participants had a hostile view, 26%
described themselves as neutral and a mere 7% perceived that relations between the two
countries were friendly.

12
Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues

Figure 2: Perception before Participating in Peacebuilding Dialogues

7%
Friendly

41% 26% Hostile

Neutral

Did not have a strong

opinion
26%

Source: Data from author’s primary research.

To verify these figures, the results of the retrospection method were crossed with those
from the control group.

Table 1: Verifying the Retrospection Method Against Control

Group Control Group Experimental Group Difference
% % %
Friendly 11 7.41 -3.70
Hostile 22.2 25.93 3.71
Neutral 27.78 25.93 -1.85
Did not have a strong 38.89 40.74 1.85
opinion

Source: Data from author’s primary research.

The results of the two groups were established to be comparable and through this
verification method, the retrospective method was verified to have meaningful results.

This question provided an overview of the kind of audience that was being engaged and the
general perception of both nations towards each other. This question helped in the
construction of a rudimentary baseline through which it was possible to measure the impact
peacebuilding dialogues could have.

It was, therefore, in the interest of this study to investigate the openness of both groups
towards any form of peacebuilding dialogue. For this, the participants were inquired about
their view on engaging with the other party on issues of a sensitive nature. Figure 3 show

13
Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice Vol. 8 (Jan. – Dec. 2024)

that 76% respondents stated that matters that were deemed ‘sensitive’ should be talked
about.

Figure 3: Should Sensitive Topics Be Talked About?

24%

No
Yes

76%

Source: Data from author’s primary research.

The next section of this inquiry targeted the determination of whether peacebuilding
dialogues impacted the participants in any capacity. These questions also determined the
kind of impact that such dialogues had (positive or negative). These questions were targeted
towards people who had participated in dialogues.

Figure 4: Did Participating in Peacebuilding Dialogues Change Your Perception?

8%

No
29%
No View
63% Yes

Source: Data from author’s primary research.

14
Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues

The participants were asked if dialogues had any impact on their perception towards the
other country. In response to this inquiry, 63% of the participants responded that they had
changed their opinion about the matter after participating in the dialogue. This shift
suggests that the Pak-Afghan dialogues were effective in challenging preconceived notions
and fostering a more nuanced understanding of cross-border relations.

The 29% of participants who selected ‘no view’ indicated either indifference toward the
dialogue or a lack of engagement with its structure, making it insufficiently impactful for
them to consider any meaningful change.

This analysis revealed that, for the most part, dialogues contributed to shifting participants’
perceptions in a meaningful way. Participants were then asked to describe the nature of this
change, whether the dialogue had created greater understanding and connection with people
from the other nation (a positive shift) or if it had reinforced divisions and increased
distance (a negative shift). A significant majority (83%) reported a positive change in
perception as a result of their participation, highlighting the effectiveness of peacebuilding
dialogues in improving mutual understanding. Conversely, 17% of participants indicated
that their perceptions had further deteriorated, suggesting that while dialogue can be
impactful, it may not always lead to reconciliation for all individuals.

Figure 5: How Did Participating in Peacebuilding Dialogues Impact Your Perception?

17%

Negatively
Positively

83%

Source: Data from author’s primary research.

This section shows that, overall, the peacebuilding dialogues played an important role in
positively changing perception of the parties towards each other. This data substantiates the
claims that were established in the theoretical framework. It is important to note that the

15
Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice Vol. 8 (Jan. – Dec. 2024)

impact of this dialogue may not be uniform across the participants and factors such as
demographic differences and carrying levels of prior hostility and preconceived notion will
likely contribute to a diverse outcome. A more segmented study could provide clearer and
a more detailed image of the impact of such dialogues. While the study was limited in scope
due to its small sample size, it highlights the potential of dialogues as a tool for
peacebuilding and shows that they can have a meaningful impact.

5.2 Determining Multiplier Effect

This section demonstrates that, overall, peacebuilding dialogues played a significant role
in fostering positive perception shifts between the participating groups. The findings
support the claims established in the theoretical framework, reinforcing the idea that
dialogue can be an effective tool for conflict transformation. However, it is important to
recognise that the impact of these dialogues was not uniform across all participants. Factors
such as demographic differences, varying levels of prior hostility, and pre-existing biases
likely contributed to diverse individual experiences and outcomes. A more segmented study
could offer a clearer and more detailed understanding of these variations. While this study
was limited in scope due to its small sample size, it underscores the potential of dialogues
as a valuable peacebuilding mechanism. The findings suggest that, despite certain
limitations, structured engagement through dialogue can lead to meaningful shifts in
perception and foster mutual understanding.

Table 2: Effect of Peacebuilding Dialogues: Comparison between Experiment and

Control Groups
Group Control Group % Experiment Group % Difference %
Yes 53.85 87.50 -34
No 46.15 12.50 34

Source: Data from author’s primary research.

This disproportionate result suggests that dialogue participants may overreport their
communication efforts. Another possible explanation is the large population size, which
limits how many people each participant can actively engage with, even within their
immediate social circles. Based on the data, if 87% of dialogue participants shared their
changed perceptions with others, this would influence approximately 53.85% of non-
participants. However, a larger sample size would be needed to validate this estimate more
accurately.

16
Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues

A broader study incorporating demographic data could provide more precise fluctuations
in these numbers. Nonetheless, this finding offers a valuable snapshot of the potential of
Track III dialogues in spreading ideas and shaping societal narratives. It confirms that
dialogues do, in fact, have a multiplier effect by extending their influence beyond direct
participants.

Further questions posed to the control group aimed to assess whether conversations with
dialogue participants influenced their perceptions of the other party. In response, 89% of
non-participants reported that their views had changed as a result of these discussions. This
finding reinforces the notion that dialogue-driven interactions contribute to shifting
perspectives, even among those who did not directly participate in the peacebuilding
process.

Figure 6: Has Talking to a Peacebuilding Dialogue Participant influenced Your

Perception?

11%

No
Yes

89%

Source: Data from author’s primary research.

5.3 Determining the Ripple Effect

The final exercise aimed to assess how indirect exposure to peacebuilding dialogues
influenced individuals who had not participated directly. Participants were asked a series
of questions to determine whether conversations with someone who had engaged in
peacebuilding dialogues positively impacted their perception. Specifically, they were asked
if discussions with a colleague or acquaintance who had participated in such dialogues led
to a change in their views toward the other nation.

17
Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice Vol. 8 (Jan. – Dec. 2024)

The results indicated that 78% of these individuals reported a positive shift in their
opinions, reinforcing the idea that dialogue has a ripple effect, extending beyond direct
participants to influence broader societal perceptions.

Figure 7: If You Have Not Participated in Peacebuilding Dialogues, Has Speaking

with a Participant Positively Influenced Your Perception about these Discussions?

22%

No
Yes
78%

Source: Data from author’s primary research.

CONCLUSION
This study was able to establish the impact that dialogues can have on peacebuilding and
that:

1. There was broad consensus on the importance of conducting peacebuilding

dialogues on sensitive topics. However, from an academic perspective, these
discussions must be carefully structured to prevent ‘rigidification’ of previously
held beliefs.

2. Peacebuilding dialogues serve as powerful tools for challenging and reshaping

preconceived notions, fostering greater understanding between opposing groups.

3. Engaging in peacebuilding dialogues positively influences participants’

perceptions of one another, reducing underlying tensions and building meaningful
connections.

4. These dialogues extend beyond direct participants, creating a spillover effect—

non-participants who engage in discussions with dialogue participants often
experience a positive shift in perception as well.

18
Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues

These findings underscore the need for a careful and multi-level approach to peacebuilding.
While engagement with top-tier leadership is crucial, a bottom-up approach that extends
the peace process to the broader population is equally important. Sustainable peace can
only be achieved through meaningful exchanges of ideas and emotions, fostering mutual
understanding at all levels of society.

Participants in peacebuilding dialogues reported a significant improvement in their

understanding of each other’s perspectives. This engagement helped them recognise that
grief and suffering exist on both sides, developing empathy and reducing hostility. By
sharing their experiences of pain, both groups formed deeper connections, becoming more
receptive to each other’s struggles. This aligns with Lederach’s perspective, which points
to the importance of humanising dialogue in conflict resolution.

Furthermore, Kaye’s assertion that national level dialogue does not naturally filter down to
the general population is supported by the baseline findings of this study. Initially, only 7%
of participants held friendly perceptions toward the other group before engaging in
dialogue. However, after participating in discussions, many individuals were able to
establish connections on a personal level, leading to a significant shift in perception. These
findings highlight the effectiveness of Track III dialogues in fostering grassroots
understanding and reconciliation.

This study was limited in scope, and a larger sample size combined with a more detailed
survey could provide deeper insights into the complexities of peacebuilding efforts.
However, despite its limitations, the findings demonstrate, through a small but robust
sample, that peacebuilding dialogues hold significant potential to foster positive
perceptions between opposing groups in Pakistan’s context.

Traditionally, post-conflict reconstruction has been viewed primarily as a political and

economic endeavour. However, as shown in numerous reviewed works and this study’s
findings, this perspective requires re-evaluation. Despite Afghan nationals spending
prolonged periods in Pakistan, the study reveals that without active engagement in
structured dialogues, mutual understanding between the two communities remains limited.
This underscores the importance of integrating dialogue initiatives into peacebuilding
efforts to facilitate meaningful reconciliation and long-term cooperation. Future research
should explore the success of peacebuilding efforts by examining the demographic
variations in perception shifts. Structured experiments could be conducted by actively
encouraging participants to initiate dialogues within their communities. This approach
would allow for a more precise assessment of the multiplier effect, determining its
effectiveness and potential societal reach. If such an approach proves successful, it could

19
Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice Vol. 8 (Jan. – Dec. 2024)

pave the way for strategically designed peacebuilding dialogues with wider social impacts.
The multiplier effect is particularly significant as it reduces the economic cost of
peacebuilding initiatives, eliminating the need to engage every individual in direct dialogue
while still fostering broad societal change. These findings are particularly relevant for
Pakistan, as the country grapples with rising militancy along its western belt.

In conclusion, dialogues serve as powerful tools for conflict transformation. They bridge
divides, foster understanding, and promote reconciliation between groups with historically
negative perceptions of each other. Effective peacebuilding requires not only political and
economic interventions but also social remedies, including structured dialogue initiatives
that help communities heal and rebuild trust.

REFERENCES
Ahmed, A. 2022, ‘1.5 Million Afghans Chose to Stay Back in Pakistan after US Pullout’,
Dawn, 26 July, <https://www.dawn.com/news/1701631>.

Annan, N., Beseng, M., Crawford, G. and Kewir, J. K.2021, ‘Civil Society, Peacebuilding
from Below and Shrinking Civic Space: The Case of Cameroon’s “Anglophone”
Conflict’, Conflict, Security & Development, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 697-725,
<https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2021.1997454>.

Barnett, M., Kim, H. and Zheng, Y. 2007, ‘Peacebuilding: What Is in a Name?’, Global
Governance, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 35-58, <https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-
01301004>.

Doucet, I. 1997, ‘Conflict Transformation’, Medicine, Conflict and Survival, vol. 13, no.
3, July-September, pp. 175-194, <https://www.jstor.org/stable/45354930>.

Fahrney, M. 2023, ‘Why Pakistan Is Deporting Afghan Migrants?’, Council on Foreign

Relations, 15 December, <https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/why-pakistan-deporting-
afghan-migrants>.

Federer, J.P. 2021, ‘Toward a Normative Turn in Track Two Diplomacy? A Review of the
Literature’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 427-450,
<https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12376>.

Hicks, D. 2018, ‘Dignity Dialogues: An Educational Approach to Healing and

Reconciling Relationships in Conflict’, in Peacebuilding through Dialogue:
Education, Human Transformation, and Conflict Resolution, Cambridge, MA:
Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue.

20
Peacebuilding through Dialogue: A Case Study of Pak-Afghan Track III Dialogues

Jarman, N. 2016, ‘The Challenge of Peace Building and Conflict Transformation: A Case
Study of Northern Ireland’, Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, vol. 2, pp.
129-146, <https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj88597.2016-2.129-146>.

Kaye, J. L. 2007, The Politics of Ethnicity in West Africa: Conflict and Reconstruction in
Northern Ghana, Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of
Calgary.

Lederach, J. P. 2007, ‘The Moral Imagination-The Art and Soul of Building Peace
Association of Conflict Resolution’, European Judaism, vol. 40, no. 2,
<https://doi.org/10.3167/ej.2007.4002033>.

Macdonald, D. B. 2003, Balkan Holocausts? Serbian and Croatian Victim-Centered

Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, <https://doi.org/10.7228/manchester/9780719064661.001.0001>.

Menon, V. 2019, Rising from the Ashes - UN Peacebuilding in Timor-Leste, World

Scientific Connect, <https://doi.org/10.1142/11434>.

Middlebury College n.d., ‘Conflict Transformation: A Vital Issue of our Day?’,

<https://www.middlebury.edu/conflict-transformation/what-conflict-
transformation> [Accessed 7 November 2024].

Mitchell, C.R. and Hancock, L.E. 2014, ‘Overview’, in C.R. Mitchell and L.E. Hancock,
(eds.), Local Peacebuilding and National Peace, London: Continuum.

Mulk, J., Ali, B. and Ullah, A. 2020, ‘Impacts of Afghan Refugees on Security Situation
of Pakistan’, Pakistan Journal of Society, Education and Language, vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 37-46,
<https://www.pjsel.jehanf.com/index.php/journal/article/download/64/48>.

Ramírez, L., Vera-Márquez, A.V., Palacios-Espinosa, X., Urbano Mejía, C. Y. and Rojas-
Gaitán, L. 2024, ‘Education for Peace in a Peace-Friendly Context: Testing a
Virtual Learning Tool to Improve Teachers’ Competencies for Conflict
Transformation in Colombia’, Journal of Peace Education, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1-
25, <https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2024.2373732>.

Stearns, P.N. 2018, Peacebuilding through Dialogue: Education, Human Transformation,

and Conflict Resolution, Cambridge, MA: Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and
Dialogue.

Ungerleider, J. 2019, ‘Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation’, in P. Gould and J.

Ungerleider (eds.), The Inner Peace Outer Peace Reader, Canada: Pressbooks,

21
Journal of Development Policy, Research & Practice Vol. 8 (Jan. – Dec. 2024)

<https://pressbooks.pub/innerouterpeace/chapter/peacebuilding-and-conflict-
transformation-by-john-ungerleider-2/>.

UNHCR 2023, ‘Pakistan Refugees’, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
<https://www.unhcr.org/pakistan.html> [Accessed 2 December 2024].

UNHCR 2024, ‘Afghan Refugees in Pakistan by Province’, United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees, <data.unhcr.org/en/country/pak> [Accessed 2
December 2024].

22