The latest escalations in the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine have forced the media to center its focus on war. With the growing interest also comes mounting pressure here in Switzerland to use (social) media platforms to voice an opinion, whilst floods of information overwhelm even the experts. An incident at the start of the year showed us how increasing polarization can lead to misunderstandings, heightened emotions, and disinformation and, at worst, can even endanger the existence of civil society organizations.
When working in regions impacted by conflicts, separating moral judgments from analysis, questioning the narratives put forward by different (affected) parties, and constantly incorporating different perspectives to facilitate conflict sensitivity play an incredibly important role. A particular challenge arises when these very actions are suddenly politicized in a completely separate context – namely, at home in leafy Liestal, far away from any battle zone.
Last year, the canton of Basel-Landschaft pledged to provide swisspeace with an annual financial support package after the Cantonal Parliament had previously referred a corresponding motion signed by multiple parties to the government with a clear majority. However, during the budget debate, a former co-initiator of the motion made a surprising U-turn. Parliament followed his lead and, in a tight ballot, voted to reject the contribution. Comments made in the media by our Director in his capacity as an expert invited to speak about the conflict in the Middle East were cited as the reason for this change of heart. The comments were the analytical assessments of an academic who has been researching peace and conflict for decades.
What is disconcerting is that the support bill was rejected solely off the back of these public comments made by one person about a specific context; the overall quality of swisspeace’s research and work was not taken into account. In the publicly available record of the aforementioned Cantonal Parliament session, swisspeace’s extensive work in other conflict contexts was emphasized in a positive light. Despite this, a more nuanced debate was evidently not forthcoming. Should research not be a place for theses and antitheses? A place where contentious ideas can be analyzed and discussed independently of personal persuasions? Do institutions that are partly financed with public funds have to self-censor in order to survive?
At the moment, highly emotional debates in which science-based comments are politicized and manipulated for personal gain, the local public’s cynical spiral of attention and the ethically questionable reception of media content are raising many questions.
In politically turbulent times, long-term strategic partnerships become indispensable for civil society actors. After all, without a resilient home base, these actors can soon run into trouble. For swisspeace, trust-based relationships at federal and cantonal level and with the University of Basel proved once again to be of invaluable benefit. Notwithstanding, it took strategic skill, additional resources, and a personal fighting spirit not to retreat into the ivory tower amid a media storm and to instead seek out dialog and lead the discourse back onto an objective, analytical plane. Communicative tools are essential here. Sustainable peace is only achieved if it is supported by different sides and at different levels.