Why are some peace processes in communal conflicts more inclusive of civil society actors than others? Inclusion of civil society actors, such as churches and religious leaders, women’s organizations, or youth groups, is seen as important for normative reasons, and studies also suggest that civil society inclusion can improve the prospects for durable peace. Yet, we have a very limited understanding of why we observe inclusion in some communal conflicts but not others. We address this gap by theorizing about various forms of civil society inclusion in local peace processes, and examining to what extent involvement by different types of third-party actors—governments, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—may contribute to inclusion. Empirically, we draw on a combination of cross-case and in-depth data covering peace negotiations in communal conflicts in Kenya. The findings show that civil society was less frequently included as facilitators when the government was involved as a third party, while inclusion in the form of direct participation of civil society in negotiations, or via involvement in the implementation phase, was equally common across different types of third-party actors. Our study thus provides important new insights regarding how inclusion plays out in communal conflicts.

为什么社区冲突中的某些和平进程比其他人更能包容民间社会行为者？出于规范原因，民间社会行为者，例如教会和宗教领袖、妇女组织或青年团体的参与被视为很重要，研究还表明，民间社会的参与可以改善持久和平的前景。然而，我们对为什么我们观察到包含在一些社区冲突而不是其他社区冲突的理解非常有限。我们通过将各种形式的民间社会融入当地和平进程的理论化来解决这一差距，并研究不同类型的第三方参与者——政府、政府间组织 (IGO) 和非政府组织 (NGO) 的参与程度)——可能有助于包容。根据经验，我们结合了跨案例和深入的数据，涵盖了肯尼亚社区冲突中的和平谈判。调查结果表明，当政府作为第三方参与时，民间社会作为促进者的频率较低，而以民间社会直接参与谈判或通过参与实施阶段的形式被纳入，在不同类型中同样普遍第三方参与者。因此，我们的研究提供了关于包容如何在社区冲突中发挥作用的重要新见解。或通过参与实施阶段，在不同类型的第三方参与者中同样普遍。因此，我们的研究提供了关于包容如何在社区冲突中发挥作用的重要新见解。或通过参与实施阶段，在不同类型的第三方参与者中同样普遍。因此，我们的研究提供了关于包容如何在社区冲突中发挥作用的重要新见解。