Peace operations are essentially political undertakings. They remain, “above all, a political instrument, which works to expand political space for the implementation of peace agreements achieved by peacemakers”.^[1] They are both driven by and the drivers of a political process. Therefore, despite the increasingly complex security environment in which most UN peace operations operate, political solutions must guide all operational responses. As the 2015 High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations noted: “lasting peace is achieved through political solutions and not through military and technical engagements alone”.^[2] At times, interacting directly with actors that have leverage over spoilers in the field can be faster and more decisive than military or security responses.

UN peace operations should be part of a comprehensive political solution to resolve conflicts. In the absence of such political engagement at all levels, including at the strategic level, the prolonged presence of a mission is likely to freeze a particular political situation, which is not its purpose, and potentially jeopardizes the mission’s own legitimacy and efficacy.

Contemporary intra-state conflicts are very complex, with transnational elements and a proliferation of proxy actors, regional actors and other vested parties. The mission, and particularly the MLT, needs to carefully navigate a crowded political sphere. This requires the MLT to use its political influence and advocacy to address the structural and immediate causes of conflict and instability as well as the causes of peace. To do this the MLT, always being mindful of the principle of national ownership, must engage with the conflict parties (including those that may stay outside of the peace process) and key national partners such as civil society organizations (CSOs) and the local population in order to promote the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts. The HoM is the lead facilitator on the ground, communicating with interlocutors on the political front, such as the host government, the parties to the conflict, and regional partners. At the same time, all mission actors must be aware of the political context and the implications of their actions and decisions.

The political process usually comprises a range of activities: negotiation of an enduring and comprehensive peace agreement between the parties to a conflict; supporting and facilitating an inclusive political process that can move the country from a post-conflict state to a sustainable peace; supporting the host government to extend legitimate state authority; the holding of peaceful and credible elections that will strengthen the democratic processes; and national reconciliation. All these activities have become core mandated tasks for most peace operations.

Given the political dimensions of these processes, the mission’s leadership must be politically attuned and ready to look beyond its everyday professional perspectives to the underlying political imperatives. For example, the political nature of providing police assistance, as well as supporting and working with national police services, requires the Police Commissioner (PC) to establish good working relations with the national political authorities as well as the Political Affairs section in a mission. The same is true for the military. This may run somewhat counter to the inclination of uniformed services, which see themselves as more apolitical, but finding the right (political) entry points for important national reform measures is critical for successfully moving the process forward.

Conversely, senior uniformed leaders who are not attuned to the politics of the peace process can cause more harm than good.

Pre-conditions for success

• All major parties to the conflict are committed to an all-inclusive peace agreement as well as a dynamic and inclusive political process. Willingness to maintain and build the peace by those previously engaged in the conflict is fundamental but is not a given, and often needs the close attention of external actors.
• The peace agreement ending the conflict in the country addresses the concerns of significant parts of the population and tries to tackle the underlying causes of the conflict. In particular, the agreement must address the rights and concerns of hitherto disadvantaged groups; this includes giving recognition to gender-related issues.
• The mission leadership has a holistic and nuanced understanding of the factors and structural causes underlying the conflict as well as the continuing political tensions in the country in the period after the agreement. Such an understanding must emanate from a rigorous peace and conflict analysis; it should also be premised on and give precedence to national and local concerns and knowledge.

Outputs

In summary, the five outputs that contribute to ensuring the political primacy of the peace operation are:
 

1. Host Country Engaged and Relations Promoted
2. Peace Process Supported
3. Legitimate State Authority and Institutions Strengthened
4. National Reconciliation Promoted
5. Peaceful and Credible Elections Held