Top, Middle & Grassroot: A Multi-Level Model for Peacebuilding

When violent conflicts tear societies apart, how do we rebuild peace? The answer isn’t found at just one level of society. According to conflict resolution expert John Paul Lederach, sustainable peacebuilding requires coordinated action across three distinct levels: top leadership, middle-range actors, and grassroots communities. This framework, introduced in his influential 1997 book “Building Peace,” recognizes that different actors at various societal levels have unique roles, resources, and limitations in peace processes.

Understanding Lederach’s three-level model 🔗

Lederach’s approach challenges the traditional assumption that peace must be built either from the top down or bottom up. Instead, he presents peacebuilding as a pyramid with three interconnected layers. At the top sits a small group of high-level leaders. The middle range includes a larger number of respected professionals and community leaders. The base represents the vast majority of the population directly affected by conflict.

What makes this model powerful is its recognition that each level plays a unique and necessary role in transforming conflict. Top-level leaders can negotiate cease-fires and sign agreements. Middle-range actors can create the infrastructure needed to sustain peace. Grassroots communities can repair relationships at the local level where people live together daily.

Top-level diplomacy: power and constraints 🔗

Top-level peacebuilding involves high-profile political, military, and religious leaders who represent their constituencies on the national or international stage. These leaders have the authority to make binding decisions, negotiate cease-fires, and sign peace agreements. Their actions are often supported by major powers and international organizations.

However, top-level leaders face significant constraints. Their high visibility often locks them into publicly stated positions, making it difficult to compromise without appearing weak. They must maintain an image of strength, which limits their ability to maneuver. While they can make decisions that affect millions, they are often disconnected from the daily realities that ordinary people face in conflict zones.

Top-level negotiations typically focus on short-term, issue-oriented achievements conducted in the public spotlight. These negotiations are crucial for ending immediate violence, but reaching an accord is hardly sufficient to build lasting peace. Without complementary efforts at other levels, top-level agreements often remain just words on paper.

Middle-level infrastructure: the connective tissue 🔗

The middle range comprises leaders in education, business, agriculture, health, religious organizations, and NGOs. These individuals are not necessarily connected to formal government structures or major opposition movements, but they hold respected positions within their communities. What makes them particularly valuable is their ability to connect both upward to top-level leaders and downward to grassroots communities.

Creating peace infrastructure 🔗

Middle-range leaders play a crucial role in creating what Lederach calls the “infrastructure” for peace. This includes organizing problem-solving workshops where people from different sides of a conflict can meet in politically safe spaces to develop mutual understanding and explore creative solutions. These workshops are less formal than top-level negotiations and allow for deeper exploration of shared problems.

Training programs represent another key middle-level approach. These sessions bring together individuals from opposing sides to learn conflict resolution skills, analyze their roles in the conflict, and develop approaches that promote reconciliation. By raising awareness about how conflict operates and building skills for managing it, these programs create capacity that extends far beyond the training room.

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions 🔗

One of the most significant contributions at the middle level is the establishment of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. These bodies, such as South Africa’s commission led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, help societies confront their past by uncovering truth about human rights violations and creating shared narratives about what happened during conflict.

Unlike courts that focus on punishment, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions promote healing and reconciliation by allowing victims to tell their stories and sometimes offering amnesty to perpetrators who come forward. These commissions serve as bridges between official acknowledgment of past wrongs and community-level healing.

Grassroots focus on immediate needs 🔗

At the grassroots level are local community leaders, members of indigenous NGOs, health officials, refugee camp leaders, and those who work directly with populations affected by violence. These individuals witness firsthand the deep-rooted hatred and daily struggles of people living in conflict zones.

Addressing survival and trauma 🔗

Grassroots peacebuilding prioritizes addressing urgent needs of conflict-affected populations. This includes providing food, shelter, medical care, and safety to refugees and displaced persons. Beyond material needs, grassroots actors address psychological trauma through counseling services, support groups for survivors, and community healing programs.

However, people at this level often face a difficult reality. Many are engaged in a daily struggle to meet basic human needs and may view organized peacebuilding efforts as an unaffordable luxury when survival is at stake. This creates a tension between immediate humanitarian response and long-term strategic peacebuilding.

Local reconciliation efforts 🔗

Despite these challenges, important peacebuilding work happens at the grassroots level. Local peace conferences bring community members together to address immediate issues and rebuild relationships. Prejudice reduction workshops, conflict management training, and interfaith dialogue programs help former enemies find common ground. Joint community projects provide opportunities for people from different sides to work together toward shared goals, creating new positive associations.

These grassroots programs are crucial for repairing the interdependent relationships in the daily lives of ordinary people. This is not about political accommodation among elites, but about restoring trust between neighbors who must continue living side by side.

The power of interconnected efforts 🔗

The core insight of Lederach’s model is that effective peacebuilding requires interconnected efforts across all three levels, not just elite negotiations. Each level has strengths that others lack. Top-level leaders can achieve rapid, visible results and mobilize significant resources. Middle-range actors can create sustainable infrastructure and connect different parts of society. Grassroots workers understand local realities and can rebuild relationships at the community level.

When these levels work in isolation, peace efforts often fail. A top-level peace agreement without middle-range infrastructure to implement it may never translate into real change. Middle-range training programs without grassroots participation may lack connection to people’s actual experiences. Grassroots humanitarian work without top-level political support may address symptoms without changing the conditions that created the conflict.

The challenge lies in coordination. Different levels may have conflicting priorities, timelines, or approaches. Top-level actors might focus on quick fixes to stop violence, while grassroots workers prioritize long-term healing. Middle-level actors must often serve as crucial connectors, translating between the grand visions of top-level leaders and the practical realities of grassroots communities.

Beyond the pyramid: evolving approaches 🔗

Since Lederach first introduced this framework, peacebuilding has continued to evolve. Modern conflicts involving non-state actors, transnational networks, and global challenges like climate change require increasingly sophisticated multi-level approaches. There is growing recognition of the need for more inclusive processes that engage women, youth, minorities, and other marginalized groups at all levels.

The framework remains as relevant today as when it was first published. Whether addressing communal violence, political transitions, or post-conflict reconstruction, sustainable peace requires the complementary strengths of all three levels working together. Top-level agreements create political space. Middle-level infrastructure provides the mechanisms for implementation. Grassroots efforts ensure that peace becomes real in people’s daily lives.

What do you think? How might the three levels of peacebuilding apply to conflicts you’re aware of in your community or country? What role might young people and civil society organizations play in strengthening the often-overlooked middle level?

References

1. https://www.beyondintractability.org/moos/lederach-pyramid
2. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/hierarchical_intervention_levels
3. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Truth-and-Reconciliation-Commission-South-Africa
4. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2024.1355951/full
5. https://banotes.org/conflict-resolution-peace-building/exploring-peacebuilding-top-middle-grassroot-levels/