APCJ_1528_Win2010_00i_122_4 12/30/10 3:22 PM Page 95 Darfur, Grand Conflict: Inter-Communal Rift and Grass-root Initiatives 95 public at large, using empirical data collected on grass-root conceptions of reconciliation. Her findings indicate that with the exception of forgiveness, the transitional justice concepts of truth, confession, and healing are almost absent from the South African public’s conception of reconciliation, indicating a sharp discrepancy in outlook between the elite, who established the commission, and the general South African public.21 Other scholars’ findings convey, in essence, similar conclusions. In examining the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Sierra Leone, Rosalind Shaw found that it had little popular support in part due to the public’s emphasis on ‘forget and forgive’, which received little consideration in national reconciliation efforts.22 In a similar vein, Lona McGregor criticizes the macro-level peace process in Sri Lanka for its narrowness and lack of public involvement. Although she focuses primarily on the participation of broad sections of the population, McGregor’s arguments point to the limitations of national-level peace processes and stress the need for the involvement of ordinary people to establish and sustain durable peace.23 John Paul Lederach, who recognizes the importance of national-level peace arrangements, draws attention to the special significance of ‘on-the ground’, grassroot reconciliation. He argues that true reconciliation is not a result of political accommodation crafted in political circles, but rests upon interdependent relationships between large numbers of antagonists carrying on everyday life. In his words, ‘[T]he process of advancing political negotiation at polished tables in elite hotels, while very difficult and complex in its own right, is both a more formal and a more superficial process than the experience of reconciliation in which former enemies are brought together at the village level’.24 In this sense, apart from its potential impact on nationallevel processes, grass-root reconciliation stands as a significant contribution to peace in its own right. For reconciliation to be comprehensive, a peace needs to incorporate stakeholders at all levels. Lederach suggests a peacebuilding model that brings together top-level, mid-range, and grass-root leaders to coordinate national and grassroot reconciliation efforts. He assigns great importance to mid-level leadership, which could be empowered in peacebuilding and reconciliation among the society at large at various levels to achieve sustainable peace.25 Darfur offers an interesting example of grass-root reconciliation and the role that local leadership can play in the restoration of inter-communal peace. 21. Anna-Karin Evaldsson, ‘Grass-roots understandings of reconciliation in South Africa’, Crossroads, 5:3 (2005), 76–106, www.webasa.org/Pubblicazioni/Evaldsson_2005_3.pdf. 22. Rosalind Shaw, ‘Rethinking truth and reconciliation commissions: Lessons from Sierra Leone’, United States Institute of Peace, 2005, 5–9, www.usip.org/files/resources/sr130.pdf. 23. Lona McGregor, ‘Beyond the time and space of peace talks: Re-appropriating the peace process in Sri Lanka’, International Journal of Peace Studies, 11:1 (2006), www.thefreelibrary.com/Beyond+the+time +and+space+of+peace+talks%3a+re-appropriating+the+peace...-a0148575772. 24. John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington, D.C., United States Institute of Peace Press, 2008), 55. 25. Ibid., 37–42; also see Walter Wright, ‘John Paul Lederach: Peacebuilder bibliography’, 2004, 2, www.mediate.com/articles/wrightW2.cfm; Nuredin Netabay, ‘Bottom-up approach: A viable strategy in solving the Somali conflict’, Beyond Intractability.org, March 2007, 3, www.beyondintractability.org/case _studies/bottom_up_approach.jsp?nid=6800.