Introduction

Mediation scholarship focusing on international diplomacy and formal processes has paid little attention to the interplay between contested political processes at regime level and the collective action of ordinary people in demonstrations, protests and revolutions. Yet both regime type and previous patterns of mobilization and protest impact the space for manoeuvre in mediation. Structural conditions such as political institutions, historical legacies and economic realities shape the limits of what is possible in mediation and resulting peace processes. In other words, both pre-existing configurations of political contestation, as well as unexpected or spontaneous manifestations of political agency affect what is deemed possible by the regime and its outside contenders. It is therefore important to pay closer attention to these dynamics.

This chapter focuses on peace mediation from the perspective of political transitions and social mobilization. Most peace and transitional processes today from Tunisia to Burundi, Colombia to Libya have remained protracted and highly contested for years. It is possible to affirm that important mediation and conflict resolution efforts in these countries, as well as in several others, are taking place away from formal negotiation tables – parallel, independent or in opposition to the official process. In this context, the crucial questions for mediation theory and practice evolve around understanding the role and political reach of mediation to prevent and resolve crises originating from intra-regime division and conflict during regime transformation on the one hand, and extra-regime contentious claim making by actors that wish to challenge the status quo on the other hand. Street mobilizations to affect public opinion during the transition and ongoing negotiations are part of the repertoire of collective action in conflicted transitions and contested peace processes. Today both organized and spontaneous manifestations of protest have become increasingly visible. As a result it has become critical to understand how these forms of mobilization and pressure seek to transform the regime by influencing the negotiating parties from outside the formal peace table. This means recognizing and re-evaluating how mediation can positively engage with conflicted transitions, when regimes with longterm authoritarian legacies clash with domestic opposition and local participatory agendas, including contested and politicized peace initiatives.