Autonomy can be a tool for conflict prevention and resolution, but what conditions need to be in place for this to happen?
Sergiu Constantin: The smooth functioning of an autonomy depends on the interaction between the political, legal and institutional dimensions of the respective system of self-government above all. Symbolically, one can think of autonomy as a house in which the political dimension is the foundation, the legal dimension the structural pillars and the institutional dimension the roof. Autonomy, in general, is perceived as a vague legal concept and this represents both its strength and weakness. People have different conceptions of autonomy, and, in practice, there are various forms of autonomy ranging from simple cultural associations with few competences to complex territorial entities with extensive legislative, executive and judicial powers. This vagueness allows for a certain degree of flexibility, it’s also the strength of autonomy because it can be adapted to different contexts and their characteristics.
Natalia Mirimanova, you have extensive experience in the field as a mediator in peace processes, what observations can you share?
Natalia Mirimanova: From the point of view of someone who helps the parties involved in a conflict to find an acceptable solution, I would like to emphasise that autonomy is often seen as a compromise. Neither party considers it ideal. Therefore, the important thing is to find ways for autonomy to be seen by both parties as a solution that improves their mutual positions: it must be perceived as a win-win, not a lose-lose. Forty percent of peace agreements fail within five years of having been signed. This means that something may have gone wrong in the process, the way it was conducted or because there was resentment on the part of one or both sides for decisions that were not considered fair - basically, it is experienced as if there has been no reconciliation.
And how can a shared solution be reached?
Mirimanova: From the point of view of conflict resolution, the formula you find is just as important as the relationship between the parties. What is the point of having a perfect autonomy plan if the parties then hate each other and people don't talk to each other? When I work as a mediator in a process, I always prefer that the parties bring out elements of autonomy by themselves. It is not important to achieve perfection: autonomies hold up better if they are co-designed.
Constantin: The parties can have a different understanding of autonomy and talk to each other without understanding each other. That is why it is important for the parties involved to be aware of various examples of well-functioning autonomies, which can only serve as inspiration to be adapted to the context in question.