KPSRL Distilling Series - Roots of Disagreement

In Summer 2025, KPSRL will finish the final iteration of the platform. This article is part of a KPSRL ‘distilling series’ in the run-up to the platform’s closing. It aims to preserve the knowledge gathered during the platform’s years of work and looks back at contributions of the network to KPSRL products (events, research, podcasts etc.) between 2021 and 2024 on four themes:

1. Locally Led Development

This collects findings on rethinking power relations and diverging interests within this sector, taking leadership and ownership, and navigating risks for local organisations and donors in times of donors focusing on domestic priorities and shrinking civic space in FCAS.

2. People Centered Approaches

This collects findings on bridging the gap between individual experiences and humane institutions, defining ‘people centeredness’, hybrid security and justice, building trust between communities and/or institutions, and taking needs instead of a system’s siloes and regulations as a starting point.

3. Roots of Disagreement and Polarisation (this piece)

This paper collects findings on the sources of polarisation and diverging worldviews, identifying arguments that parties to polarised SRoL debates use to justify their positions. Ultimately, the piece aims to suggest points of common ground to allow for useful dialectical opportunities rather than a clash of worldviews.

4. Learning About Learning

This paper collects findings on knowledge management and organisational learning. It reviews the variety of theories of and approaches to organisational learning, and the conditions under which they have been successful. Ultimately, the paper offers the reader a map and compass to find the learning approaches that suit their organisations.

__________________________________________________________________________________

The distilling papers’ goals are to bring together KPSRL’s 2021–2024 efforts on these themes, that can feed into follow-up initiatives. It does not seek to give a comprehensive historic and academic overview of the debates. However, we do briefly touch upon the most recent state of this debate for our field, including some key dilemmas and definitions.

This distilling should solidify the overarching narratives and recurring recommendations over the years. This should facilitate further uptake with policymakers, researchers and practitioners within the KPSRL network.

__________________________________________________________________________________

This paper explores the roots of disagreement and polarisation in international development, aid and the Security and Rule of Law (SRoL) sector. Drawing on KPSRL and KMF outputs from 2021–2024, it examines three contentious debates: Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP), liberal democracy and authoritarianism, and globalism and sovereigntism/isolationism. The paper seeks to identify the deeper assumptions and worldviews underlying these divisions and to highlight pathways for more constructive dialogue and inclusive policy.

These debates reveal competing ideologies that shape the development and SRoL landscape. However, shared priorities such as security, stability and inclusion suggest space for bridging divides. A recurring recommendation across the debates is the centrality of localisation: acknowledging and supporting local knowledge, leadership and legitimacy. This allows for more sustainable, equitable and context-sensitive interventions, challenging the dominance of Western assumptions and contributing to a more inclusive understanding of governance and cooperation. Recommendations include:

• Localisation: embedding programmes in local knowledge and institutions, basing development cooperation in local legitimacy structures;
• Collaboration: focussing on the collaborative nature of equal partnerships instead of the hierarchical structures implied in aid;
• Accountability: providing structural scrutiny and feedback through transparent MEL tools;
• Listening: actively listening to the needs, comments and grievances of both the partner communities and the donor countries. They stress the importance of looking beyond biases and finding locally based solutions.