Yosef Beyene

Addis Ababa University
College of Educational and Behavioral Studies
Department of Civics and Ethical Education
Assessing Youth Involvement in Peace Building: The Case of

Fagita Lekoma Woreda, Awi Administrative Zone, Amhara
National Regional State
By
Yosef Beyene
Advisor: Teferi Mekonnen (PhD)
August, 2020
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

College of Educational and Behavioral Studies

Fagita Lekoma Woreda, Awi Administrative Zone, Amhara
National Regional State
A Thesis Submitted to the Department Civics and Ethical Education in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Education in Civics
and Ethical Education Department
By
Yosef Beyene
Advisors: Teferi Mekonnen (PhD)
August, 2020

i
College of Education and Behavioral Studies

Fagita Lekoma Woreda, Awi Administrative Zone, Amhara National
Regional State
By
Yosef Beyene
Approved By Board of Examiners
Advisor Signature Date
External Examiner Signature Date
Internal Examiner Signature Date
August, 2020
i
DECLARATION
I undersigned, declare that the thesis comprises my own work. In compliance with
internationally accepted practices, I have duly acknowledged and referenced all materials used in
this work. I understand that non-adherence to the principles of academic honesty and integrity
misrepresentation/fabrication of any idea/data/source will constitute sufficient ground for
disciplinary action by the University and can also evoke penal action from the sources which
have not been properly cited or acknowledged.
_Yosef eyene___________ August /2020
Student’s Name Signature Date
The thesis entitled “Assessing Youth Involvement in Peace Building: The case of Fagita Lekoma
Woreda, Awi Administrative Zone, Amhara National Regional State” by Mr. Yosef Beyene
submitted for defense with my approval as his research advisor.
__________________ _________________ . .
Advisor’s Name Signature Date
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, my greatest gratitude reaches to the almighty God, who helps me just
from the beginning to the end and permits me to see the fruit of my effort.
Next, I would like to extend my honest thanks to my advisor Teferi Mekonnen (PhD) for his kind
advice, constructive comments and encouragement throughout the work. Without his brotherly
encouragement and friendly motivation; this thesis could not be completed. His ever openness
and readiness for assistance and guidance has greatly helped me to carry out this work
successfully.
My sincerely thanks also goes to Ato Gedif Mulat and Ato Nibret Tilahun for their overall
kindness, courage and support as well as teaching the basics of research which are really helpful
for this study as well. I am really thanks them.
Above all, my great gratitude goes to the research participants or youths, elders, religious fathers,
kebele and woreda level government officials who live in Chiguli, Fagita, and Dimama Kebele
in Fagita Lekoma Woreda for their invaluable information collected through questionnaire,
interview, and focus group discussion. Without their support, this research thesis has not been
reached this stage.
Last, but not least, I am greatly indebted to all who contributed for the success of this study in
different ways.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION ......................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background of the Study ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 5
1.4. Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................ 5
1.3.1. General Objective .......................................................................................................... 5
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ........................................................................................................ 5
1.5. Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Scope of the Study................................................................................................................. 6
1.7. Limitation of the Study ........................................................................................................ 7
1.8 Operational Definition of Key Terms ................................................................................... 7
1.9 Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 9
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................................. 9
2.1. Youth and Peace Building .................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1. Conceptualizing of Youth .............................................................................................. 9
2.2 The Nature of Peace Building ............................................................................................. 10
2.2.1 Approaches‟ of Peace ................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1.1 Peacekeeping.......................................................................................................... 10
ii
2.2.1.2 Peacemaking .......................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1.3 Peace Building ....................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ............................................................................. 13
2.3.1 Theoretical Framework................................................................................................. 13
2.3.1.1 International Relations Perspectives ...................................................................... 14
2.3.1.2 Social Psychology Perspectives ............................................................................. 14
2.3.1.3 Theory of Social Constructivism ........................................................................... 15
2.3.2 Conceptual Framework................................................................................................. 16
2.4 Youth Perceptions on Peace Building ................................................................................. 17
2.5 Youth Actual Practices in Peace Building .......................................................................... 18
2.6 Challenges and Opportunities of Youth Involvement in Peace Building Process .............. 20
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 23
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................. 23
3.1.1. Location ....................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.2 Climate.......................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.3. Natural Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 24
3.1.4. Soil ............................................................................................................................... 24
3.1.5. Topography ................................................................................................................. 24
3.1.6. Livelihood Activities ................................................................................................... 24
3.2. Research Design and Approach ......................................................................................... 25
3.3. Sampling Technique and Sampling Size ............................................................................ 26
3.4. Data Gathering Instruments and Data Source .................................................................... 29
3.4.1 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 29
3.4.2. Interview ...................................................................................................................... 29
3.4.3 Focus Group Discussion ............................................................................................... 30
3.5. Data Collection Procedure ................................................................................................. 30
iii
3.5.1 Pilot Study .................................................................................................................... 30
3.6. Data Analysis Methods ...................................................................................................... 31
3.7. Validity and Reliability of the Instruments ........................................................................ 31
3.8. Ethical Considerations of the Study ................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 33

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 33
4.1 Participants‟ Background Information ................................................................................ 33
4.2. Actual Practices of Youth in Peace Building ..................................................................... 34
4.3 The Perception of Youth Towards Peace Building Involvement ........................................ 38
4.4 Challenges of Youth Involvement in Peace Building Process ............................................ 43
4.5 Opportunities of Youth involvement in Peace building Process ........................................ 48
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 53
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 53
5.1. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 53
5.2. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 54
5.3. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 54
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 56
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 61
Appendix –I .................................................................................................................................. 61
Appendix – II ................................................................................................................................ 64
Appendix – III ............................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix –IV................................................................................................................................ 66
Appendix V ................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix-VI ................................................................................................................................. 71
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4. 1: Sex of the respondents ................................................................................................ 33
Table 4.2: Age of respondents ...................................................................................................... 33
Table 4.3: respondents‟ education level........................................................................................ 34
Table 4.4: Youth Actual Peace building ability in practice .......................................................... 35
Table 4.5: The perception of youth towards peace building involvement .................................... 39
Table 4.6: Challenges of Youth involvement in Peace building Process ..................................... 43
Table 4.7: Opportunities of Youth Engagement in Peace building Process ................................. 48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 16
Figure 3.1: Map of study area ....................................................................................................... 25
v
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION
ANRS Amhara National Regional State

AU African Union
AYR African Youth Report
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FLWADO Fagita Lekoma Woreda Agriculture Development Office
MYSCE Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture of Ethiopia
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIDIA National Institute Development for International Affairs
PCYB Positive Change Youth Behavior
SC Social Constructivism
SPP Social Psychology Perspectives
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SSDP Social Security Development Policy
UN United Nation
UNDAP United Nation Document Agenda for Peace
UNDP United Nation Development Program
UNFPA United Nation Population Fund Agreement
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WHO World Health Organization
WWII World War Second
YCAO Youth and Child Administration Office
vi
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to assess youth involvement in peace building in selected kebeles of
Fagita Lekoma woreda in Amhara National Regional state. Simple descriptive research design
was used for the study. Simple random or lottery method and purposive sampling techniques
were used in order to select respondents, interview and discussants respectively. Accordingly
130 respondents, 21 interviewees and 12 discussants were selected from 3800 study population.
Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered through the questionnaire, interview and FGD.
The collected data were analyzed by using descriptive statistical and thematic analysis. The
results of the study revealed that the youths in Fagita Lekoma Woreda identify as they have the
ability to build peace in their areas. The findings indicate that the youth in the study area play
great roles in peace building. They are open-minded, dynamic, influential, decision maker, and
involved in peace building practices regardless of age, gender, and religion. The study revealed
that the youth have various challenges in their peace building practices such as unemployment,
inferiority feeling, alcoholism, inadequate youth communication platform and lack of awareness
creation on peace building. The findings showed that there were no different opportunities
created for the youth to be involved in peace building practices including access to education,
self-esteem empowerment, and the availability of youth leagues. Therefore, various points were
recommended based on the major findings of the study.
Key words: Assessment, Youth, involvement, and Peace building
vii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
Without limiting time and space, conflict exists everywhere in the world. Peace building is a
process that facilitates the establishment of durable peace, and tries to prevent the recurrence of
violence by addressing root causes and effects of conflict through reconciliation, institution
building, and political as well as economic transformation. McEvoy-Levy (2006) argues that
peace building refers to a crucial and distinct phase in a conflict when both violence prevention
and social reconstruction challenges co-exist and overlap, and conflict management, conflict
resolution and conflict transformation measures are required in an effort to construct a
sustainable peace.
In conflict situations social implications linked with childhood or adulthood change, and children
might be forced to grow up faster and might make young adults stay within the definition of
youth because „rites of passage‟ have been disturbed (Ayo, 2016). However, if youth can be such
a powerful force that can destroy a whole nation, why do people overlook their resources when
working for peace? Youth as a theme is vigorously discussed and debated in multiple settings,
both as a security threat and as an untapped resource or potential. Hence, youth voices should be
included in current peace-related issues in general and peace building in particular.
Although indigenous peace building practices have the potential to lay the foundation for
reconciliation and peace building in the absence of formal political institutions and a functional
judicial system to guide negotiations and address conflicts, critics of such methods assert that
these could not address the changes in the nature and magnitude of local conflicts, making it less
feasible to advance post-conflict reconstruction. Pavanello (2009) thus, calls for the revitalization
of the indigenous peace building procedures through considering the role of youth to effectively
address contemporary challenges.
Furthermore, while acknowledging the limitations of current indigenous approaches and the need
for improvement, Abbink (2006) highlights the significance of youth involvement into the peace
building procedures. McEvoy-Levy (2006) emphasizes the significance of examining how youth
senses about and around issues of conflict, post-conflict and the peace building. Despite the
1
significant lack of adequate research on the roles of youth in peace building, there are a wide
variety of studies concerning youth in conflict, and the relationship between youth and conflict
causation (Schwartz, 2008).
In Ethiopian context, although various indigenous researches were conducted on various peace
building mechanisms performed by elders, there are little or no researches conducted regarding
youth involvement on peace building. However, there are local situations in Ethiopia such as in
Awi Administrative Zone, Fagita Lokoma Woreda which needs the youth participates in various
peace building processes. Based on the researchers‟ preliminary study, Fagita Lokoma Woreda is
a place where conflict and peace building are mostly practiced. Though the youth in the woreda
have parts in conflicts, they also have great roles in the peace building process. Ended, the
involvement of these youth in peace building in Fagita Lokom Woreda is not studied yet.
Therefore, this study is mainly intended to fill this research gap focusing on assessing youth
involvement in peace building with reference to Fagita Lokoma Woreda.
1.2. Statement of the Problem

The prevalent image on youth is negative, meaning that they are often seen as actors for
violence. Much research has tended to focus on the role of youth in violence promotion. Youth
are often neglected in peace building activities. However, since youth are seen as dynamic and
open, they have potential to have a role both in violence promotion and in peace building. If they
are provided with opportunities to socio-economic development, they can transform their violent
roles and become actors in peace building (Sellevold, 2012).
In the last few decades, there has been a growing body of literature on the roles of youth in war-
to-peace transitions, although, it still remains limited. Referring to children as victims and youth
as threats have been the predominant images. Research has been conducted on young men and
violence (Sellevold, 2012). The multiple theories and conceptualizations on young men and
violence demonstrate this, such as the youth bulge theory, the youth crisis, the greed model and
the grievance model.
In spite of the abundance of literature available on the roles of youth in conflict, the effects of a
large youth population during the post-conflict reconstruction period has been largely
understudied. In other words, there are significant gaps to understand how the post-conflict
2
reconstruction process affects young people, and the role of youth play in determining the
success of the peace building. Most of the research on youth in conflict focuses on young men,
suggesting that a large proportion of male youth were increase the likelihood of instability, but
does not consider the youth population‟s role in peace building.
Even so, in examining the youth roles in modern conflicts, pigeonholing youth as a destabilizing
population oversimplifies the evidence: while young people do participate in and help to incite
conflict, there are a number of instances where young men and women became leaders in peace
building movements and made significant contributions to the post-conflict reconstruction
environment. As such, youth are not only important to examine as potentially dangerous, but the
management of the youth transition from war to peace is integral to breaking the cycle of
violence that leads to civil war and instability.
Young people can involve in transforming conflict, countering violence and building peace. Yet,
their efforts remain largely invisible, unrecognized, and even undermined due to lack of adequate
participatory and inclusive mechanisms and opportunities to partner with decision-making bodies
(Global Forum on Youth, 2015). In support of this view, there are some recent researches that
look at young peoples‟ potential as actors for peace considering the youths‟ qualities to be
advantageous for peace building.
Various studies revealed that youth are open, dynamic and creative to peace building (Sellevold,
2012). A qualitative study conducted by Hartmann (2016) explored opportunities and challenges
of Athol, Uganda youth participation in peace building activities. The study reveals that
economic marginalization and lack of awareness are the main challenges to youth participation
in peace building. It also shows that the youth explicated their opportunities for participation as
local and accessible, like awareness creation on peace building related issues through drama and
dialogues.
A study conducted on the evaluation of child and youth participation in peace building in Nepal
also reveals that many girls and boys who are empowered through their child clubs are
continuing their active engagement in social change and peace building work. Because they
achieved significant personal changes in their child clubs which increased their positive thinking,
sense of responsibility, self-confidence, and analytical skills, they become more likely active
youth citizens for peace. There are also positive changes in social norms regarding child and
3
youth participation and increasing acceptance of children and youth as agents of change and
peace builders (Bista and O‟Kane, 2015).
As long as these studies were conducted outside Ethiopian context, their findings couldn‟t
clearly show the local or Ethiopian youth context. Although various indigenous researches were
conducted in Ethiopia on various peace building mechanisms performed by elders. Such as;
Mohammed (2018), had conducted on “Assessing the role of Elders in Preserving peace and
Security”: A Case Study in South Wollow, Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the researcher didn‟t focus on
youth involvement in peace building processes. Besides various researchers conducted regarding
youth involvement on political participation. For instance; Bacha E. (2009) had conducted on
“youth and politics in post-1974 Ethiopia: An intergenerational Analysis,” However the
researcher has not focused on to investigated the youth involvement in peace building. Gofie
S.M (2016) studied the state of political culture of the youth in post 1991 Ethiopia taking the
capital however the researcher didn‟t focus on assessing of youth engagement in peace building.
Yihenew (2016), had also studied on the practice of political. participation of the rural people
with a particular case study of Mecha Woreda, Bahirdar University. But Yihenew had not
assessed the youth engagement on peace building. Alemayehu (2011) had studied
“Understanding and reflecting information of youth in Dessie Town‟‟. However, he was not in
a position to look at the peace building involvement of youth.
As it has seen from the above some of the researchers focused on political participation and
elders peace building. Then to fill the aforementioned studies gap, the researcher initiated to
conduct a study on assessing youth engagement on peace building in Awi Zone Fagita Lekoma
Woreda in Ethiopia to contribute the researcher‟s participation on behalf of peace building in
Ethiopia.
Based on the researcher‟s working experience and the information gained from Fagita Lekoma
Woreda youth and children office, three kebeles were frequently experienced in conflict. These
kebeles frequently host conflicts when they are compared and contrasted with other 27 kebeles
in the study area.(these kebeles are Dimama, Fagita, and Chiguli kebeles).These conflicts
become an alarming issue in the woreda and have serious negative impacts on the life of the
community in general as well as peaceful wellbeing‟s. The causes of the conflicts were due to
grazing land, irrigation water use, alcoholism, and others. The conflicts were resolved by the
4
actors of local elders, religious fathers, youth, and elderly mothers which is not that much
practiced in other kebeles. Thus, the researcher has purposely selected the aforementioned
kebeles to the current study. Though the youth in the woreda have parts in conflicts, they also
have great roles in the peace building process.
Besides, the local sensitive issue consideration and absence of previous studies conducted on the
involvement of youth in peace building in the study area or the concern of the current study was
not studied yet. The researcher was aimed to assess youth involvement in peace building in
Fagita Lekoma Woreda, Awi Administrative Zone, Amhara National Regional State.
1.3. Research Questions
The research questions for the study were the followings:
1. What are youth perception on peace building in, Fagita Lekoma Woreda?
2. How do youths practically involved in peace building process in Fagita Lokoma Woreda?
3. Are there different opportunities of youth involvement in peace building process in Fagita
lokoma Woreda?
4. What are the challenges of youth involvement in peace building process in Fagita
Lokoma Woreda?
1.4. Objectives of the Study
1.3.1. General Objective
The main objective of this study is to assess youth involvement in Peace building in the case of
Awi Zone Fagita lokema Woreda.
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
The following specific objectives were to achieve the main objective of the study. These were:
 To explain the perceptions of youth on peace building in Fagita Lokoma Woreda.

 To assess the actual practices of youth in peace building in Fagita Lokema Woreda.
 To investigate the opportunities of youth involvement in peace building process in Fagita
Lokema Woreda.
5
 To explore the challenges of youth involvement in peace building process in Fagita Lokema
Woreda.
1.5. Significance of the Study

The Study was significantly important to assess youth involvement on peace building. The
researcher hopes that the study was expected to provide explicit information about youth
perception, actual practice, and challenges and opportunities to involve in peace building. Thus,
the findings of the study were enable peace and security stakeholders like community policing
officers and peace building elders in Awi zone, Fagita Lokoma Woreda to improving and
strengthen youth involvement in their peace building activities. The study was also benefit the
community policing officers found in Awi zone, Fagita Lokoma Woreda to understand the
youths‟ peace building ability and to work with them for sustainable peace and security.
In addition, the result of the study supports the local peace building elders and religious fathers
in Awi zone, Fagita Lokoma Woreda to identify the youths‟ capability of peace building, and to
work with them for the better peace building practice. Most importantly, the study also
empower the youths for future peace building practices as long as the focus of the study is on the
youths‟ significant roles of peace building.
Moreover, the findings of the study can also help as a foundation for other local researchers who
want to conduct studies in relation to youth and peace building.
Lastly, it will help the formal government structure and policy makers to understand the role of
youth involvement in peace building and to recognize and include it into the mainstream of law.
1.6 Scope of the Study

This study may be delimited with the time span that conflicts has been made and resolved. In line
with this issue, among various conflicts which has been made and resolved by youth in the study
area, this study considered conflicts that has been resolved during March 2020- June 2020
excluding other conflicts resolved both before and after the stated period of time because this
period is assumed to show youths‟ up-to-date involvement in peace building practices.
Geographically, this study was delimited to Chiguali, Fagita and Dimama kebeles found in
Fagita Lokoma Woreda, Awi Zone because these kebeles are the places where conflict and peace
building are mostly practiced.
6
1.7. Limitation of the Study
The study will be conducted on the assessment of youth peace building involvement in Amhara
National Regional State with reference to Awi Zone in Fagita Lokoma Woreda. The limitation of
this study were financial constraint, lack of experience, large number of sample size, and the
knowledge background of participants to give generic information regarding youth involvement
in peace-building.
1.8 Operational Definition of Key Terms
Youth: The term youth in this study describes a distinct phase between childhood and adulthood
or it refers to any productive age group between 13 and 30 years old.
Peace building: Peace building in this study refers to the act of fostering economic and social
cooperation with the purpose of building confidence among previously warring parties,
developing the social, political and economic infrastructure to prevent future violence,
and laying the foundations for a durable peace.
Involvement: involvement, in this study, refers to the participation of youth in peace building.
1.9 Organization of the Study
This research report is organized into five chapters. The first chapter is mainly concerned on the
background of the study, statement of the problem, research objectives, and research questions,
significance of the study, and scope and limitation of the study.
The chapter that follows next is chapter two which presents the review of related literature. In
this chapter, previous works about the nature of peace building, approaches of peace,
peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace building, youth perceptions on peace building, youth actual
practices in peace building, challenges and opportunities of youth involvement in peace building
process, and the theoretical and conceptual framework of the study are discussed.
The third part, which is chapter three, comprises the research methodology. It includes
description of the study area, research design, samples and sampling design, data collection
instruments, data analysis, etc. the fourth chapter is analysis and discussion. This chapter mainly
focuses on analyzing and discussing the collected data in its logical order.
7
The last chapter which is chapter five is the conclusion and analysis part. Accordingly, it
concludes the most important points of the study, and recommends some actions to be done in
the future. In general, this research report is organized in five consecutive chapters with the list
of references and appendices
8
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Youth and Peace Building
2.1.1. Conceptualizing of Youth
Youth is an important period of physical, mental and social maturation, where young people are
actively forming identities and determining acceptable roles for themselves within their
community and society as a whole (World Youth Report, 2005). Secondly, youth are defined as a
social construct which characterized according to certain specific social attributes that
differentiate them from other groups in society with respect to age, authority, social position,
power, ability, rights, dependence/ independence, knowledge and responsibility (Durham, 2000).
Thirdly, youth are defined from a psychological perspective. Social-psychological definitions
suggest that phases of human growth and development are characterized by particular traits and
patterns, consequently incorporating indicators such as cultural context, political, economic, and
social factors (Cursi, 2017). The terms youth has been also defined as it is part of a biological
stage process, as an established age group related to socio cultural aspects in the society, or as
separate from the rest of the society, in this sense a group that has its own culture, value, rules
and standards (Christianse et al., 2006).
An age group with in population which is relational and culturally structured is often refers to as
“youth” (Durham, 2000). If the youth will identified as a culturally entity the youth will identity
with world views, language, practices and perspectives instead of an age limit or a social status,
thus making it up to identify whether or not they are you. When defining youth it is important to
understand that youth are defined differently in different countries, societies and cultures making
it important not to generalize the definition in such ways as limiting it to a certain identified
group (Durham, 2000).
To the above argument the term of “youth” have multiple meanings and different authors wrote
different meanings for youth but not unique.
According to, Ministry of Youth, Sports, and Culture of Ethiopia, 2004 (MYSCE) report, various
communities and cultures in Ethiopia and other countries maintain different views and outlooks
9
about youth depending on the level of other social and economic development. This being the
case, there is no single definition for the word “youth”. Some countries define the word “youth”
as young persons whose age bracket ranges between the end of childhood and the beginning of
adulthood. Others refer to young people as “youth” when they start to engage themselves in
activities that are considered by the community to be expression of adulthood.
Different kind of associations: Governmental Organizations, NGOs and civic associations in

Ethiopia and other countries adopt and use various age ranges for the concept of “youth” from
the standpoint of the purpose which they stand for and the activities they undertake. For
example, United Nation (UN) defines the youth as person between 15-24 years; WHO, 10-24;
and Ethiopia Social Security and Development Policy (ESSDP) 15-24 years.
Expression of other countries indicates that different age ranges have been used in defining
youth. For example, Uganda has used the age ranges 12-30 years; Mauritius 14-29 years; South
Africa 14-28;India 15-35 years; Nigeria 18-35years; Djibouti 16-30 years for defining youth. In
line with the above report, the word of “youth” has different meanings in different countries.
Then, in Ethiopia the word of youth includes 15-30 years old.
2.2 The Nature of Peace Building
The concept of peace has no common definition. Peace ranges from the absence of war to
peaceful coexistence. The term peace building has originated from (Galtung, 1975) pioneering
work “Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking and Peace building”. The
concept of peace building often overlaps to some extent, or sometimes it can be put forward with
a combination of Peace-making and peacekeeping. Accordingly (Galtung, 1975) established a
tripartite classification among the concepts of peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace building
with corresponding defined roles.
2.2.1 Approaches’ of Peace
According to (Galtung, 1975), there are three approaches of peace.
2.2.1.1 Peacekeeping
Peacekeepers head to the area of recent conflict and through the threat of force-though some
times the use of force as well-encourage the former combatants to comply with the terms of the
10
cease-fire. Peacekeeping mandates often include protection of civilians as part of the mission.
While peacekeeping is about to control the actors so that they at least stop destroying things,
others and themselves, In other words, peacekeeping comprises third-party intervention to reduce
direct violence, or maintain the absence of it. As well as peacekeeping is the activity of
preventing war and violence, especially using armed forces not involved in a disagreement to
prevent fighting?
In addition to this peacekeeping is the maintenance of international peace and security by the
arrangement of military forces in a particular area, the maintenance of peace, especially the
prevention of further fighting between hostile or enemy forces in an area. Peacekeeping has
assured to be one of the most effective tools to assist host or hospitable countries navigate the
difficult path from conflict to peace. Peacekeeping has unique strength, including legitimacy,
burden sharing and ability to deeply and sustain troops and police from around the globe,
integrating them with civilian peace keepers to advance multidimensional mandates.
Peacekeeping entails a third party acting in the capacity of an impartial referee to assist in the
settlement of a dispute between two or more disputants. Peacekeeping operations are not meant
to prejudge the solution of controversial questions, and they are not meant change the political
balance affecting efforts to settle the conflict, but diplomats would continue to work in order to
keep and safeguard the society from dangerous, accidents, conflict, physical injury and other
factors.
2.2.1.2 Peacemaking
Peacemaking is describes the negotiation procedures between different stakeholders aiming for
truce or agreement, peace agreement, or peace resolution towards specific conflicts.
Peacemaking seeks to achieve full reconciliation among adversaries or disputants and new
mutual understanding among parties and stakeholders. Peacemaking is the several types of
mediation, usually between two parties and involving a third, a facilitator or mediator. /Douglas
Noll/states that peacemaking is a complicated concept because peace can be defined in so many
different ways. For our purposes peacemaking is not a process of passive acceptance of
mistreatment, a turning of the other cheek in the face of clear injustice or abuse or other weak
images of meekness or nonresistance. Instead, peacemaking is a vibrant, powerful concept. At its
best, peacemaking creates relational and structural justice that allows for social and personal
11
wellbeing. This is an ideal objective, perhaps not attainable in all conflicts. Nevertheless,
peacemaking implies the use of cooperative, constructive processes to resolve human conflicts,
while restoring relationships. Peacemaking does not deny the essential need for adversary
processes, but peacemaking places adversary processes into a larger perspective.
Peacemaking concerns a deeper way of looking at conflicts than just winning or losing. It looks
at conflicts as opportunities for people to grow, to accept responsibility for the relationships they
are in, and for the potential of apology and forgiveness. Peacemaking is practical conflict
transformation focused upon establishing equitable power relationships robust or strong enough
to forestall future conflict. Peacemaking describes the negotiation procedures between different
stakeholders aiming for truce, peace agreement, or peace resolution towards specific conflicts.
2.2.1.3 Peace Building
Peace building occurs before fighting happens. By establishing effective institutions for conflict
resolution, enhancing a “culture of peace”, and pursuing preventing diplomacy, the
disagreements and tensions can be resolved without resorting to violence. Peace-building can
also include socioeconomic development.
Thus, peace-building can be used to overcome the contradiction at the root of the conflict
formation. Peace building emphasizes the psychological, social, and economic environment at
grassroots level. Peace building is directed to create positive peace, structures of peace on the
basis of equity, justice and collaboration, hence addressing root causes or potential causes of
violence. As a result, it intends to set up societal peace so future conflicts become less likely
(Lederach 1997).
Peace building involves a range of measures targeted to reduce the risk of lapsing into conflict by
strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict management, and to lay the foundations
for sustainable peace and development. Peace building strategies must be coherent and tailored
to specific needs of the country concerned, based on national ownership, and should comprise a
carefully prioritized, sequenced, and therefore relatively narrow set of activities aimed at
achieving the above objectives(UN, Decision of the UN secretary-General`s Policy committee
2007).
12
Peace building is traditional definition of peace concerns the absence of war. Modern concepts
are broader and including creation situations that guarantee positive human conditions-as
positive peace ultimately needs to be obtained by changing the very societal structures that are
responsible for suffering and conflict (Jeong, 2000:23). This is very different from the traditional
definition of peace, in which the absence of direct, clear violence (such as war) is sufficient.
Peace building is practiced in many conflict-torn nations throughout the world. However, the
term peace building does not have a set of definition. Peace building is a very widely used term
and it differs according to the individuals and contexts. Different writers and organizations have
different opinions on what peace building is and what tools it encompasses. According to the
United Nation Document Agenda for Peace (UNDAP), peace building consists of a wide range
of activities associated with capacity building, reconciliation, and societal transformation
(Boutros-Ghali 1992).
2.3 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

On this section of the study theoretical and conceptual framework have been reported
respectively.
2.3.1 Theoretical Framework
The multidisciplinary nature of peace building can help to understand why people fight, what
will help them to stop, and the problems that remain after a conflict. Peace building is inherently
multi-disciplinary which incorporates international relations, Ethics, Physiology, psychology and
social psychology. The discipline of peace building incorporates four assumptions as a dogma.
First, conflict is normal, and can be positive as well as negative. Second, since conflict is
ubiquitous, it is the response to conflict that is important. Thirdly, aggression and violence are
not inevitable aspects of human nature. Finally, it is possible to develop more peaceful, creative
responses to conflict through research, education and the implementation of peaceful and
creative conflict resolution mechanisms (Redekop, 1999). Having the aforementioned general
assumptions in common, there are various theories of peace building such as the International
Relations Perspectives (IRP), the Social Psychology Perspectives (SPP), and the Social
Constructivism (SC).
13
2.3.1.1 International Relations Perspectives
It covers different specific peace building mechanisms, but the most common one is the Michael
Lund‟s preventing strategy that develops to prevent violent international conflicts. Michael
Lund‟s book Preventing Violent Conflicts develops a strategy for preventing violent
international conflicts. The core of preventive diplomacy is the concept that crises can be better
addressed as they emerge rather than when they have already deepened and widened.
In peacetime, the mediators conduct negotiations and build stable relationships. As the
probability of violence increases, the negotiators try to reduce tension, defuse conflict and head
off the crisis. When violence is occurring or is imminent, the negotiators try to contain its spread,
and stop the violence with cease-fires. The second stage is preventive that aims at blocking
violent acts and reducing tensions, possibly using sanctions, coercive diplomacy, or deterrence.
Pre-emptive engagement addresses specific disputes and channels grievances into negotiations,
often by using special envoys or mediators. Pre-conflict peace building uses problem-solving
workshops, confidence building measures, human rights standards, conflict resolution training,
and collective security to change attitudes and reduce sources of conflict.
2.3.1.2 Social Psychology Perspectives
According to behavioral psychologists view fighting is a physiological response learned through

success. Social learning shapes individual and collective aggression, linking it to tribe, church,
nation, flag or ideal. These are just some of the dynamic forces that must be overcome by peace
building. Physical separation may contain the violence, but will not help the belligerents to live
together. Peace building is about rebuilding relationships between individuals and communities
that have been damaged by violence. There are many approaches to grass-roots relationship
building. Two main ones might be labeled “therapeutic” and “organizational”. The therapeutic
approach treats violent conflict as an illness, and its victims as scarred survivors, who need
therapeutic help of various sorts to overcome their experience and restore peace between
neighbors.
The organizational approach to rebuilding relationships is more structural than psychological. Its
proponents look at damaged or absent community structures and organizations and seek to
develop or repair them. Some examples are developing community advocacy groups, the
14
democratization and community development. These two approaches are often blended in
practice. Both require detailed knowledge of local language, culture, and society in order to be
effective.
2.3.1.3 Theory of Social Constructivism
Centers on the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the
basis for shared assumptions about reality. As Lederach (1997) postulates peace building is
understood as a comprehensive concept that encompasses, generates, and sustains the full array
of processes, approaches, and stages needed to transform conflict toward more sustainable,
peaceful relationships. The term, thus involves a wide range of activities that both precede and
follow formal peace accords (Hartmann, 2016). Peace is seen not merely as a stage in time or a
condition, rather it is a dynamic social construct. In the whole process of peace building,
conflict transformation is seen as a holistic and multidimensional framework directed to violent
conflicts in all stages of trajectory; it characterizes conflict transformation as an ongoing process
towards peace (Lederach 1995). Peace building is undertaken through social participation with a
multi-layered and contextualized nature of human experiences. The transition from violent
conflict to negotiated settlement and the creation of new types of relationship are complex issues
and require comprehensive, multi-dimensional and multi-level approaches for effective conflict
transformation (Michelle, 2006). The theoretical framework of this study lays on social
constructivism because peace building is a combined effect of social construct depending on the
activities and actors shaping it. Most importantly, the constructivist approach is holistic that
incorporates various peace-building elements. The rationale behind selecting social
constructivism is the assumption that, in any conflict situation, active participation of the youth is
vital to facilitate localization of the peace process. Positive Changes in Youth Behavior (PCYB),
including acceptance of nonviolence by internalizing the peace building norms and values, are
considered a prerequisite to peaceful and non-violent societies. Since the youth are considered
the key to post-conflict forms, and the transition from crisis to development, they should be seen
as an indispensable target group in achieving sustained progress towards peace and end of armed
conflicts. (price,et al., 1998)
15
2.3.2 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study deals on the youth involvement in peace building. In this
peace building process, the youth perception towards peace building, actual practice of peace
building, challenges in peace building, and opportunities in peace building are essential because
they are the bases of youth peace building involvement.
The figure bellow shows that, the youth perception towards peace building is an initial point to
the actual practice of youth peace building. At the same time, while the youth practice their
peace building, there are obviously challenges that affect the peace building, and opportunities
which facilitate the peace building process.
Thus, the following conceptual framework of this study comprises the four interrelated variables
of youth peace building engagement as it is presented here below.
Challenges
In Peacebuilding
Perception
towards
Youth in Actual Practice
Peacebuilding
Peace building of Peace building
Opportunities
In Peacebuilding
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework
16
2.4 Youth Perceptions on Peace Building
According to Visser (2015) study youths are the generation that can either heal the world or
destroy society and everything in a nation. So that youth perception towards peace building is
highly influential to the existence of sustainable peace in developing countries, like Ethiopia.
Galtung (1975) defines the creativity and open-mindedness of youth to “transcend” structures
and attitudes, which promote conflict as their greatest strength in peace building. On his study he
explores that the relationship between youth and peace building, examining how youth approach
peace building differently than other age demographics. Young people tend to be the shock
absorbs of social change and are profoundly affected by the different forms of violence-direct,
cultural and structural (Galtung 1969).In addition, in post conflict periods the effects continue to
evolve. Like all human beings, youth need the basic human needs of `security, identity,
recognition, and space for development (Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse 1999).When
young people are not able to obtain these necessities, they more likely to turn to violence. Since
the young people of today will be the leaders, facilitators and stakeholders of the future, it is
pertinent to engage them in the peace process, peace building and shaping their peace building
attitudes and skills.
(Ayo, 2016) find out that providing jobs to the youths was also essential which was done by the
government of the country. These strategies were particularly important in a post conflict setting,
such as Sierra Leone, where many youths have lost out on 11 years worth of education. These
mechanisms enable the youth in Sierra Leone to become full members of society and to be able
to participate in peace building.
A study done by McEvoy-Levy(2001),states that a neglect of adolescents and older young

people is shortsighted and counterproductive in terms of peace building, particularly in the
crucial post-accord phase with its twin challenges of violence prevention/accord maintenance
and societal reconciliation and reconstruction .So, youth`s accomplishment towards assure peace
building and fight challenges are uncountable participants consider to their perception but the
main hindrance is societal misconception that is fussing to understand the value of youth
participation in peace building. However, youth`s perception towards create peace building is
very constructive.
17
Youth‟s self-perception and their relationship with the society as important to peace building,
“Rather than defining youth according to norms or assessing their `values` in war economics,
this approach thus demands from international organizations to listen to youth`s voices and
support youth in implementing their ideas (Newman 2005).Therefore, without youth engagement
especially developing countries, like that of Ethiopia affirmation of peace building is impossible.
Due to this justification every stakeholders must be maintenance youth perception in order to
free from any venturesome.
Young people are openness, energetic, creativity, and they are especially well-positioned to
come up with new ideas to address community problems. They can play a vital role in the peace
building process by modeling alternatives to violence and showing that change can be made
peacefully (Wuerth, 2015).
2.5 Youth Actual Practices in Peace Building

Schwartz (2010) and Kemper (2005) argue for the need to provide youth with socio-economic
opportunities if they are to be given the possibility of acting as peace builders. The
argumentative stance taken in the present study is that youth can be important actors in the peace
building process since they possess qualities that are considered essential in peace building
process. Transforming their perceptions into actual practices, youth can transfer their war
capacities for peace promotion in the reconstruction phase if provided with the opportunities.
The view of youth‟s potential in peace building involves acknowledging that they possess certain
qualities that are specific to the youth-hood stage. They are seen as resilient, creative, open,
energetic, dynamic and resourceful (Kemper, 2005; McEvoy-Levy, 2006; Danesh, 2008). Such
qualities can be important both for themselves and for the society if they are addressed in the
right way. They are even seen as the likely leaders of peace building efforts.
The idea of youth peace building participation attracted the attention of scholars, organizations
and states of the world beginning from WWII when both rival socialist and capitalist camps
realized the power of young people in prosecuting the war and leading the struggle for peace and
to achieve peace building in the country as well as epitomes of others. Moreover, in countries
emerging from conflicts, United Nation Development Program (UNDP) and the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NIDIA) recognizes that young people can engage
in peace building, leading non-violent revolutions, using new technologies to mobilize societies
18
to bring about change. They have demonstrated the potential to build bridges across
communities, working together, helping to manage conflict and promote peace. Thus, they are
vital stakeholders in conflict and in peace-building, and can be agents of change and provide a
foundation for rebuilding lives and communities, contributing to more just and peaceful
societies.
Recently youths have participated in both peaceful and violent protests related to constitutional
development delay (Gupta et al., 2011; British council and AYON, 2011).Related to the present
study, the above argumentative shows that youth‟s engagement in peace building changes one`s
country in economic, social, cultural as well as peace building the main participants and then
they are also agents.
Youths of one country are not only a vital source of the state but also a change agent. The youth
are pioneers of economic, social, and cultural as well as peace building transformation and
change driving force. This class remains as an important assets of the nation because of courage,
innovativeness and high level of self-confidence, which is also considered to be a main source of
nation building (Bensonet al, 2004). Youths who have participated in clubs and peace building
initiatives described significant positive changes in the way they think about themselves, and the
way they communicate and behave with their peers and adults. With increased knowledge and
awareness on peace building and human rights, and youth are more active in violence prevention
and peace building. They are communicating more respectfully with elders, and have taken
personal responsibility to change their personal behavior to prevent fighting and violence.
Youths have increased their analytical skills and are more interested and engaged in social work.
Youth are often targeted during periods of conflict. While can victims, witnesses, and child are
vulnerable and should be protected rather than be active participants in the society (Machel
2001). Youth today are involved in various activities throughout the world. They are on the
forefront in any kind on revolution and are the key drivers of change. According to Glinkski,”
the youth generation is traditionally seen as one of the most dynamic mediums of social change.
This is because the young often play an important and even dominant role in social movements
which are usually the driving force behind the changes” (1998).Theses argument identifies that
youths are agents of mediators, bridges, communicators, wrestler ,proponent, skillful, founders,
19
conductors, innovator, and sacrifices their life still to change their country and society towards
peace building.
Young people have the potential to act as greater forces for positive social change and to build
the foundation for a just and peaceful world. Building peaceful, cohesive and resilient societies
requires the full and meaning full participation of young people United Nation Population Fund
Agreement (UNFPA: 14 August, 2017) reveals that According to the above idea in case of
youths related to the present study stance youths are forefront in respect and responsible to
veneration world and national anniversaries towards affirmation of peace building for their on
society.
As the socio-political approach emphasizes, youths are potential in peace building and can only
be nurtured if young people are given the opportunities (Kemper, 2005). However, if the needs
of youth are not met, the qualities that they have could be used for conflict promotion instead.
The type of opportunities in this research project is centered on access to give chance and the
new opportunities that are provided through education. The above argument identifies related to
the study that youth‟s participation towards transform conflicts determine by nurture that is
access to education.
2.6 Challenges and Opportunities of Youth Involvement in Peace Building

Process
There are various challenges which hinder youths from full involvement of peace building
activities, and essential factors that promote them to participate in various peace building
activities. Poverty and unemployment are the biggest challenges for promoting youth
participation in peace building (Sellevold, 2012). According to the above study, in order to create
sustainable peace and assure the guarantee of society‟s luxurious life the forefront actor is youth,
but the problematic challenges like that of poverty and unemployment are the main downward
pull.
A study conducted by Hartmann (2016) stats that, there is a great deal of youth who are
unemployed in Uganda and therefore it makes them unable to construct living and engage in
peace building initiatives. In line with unemployment related obstacles, education may contribute
to community peace and enhance youth to be part of the economic development, as it may lead
20
to further social and political participation (Walton 2010). To do so, youth need to get quality
education and other vocational trainings so that they get required skills, and get into jobs. If
youth are brought together like in a vocational school, that would promote peace because this
would bring youth together and this would create avenue for supporting one another and building
longer relationship, apart from skilling them. The demanded possibility of technical and
vocational
Schooling is understandable since such training aims to link education to employability and can
lead to poverty reduction.
The other issue which keeps youths‟ performing conflict instead of contributing to peace
building is so much of poverty. Since economic empowerment is a key element for social and
political engagement, engaging youth in income generating activities is essential (Rabe and
Kamanzi (2012). Feeling of inferiority is the other challenge for youth peace building
engagements. For this reason, youth needs to be empowered in order to embrace peace building
approaches and gain self-esteem. These stated that, related to the study unable to effective in
peace building by the agent of youth are poverty and inferiority a big challenges, so youth needs
maintenance from societies, government and stakeholders.
According to Hartmann (2016) reports alcoholism which often results in violence is a hindering
factor to unable to participate in peace building. Excessive consume of alcohol among youth is
one of the main conflict-drivers, as well as it hinders youth involvement in peace building Such
youth did not think of various peace building activities as important like for instance instead of
meeting fellow colleagues to discuss good things, a youth would choose to go and take alcohol
so that it enables them to forget the problems.
African Youth Report (AYR) (2009), sated that Africa is the youngest region, with young people
aged between 15 and 24 accounting for around 20% of the population, while in most African
countries 60 percent of the population are aged fewer than 25 years. These large numbers of
young people are evident in cities and rural areas across the continent. Despite their
numerical majority, many young Africans face considerable hurdles of participating in the
economic, social and political spheres as a result of inadequate access to education and
training, poor health and, the lack of decent jobs, susceptibility to being caught up in conflict
21
and violence, and insufficient representation in decision-making processes, to name only a few
factors.
Information collected from the mass media can also reduce voters‟ reliance on traditional social
identities and increase their ability to choose freely which parties to support (Norris 2004).The
Medias and providers of information should provide the public with unbiased and objective
information to youth.
22
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Research methods are the various procedures, schemes and algorithms used in research. All the
methods used by a researcher during a research study are termed as research methods. They are
essentially planned, scientific and value-natural. They include theoretical procedures, numerical
schemes, statically approaches, etc. On the other hand, according to kitchen and Tate (2000),
research methodology means a coherent set of rules and procedures that are used to explore a
problem within the frame work philosophical approaches. Besides, Mikkelson (2005) also argues
that a research methodology includes the tools and techniques of data gathering and analysis. My
research sampling is both probability for quantitative and non-probability sampling techniques
for qualitative were employed to get the necessary information.
3.1 Description of the Study Area

3.1.1. Location
The study was conducted at Fagita Lekoma Woreda, Awi Zone of Amhara National Regional
State. It locates between latitudes of 10°01'0' and11°11'0''N and Longitudes of 36° 41‟30‟‟ and
37°50' 0''E. It is found at about 105 km from Bahir Dar, the capital of Amhara National
Regional State and 447 km from Addis Ababa the capital city of Ethiopia. The area is bordered
in the south by Banja Woreda and Gogusa Shikudad Woreda, in the West by Gogusa Shikudad
Woreda, in the North by Dangila Woreda and in the East by Sekele Woreda. The towns in Fagita
Lekoma Woreda district include Addis Kidam, Chigole and Fagita. The study has an area of
65338.341ha, of this 0.5 ha is covered by water bodies 12256.27 ha is forest land, 19026ha is
annual crop cultivated land, 3356 ha is grazing land 1526.57 ha is used to settlement and
352.06 ha are covered by degraded by water erosion. More than 97% of the population is
engaged in agriculture (FLWADO, 2020).
3.1.2 Climate
The agro climate of Fagita Lekoma Woreda falls within the Woina Dega 25% and Dega 75%.
The mean daily temperature is 17.30 °C. The monthly mean maximum temperature varies from
32 °C in May to 18 °C in August month. The monthly average minimum temperature varies from
23
7 °C in June to 11 °C in March. The mean annual rainfall of the area is between, 1500-2000 mm.
It has uni modal rainfall distribution. The rainy season for the area is starting in May and extends
to the end of October (FLWADO, 2020).
3.1.3. Natural Vegetation

Natural vegetation has almost disappeared in FagitaLekoma area, although some bushes and
woody trees can still be observed. These include Hageniaabyssinica (Koso in Amharic), Acacia
S.P. (Grar), Bamboo (Kerkaha), Rubusaretalus (Enjor), Scheffleraabyssinica (Getem), Augariasal
icifolia (Koba), Polystacha (Anfar), Erythrinatomentosola (Koma), EmbeliaSchimperia (Enkok),
Bersamaabyssinica (Azamer ) and Rosa abyssinica ( kega).
3.1.4. Soil
The study area consists of three different soil sub groups. The main soil types within the study
are black soil which covers 10 %, brown soil which consists 30% and red and clay soil that cover
60% of the overall area (FLWADO, 2020).
3.1.5. Topography
The topography of the Fagita Lekoma Woreda includes 23% mountains 14.5% valley, 0.5%
covered by water, and 23% undulated sloped. Although the mean altitude of Fagita Lekoma
area is about 1850- 3500 masl (FLWADO, 2020)
3.1.6. Livelihood Activities
The study area has a total household population of about 21821, of which 18785 are Males and
3036 are females (CSA, 2007). The people of the area practice various livelihood and income
generating activities. Among these are crop cultivation, livestock production, forest production
and off and non-farm activities. Forest production is used to charcoal production for cash income
and filed crops; livestock are mainly used for households, consumption.
The major crops grown in the study area includes potato, teffe, wheat and oat. The major
livestock in the area include cattle, equine poultry, horse, goat, mule, hen, honey bee and sheep,
but the productivity of livestock is low because of lack of breading, lack of integration of crop-
livestock with sustainable land resource management, Inadequate infrastructure for access of
marketing and prevention disease.
24
Figure 3.1: Map of study area
3.2. Research Design and Approach
A researcher employed both mixed quantitative and qualitative research method for this study.
Employing both qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study enables the researcher to
see the research issue in multidimensional directions. According to Morse (2003) a mixed
approach is the incorporation of various qualitative and quantitative strategies within a single
study. The choice of mixed approach helps the researcher to assess the nature of assessment of
youth involvement in peace building encountering or meet via collecting diverse types of data.
25
In this study, a descriptive research design was employed for describing the existing situation in
study area. Nunan (1992) states that survey study is the most commonly used simple descriptive
research design when the investigator uses questionnaires, interviews and FGD for data
collection. In addition, Cresswell (2009) suggests that in surveys are employed to study
knowledge and claims with questionnaires. Therefore, the researcher in this study used mixed
methods to assess youth involvement in peace building.
The qualitative method used for conceptual development at the early stage and for interpretation,
clarification and illustration of the findings as well as the collection and analysis of subjective
opinions, attitudes and views of people during interview and focus group discussion (FGD). The
qualitative information extracted from interview and FGD has been grouped into thematic
categories and analyzed qualitatively. This could support quantitative data which has been
collected using questioner and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. This together
will support the line of arguments and strength the data sets from various sources by cross
checking evidence. The reason for using this method is to maximize the strength of each method
by enabling the researchers to gather dependable information.
3.3. Sampling Technique and Sampling Size
According to the report obtained from Fagita Lekoma Woreda the total population of Fagita
Lekoma Woreda is estimated to be 163075. Among these there are 3800 youth is from three
selected kebeles (Fagita, Dimama and Chiguli) of the woreda which is the study population. Two
sampling methods were used in the study: Purposive sampling method for qualitative data and
simple random or lottery method for quantitative data gathering. The aim of the study is to assess
youth involvement in peace building at Awi Zone in Fagita Lokoma Woreda. The study focuses
on youth. According to United Nation‟s definition of youth the term youth describes a distinct
phase between childhood and adulthood that incorporates age levels between13 and 30 years old.
However, considering the ethical issues in Ethiopian context, this study included youth whose
ages are between 18 and 30 years old.
The sample of this study has been selected using purposive sampling methods. As long as the
geographical delimitation of the study is Awi Zone, Fagita Lokoma Woreda, the samples have
been selected from this area. While Awi Zone has 12 woredas, the samples of this study were
selected from Fagita Lekoma Woreda because the researcher has an experience to see peace
26
building youth in the stated woreda; it makes him to research on the issue under discussion.
Apart from this, as long as the researcher is working in Fagita Lokoma Woreda, it could be easy
to gather accurate data from the stated woreda than other places. i.e. the stated Woreda was
purposely selected to be included in this study. Based on the researcher‟s preliminary study,
while Fagita Lokoma woreda has 27 kebeles, among the above stated the three kebeles are the
places where conflict and peace building are mostly practiced. Thus according to the information
gained from Fgita Lokoma Woreda youth and children office, the kebeles that frequently
experienced conflict are Chiguali, Fagita and Dimama. These conflicts have negative impacts on
the society‟s economic, social, political as well as peaceful wellbeing. The expected causes of
the conflicts are grazing land, irrigation water use, alcoholism, and others.
In order to appropriately select the participants from these three kebeles, lottery method was
used. This is because assigning lottery method to each kebele is important to fairly or give equal
chance to select participants from the above mentioned kebeles.
According to the data gained from Fagita Lokoma Woreda Youth and children office, there are
about 1500 youth in Chiguali kebele. Similarly, as the data gained from the aforementioned
office shows, there are about 1200 youth in Fagita kebele. Finally, there are about 1100 youth in
Dimama kebele. The total numbers of target youth in three kebeles are expected to 3800. Using
this information, the sample size is determined in the following way.
The sample size is determined using Kothari (2004) sampling formula as follows:
( )
Whereas:
n= sample size
Zα/2 = Standard normal value at 95% confidence interval (1.96)
p = sample proportion in the target population, estimated to have the characteristics being
measured (0.5)
q = 1-p
N = size of the target youth
27
e = the estimated standard error within 7% of the true value of (0.07).
By using the above formula
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Based on the above formula, a total of 130 youths were sampled for the questionnaire survey
from the three selected kebeles by using systematic random sampling techniques based on the
sampling frame obtained from the Youth and Children Administration Office (YCAO). In this
study, to determine sample size different factors such as cost, time, accessibility and availability
of transport facilities were taken into consideration. Therefore, the systematic random sampling
was employed by the following formula. In such systematic sampling the size of the sample
selected from each sub group in the entire youth.
Therefore, using the above formula, the following table is constructed.
Kebele Number of Youth Sample Youth Percentage

Chiguli 1500 51 39.2
Dimama 1100 38 29.2
Fagita 1200 41 31.6
Total 3800 130 100
In this sample a total of 130 participants were selected from the three kebeles by simple random
sampling in quantitative research and, the chairman of each three kebele, one peace building
experienced elder from each kebele, and one community policing officer from each kebele were
purposely selected and participated in this study in addition to the youth. In other words, 9
28
participants other than youth were selected for the purpose of this study still to data saturation for
qualitative research. The researcher used snowball sampling method to select the peace building
experienced elder participants from each kebele. The snowball sampling method enabled the
researcher to find youth who has been participated in various peace building scenarios. It enabled
the researcher to specifically point out youth involvement on peace building in their
communities. According to Bhattacherjee (2012), snowball is a sampling technique that enables
researchers to begin data gathering with pre-identified participants who match the criteria for
inclusion in the study, and then ask them to recommend other individuals they know who also
meet the selection criteria.
3.4. Data Gathering Instruments and Data Source
3.4.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaire in this study is needed to collect data regarding youths‟ perception towards
peace building, actual practice, challenges and opportunities of youth in peace building activities.
This questionnaire comprises both close-ended and open-ended items. The close-ended items are
a five point Likert scale questions ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The open-
ended items will be used to gather qualitative data on the challenges and opportunities of
involved in peace building. The questionnaires were distributed to 130 participants of the study.
Among these participants, 51 of them are from Chiguali Kebele, 41 of them are from Fagita
Kebele. The remaining 38 participants are from Dimama Kebele.
3.4.2. Interview
The interview is needed to collect data on youths‟ perception and actual practice in peace
building, and the challenges and opportunities of youth to involve in peace building.
The nature of the interview was semi-structured interview as long as it gives more chance to the
interviewee to provide detailed information. The interviewees were selected using purposive
sampling method as long as the participants were in three different kebeles. The interview has
been conducted by audio recorder. In the interview, 12 participants, 4 youth from each selected
kebele, were involved in case of happened data saturation from three kebeles. In addition to the
youth, the chairman of each three kebele, one peace building experienced elder from each
kebele, and one community policing officer from each kebele were interviewed. In other words,
29
the total numbers of 9 people that are not youths were interviewed for qualitative research. To
put it in other terms, a total numbers of 21 participants were interviewed for the purpose of this
study for qualitative methodology.
3.4.3 Focus Group Discussion
A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is defined as a carefully planned group discussion designed to
obtain perceptions on a defined environment (Smithson, 2009). It enables the researcher to
explore youths‟ perception, challenges and opportunities to be involved in peace building
activities. There are several reasons, according to Bryman (2004: 247-8), for using focus group
discussion as a data collection tool. Among other things conducting an FGD help the researcher
to develop an understanding about why people think the way they do, members of the focus
group can be bring forward ideas and furthermore the interactions found in group dynamics are
closer to the real life process of “sense making” and acquiring understanding. Focus group
discussion usually consist about 8-12 people with similar interests. But because of the pandemic
COVID-19 and to respect state emergency of Ethiopia on this study only 4 FDG participants
were incorporated in each kebele and a total of 12 individual were involved.
3.5. Data Collection Procedure
3.5.1 Pilot Study
The data gathering procedure were started with piloting the data gathering instruments. A pilot
study provides an opportunity to gain preliminary experience of the research areas as well as an
opportunity for the researcher to perform reliability and validity tests of the study (Roche, 1999).
Accordingly, the researcher in this study conducted pilot on the questionnaire, interview and
focus group discussion items with other similar youth. The instruments were administered to 17
youth who have been participated in peace building activities to gather suggestions, and to
modify items which were vague or confusing. Based on the results of the pilot study, except one
question attempts will be done to ensure that the questions will be understandable and expressed
in a suitable way.
30
3.6. Data Analysis Methods
In order to attain the set research objectives and answer the research questions, the collected data
has been systematically organized and interpreted. The interviews and questionnaire replies were
translated into English and an attempt will be made to keep the original version. The
questionnaire was initially developed in English Language, and then translated to Amharic to be
distributed for informants selected from target population via convenient/accidental sampling.
The use of questionnaire is not as a stand-alone data source rather it is to examine the magnitude
of youth participations in the selected peace building activities to support the qualitative data
accessed from interviews and FGD which will be conducted. The sense of the meaningfulness of
the themes and patterns will be illustrated based on the findings of the study. Basically, the data
collected has been analyzed and presented qualitatively as well as simple descriptive analysis
was utilized in order to analyze the data from questionnaire replies.
.Accordingly, first, all the interview responses have been transcribed from tapes and typed into a
Word document. In the second place, the researcher examined the data to get initial impressions.
In here, the researcher critically analyzes the interviews in relation to categories and themes
emerging from all the data.
Then, categories, themes and patterns have been identified in relation to salient themes and
language, as well as from the broader background of the research objectives. These categories
and themes have been coded and grouped together. Using the research framework as a guideline,
the findings were discussed in relation to the literature review. On the other hand, the data which
were gathered through questionnaires were analyzed quantitatively by table and percentage.
3.7. Validity and Reliability of the Instruments

To assure the validity of instruments for data collection, expertise opinions will be solicited from
different professionals and documents regarding developing of the questionnaires, interview and
FGDs guidelines. Reliability will be maintained by pretesting or pilot study. Due emphasis has
been given to make questionnaire and guidelines standard. Testing and retesting of the materials
will be done prior to the data collection. In order to assure reliability cross checking will be done
in order to reduce the error and clear and simple questions has been be prepared according to the
peace building practice of the respondents.
31
3.8. Ethical Considerations of the Study
Ethics is the application of moral principles to prevent harming or wronging others, to promote
the good, to be respectful and to be fair (Saunders, 2007). Ethics in the context of research is to
mean the appropriateness relation to the rights of those who become misbehaviors the subject of
the research or affected by the research. The ethical issues in conflict and post-conflict areas are
more complex, difficult and even more decisive than in non-conflict settings.
Due to the fact that young people in post-conflict societies and settings are one of the most
vulnerable groups. This research has followed the necessary ethical considerations such as
voluntary participation, no harm to participants, no invasion of privacy and no deception.
Anonymity and confidentiality of the given information with respect to recordings and data were
ensured, and it pointed out that the data were destroyed after finalizing the project. Therefore,
necessary ethical issues were addressed at each phase of the study.
32
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This section of the study presents the analysis and discussion of the data gathered through the
participants‟ questionnaire, interview and focus group discussion. Accordingly it discusses the
participants‟ background information, perception of youth on peace building, actual practice of
youth in peace building, challenges of youth involvement in peace building process, and
opportunities of youth involvement in peace building process.
4.1 Participants’ Background Information
This sub section mainly focuses to discuss the research participants‟ background information
including their gender, age, level of education, and their respective kebele in Fagta lekomaa
Woreda. The total participants of the study were 130 individuals who were selected from three
different kebeles.
Table 4.1: Sex of the respondents
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Female 40 30.8 30.8 30.8
Male 90 69.2 69.2 100.0
Total 130 100.0 100.0
As the table shown above among the total number of the participants 90 (69.2%) were males and
the remaining 40 (30.8) were females. It shows that most of the participants were males though
the number of females is not that much small
Table 4.2: Age of respondents
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 18-20 63 48.5 48.5 48.5
21-25 20 15.4 15.4 63.8
26-30 47 36.2 36.2 100.0
Total 130 100.0 100.0
33
With regard to the participants‟ age, most of them (48.5%) or 63 participants were aged from 18-
20 years old, (15.4%) or 20 were aged from 21 – 25 years old. The rest 47 participants (36.2%)
were aged from 26-30 years old. From this information we can understand that most of the
participants were youths though there were some elders.
Table 4.3: respondents’ education level
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid illiterate 6 4.6 4.6 4.6
adult education 9 6.9 6.9 11.5
primary 52 40.0 40.0 51.5
secondary 36 27.7 27.7 79.2
certificate 6 4.6 4.6 83.8
diploma 7 5.4 5.4 89.2
Degree 14 10.8 10.8 100.0
Total 130 100.0 100.0
On this study the participants have different level of educations. Among the total number of the
participants, 9 of them were followed adult education, 6 of them were illiterate, while 52 of the
participants attended their primary education, and other 36 participants were completed
secondary school. 6 of the participants were certificate holders. 7 of the other participants were
diploma holders.14 participants were degree holder. There was no master holder in this study.
The participants were selected from three different kebeles namely Chiguli, Fagita, and
Dimmama Kebele. From the whole research participants, 51 individuals were from Chiguli
Kebele, 41 individuals were from Fagita Kebele, and 38 individuals were from Dimmama Kebele
in Fagita lekoma Woreda.
4.2. Actual Practices of Youth in Peace Building

This sub section is reserved to present the youths‟ actual practices of peace building in Fagita
lekoma Woreda. It mainly focuses to discuss the youth ability in peace building. In the present
sub section, the youths‟ actual peace building practice is discussed. It thematically discussed the
data gained through questionnaire, interview and focus group discussion.
34
Table 4.4: Youth Actual Peace building ability in practice
No Youth Actual Peace building Strongly Dis agree Undecided Agree Strongly
Ability in practice dis agree agree
No % No % No % No % No %
1 I have good qualities of peace
10 7.7% 8 6.2% 3 2.3% 40 30.8% 69 53.1%
building
2 I created strategies in peace
11 8.5% 6 4.6% 5 3.8% 21 16.2% 87 66.9%
building processes
3 I am open-minded to transform
11 8.5% 4 3.1% 7 5.4% 31 23.8% 77 59.2%
conflicts
4 I am dynamic in a peace building
8 6.2% 14 10.8% 3 2.3% 20 15.4% 85 65.4%
process
5 I have got trainings on peace
66 50.8% 31 23.8% 12 9.2% 16 12.3% 5 3.8%
building
6 I have influenced decisions about
16 12.3% 13 10% 13 10% 18 13.8% 70 53.8%
peace building in my community
7 I involved in peace building
regardless of age, gender, and 6 4.6% 9 6.9% 10 7.7% 37 28.5% 68 52.5%
religion
As it can be seen in the above table, most of the respondents 69 (53.1%) replied that they have
good qualities of peace building. And some of the participants (30.8%) reported that they have
somewhat good qualities of peace building. 2.3% of the participants remain undecided to
mention whether they have good qualities of peace building or not. However 8 respondents were
dis agrees about good qualities of peace building and 7.7% of youth were having no good
qualities of peace building. From this data, we can understand that the youths in Fagita lekoma
woreda have good qualities of peace building. Similarly, the data gained from the interview and
focus group discussions show that the youths have good qualities in building peace in their
kebeles. The following information which is gained from Interviewee – F strengthens this fact.
Youth are near to conflict in my kebele. However, I mostly try to resolve those
conflicts when my friends got into conflict in football games, grathing area and
35
work places. I involved in solving local kebele boarder conflicts, “Ikub” and
“Idir” conflicts, and societal team work conflicts through negotiation using the
rules and regulations.
In addition to this, the focus group discussion participants also emphasized that the youths in
Chiguli, Fagita and dimama Kebele were actively engaged in peace building with the help of
kebele community policing officers and the peace committee members of each kebele.
Table 4.4 also shows that, the majority of youths who were participated on this study 66.9%
responded that they have created strategies in peace building processes, 16.2% of the
respondents were agree about creating strategies in peace building processes, 3.8% of youth were
keep silent to respond whether they create strategies in peace building processes or not to
strategies in peace building processes, among youths 4.6% were replied dis agree to strategies in
peace building processes and 8.5% of the respondents reported that they did not created
strategies in peace building processes. Similarly, 59.2% of the respondents strongly agreed that
they were open-minded to transform conflicts. 15.4% of the respondents were agree about they
were open-minded to transform conflicts, 5.4% of youth were keep silent to respond whether
they were open-minded to transform conflicts or they were not open-minded to transform
conflicts, among youths 3.1% were replied dis agree that they were open-minded to transform
conflicts and 8.5% of the respondents reported that they were not open-minded to transform
conflicts.
The study is consistent with the finding of Kemper, (2005) which stats that youth are seen as
resilient, creative, open, energetic, dynamic and resourceful to peace building.
The information gained from the focus group discussion participants stated that the youngsters in
Fagita Lekoma Woreda were working on peace building by creating their own peacemaking
strategies. Not only the focus group discussion but also the data collected through the interview
indicates that the youths were creating peace building strategies in their peacemaking scenarios.
The following quote taken from Interviewee – D approves this fact.
I have involved in various peace building practices with the combination of the
other members of the community in my kebele. Mostly, I have participated in
solving conflicts such as kebele level border conflict, grazing land usage clashes,
36
irrigation water usage disagreements, natural resource usage conflicts, and
others.
The above table also shows that most of the respondents (65.4%) claim that they are dynamic in
a peace building process. 15.4%, 2.3% and 10.8% of youths were agree, undecided and dis agree
respectively regarding to their dynamic in peace building process. However, 6.2% of the
respondents were not dynamic in peace building process. The finding of this study is related with
what of Kemper,(2005), McEvoy-Levy (2006) and Danesh (2008) which identified that youth
are creative, open, energetic, dynamic and resourceful. Such qualities can be important both for
themselves and for the society if they are addressed in the right way. They are even seen as the
likely leaders of peace building efforts.
Regarding to youth training on peace building, the large number of youth (50.8%) replied that
they have not got trainings on peace building and very small numbers of youths (3.8%) were got
training in peace building. The above table 4.4 also states that among the respondents 53.8%
were strongly agreed that they have influenced decisions about peace building in their
community, 13.8% of the respondents agreed as they have influenced decisions about peace
building in their community, 10% were responded undecided to as they have influenced
decisions about peace building in their community or not and 12.3% of youth in the study were
have no influenced decisions about peace building in their community. In the same manner, the
records gained through the interview and focus group discussion also assures this data. For
example, interviewee – C says the following:
When the people in my kebele and my friends got into conflicts in sport training,
and other entertainment places, I tried to accomplish the conflicts and made
peace among them. In Chiguli Kebele, some people got into conflict due to credit
interest, disagreements between workers and bosses, and land and house rents.
When this case happens, most of the youths including me and sometimes the
elderly fathers of the kebele resolve conflicts together and make peace among the
conflicting parties then the people in my kebele becomes peace.
Lastly, 52.3% of the questionnaire respondents reported that they were engaged in peace
building regardless of age, gender, and religion. 28.5%, 7.7% and 6.9% of the respondents were
engaged in peace building regardless of age, gender, and religion. However, the remaining 4.6%
37
of the participants reported that they never engaged in peace building regardless of age, gender,
and religion. From this finding, we can deduce that the youth in Fagita Lekoma Woreda have
actual peace building ability.
The focus group discussions and interview result of this study also confirmed that the youth in
Fagita Lekoma Woreda have the abilities in peace building regardless of age, gender, and
religion. For instance, Interviewee – B mentioned the following idea his peace building ability:
In our kebele, different people go to conflict like colleagues, family members, and
neighbors for various reasons; we are going to resolve those conflicts with peace
advisor committee members. I have peace building experience, when people got
into conflict due to various reasons like language difference, money credit,
misunderstanding among family members and neighbors; we the youngsters
together resolved conflicts with peace advisor committees and police officers
using various strategies.
Therefore, from the result of this study, it can be interpreted that most of the youth have good
qualities of peace building, they create strategies in peace building processes, and they are open-
minded to transform conflicts and dynamic in a peace building process. Youths have influenced
decisions about peace building in their community and also they greatly involved in peace
building regardless of age, gender, and religion. However in the woreda most of the youths did
not get training in peace building process.
4.3 The Perception of Youth Towards Peace Building Involvement
This section of the study presents and interprets the data that focuses on the view of youth
towards peace building involvement which were collected through questionnaire, interview and
focus group discussion.
38
Table 4.5: The perception of youth towards peace building involvement
No Perception of youth on Strongly Strongly

Dis agree Undecided Agree
peace building dis agree agree
No % No % No % No % No %
1 I can come up with new
9 6.9% 7 5.4% 3 2.3% 22 16.9% 89 68.5%
ideas to address conflicts
2 I can play a vital role in
12 9.2% 7 5.4% 4 3.1% 33 25.4% 74 56.9%
peace building process
3 Youth can transfer their
war capacities to peace 9 6.9% 9 6.9% 8 6.2% 54 41.5% 50 38.5%
promotion
4 Youth are important
actors in the peace 14 10.8% 9 6.9% 11 8.5% 36 27.7% 60 46.2%
building process
5 Youth are creative, open-
minded and dynamic in 12 9.2% 9 6.9% 19 14.6% 49 37.7% 41 31.5%
peace building
The table 4.5 shows us, the large number of youths (68.5%) responded that they can come up
with new ideas to address conflicts to be involved in peace building practices, 16.9% of the
respondent replied that they agree with that they can come up with new ideas to address conflicts
to be involved in peace building practices but 2.3% were undecided. 7 respondents (5.4%) were
dis agree with that they can come up with new ideas to address conflicts to be involved in peace
building practices, However, the remaining 6.9% of the respondents reported that they did not
come up with new ideas to address conflicts to be involved in peace building. The following
information which is gained from Interviewee – A Dimama kebele strengthens this fact. Her idea
was generalized as follows:
In Dimama Kebele, the opinion of youth towards youth peace building

involvement is positive and constructive because most of the youths believe that
they are the tool for peace building and peace development. As a result, most of
39
the people in this kebele support youths in advice and finance for peace
development.
The finding of this study is consistent with the finding Visser (2015) which states youths are the
generation that can either heal the world or destroy society and everything in a nation. So that
youth perception towards peace building is highly influential to the existence of sustainable
peace in developing countries, like Ethiopia.
The above table 4.5 also shows that, the large number of the youths (56.9%) responded that
youth can play a vital role in peace building process, 25.4% of the respondent replied that they
agree with that of youths can play a vital role in peace building process. but 3.1% were
undecided. 7 respondents (5.4%) were dis agree with youths can play a vital role in peace
building process, However, the remaining 9.2% of the respondents reported that the youths can
play a vital role in peace building process. In the same way, the data gained from the
participants‟ interview indicates that the youths are positive thinker for peace building
involvement. For instance, Interviewee – D from Dimama Kebele stated the following
information:
In some years back, some youths were considered as the source of conflict. Youths
consider them self as here when they make conflict. But, now a day, they have
changed their minds and believe as youth are peacemakers. As a result, the
people of the kebele and youth help each other to resolve conflict in their area.
Similarly, interviewee - F who was interviewed from Fagita Kebele responded as follows:
Previously, the youth in my kebele was seen as the cause of conflict rather than
peacemaker and the society do not respect them, however, since the people knows
and accepts that youth are actors of peace and development, the society provides
ideological and financial supports to the youths of the kebele.
Regarding to peace promotion, table 4.5 shows that, large number of the respondents (38.5%)
strongly agreed that Youth can transfer their war capacities to peace promotion. 41.5%, 6.2%,
6.9% of the respondents were agreed, undecided and dis agreed about youth can transfer their
war capacities to peace promotion respectively. However, 6.9% of the respondents did not think
40
that youth cannot transfer their war capacities to peace promotion. In line with the above findings
Interviewee – E from Chiguli Kebele also strengthened as follows:
The establishment of the right of people to speak by the government is a very good
chance for youth peacemakers as well as peace promotion and gives a chance to
competitive from different types of jobs.
The above table also indicates that 46.2%% of the participants believe that youth are important
actors in the peace building process while 37.7% of the respondent were agreed to youth are
important actors in the peace building process and 14.6% were undecided. 9 individuals (6.9%)
were dis agreed about youth are important actors in the peace building process. But the other
9.2% of the respondent reported that youth are not important actors in the peace building
process. Likewise, interviewee – D from Dimaam kebele also underlined that there were
possibilities to be peace builders in the kebele since youth are important actors in the peace
building process. It was organized as follows:
The youths were important actors of Dmama Kebele to build peace. The
interviewee says that he believes that if youth are encouraged and promoted by
different activities they are involved to keep and promote peace in their area. And
also most of the people believe that youth are chapter one actors of peace,
conflict management and they have the ability to manage conflicts.
The focus group discussion participants found in Dimama Kebele also mentioned that as long as
the community policing office and the local elders supports the youths, most youths have the
possibilities to strong peace builders. The finding is consistent with a study done by McEvoy-
Levy(2001) which states that a neglect of adolescents and older young people is shortsighted and
counterproductive in terms of peace building, particularly in the crucial post-accord phase with
its twin challenges of violence prevention/accord maintenance and societal reconciliation and
reconstruction .So, youth`s accomplishment towards assure peace building and fight challenges
are uncountable participants consider to their perception but the main hindrance is societal
misconception that is fussing to understand the value of youth participation in peace building.
However, youth`s perception towards create peace building is very constructive.
41
The final question regarding to perception of youth was youth‟s creativity, open-minded and
dynamic in peace building. Table 4.5 shows that, among the respondents 31.5% of youths
strongly agreed that they were are creative, open-minded and dynamic in peace building but
large number of respondents (37.7%) were agreed they were creative, open-minded and dynamic
in peace building process while 5.4% were respond undecided. 4% of the respondents disagreed
on the youths‟ creativity, open-minded and dynamic in peace building process and 8.5% of the
respondents disagreed on the youths‟ creativity, open-minded and dynamic in peace building
process. Besides this questionnaire data, the focus group discussion participants and the
interviewees further explained that youth have various perceptions in analyzing conflicts. The
following information taken from Interviewee – L can be seen as an example:
In Fagita Kebele, people clash due to marketing competition, tax payment, and
village border. Thus, I have involved in analyzing and resolving such types of
conflicts based on the rules and regulations of each cases. In addition to this
since youth in this kebele are creative, and open minded most of the conflicts
occurred in fagita kebele were solved by youth participation.
The focus group discussion participants found in Fagita Kebele also mentioned that youths were
creative, open-minded and dynamic in peace building process. The finding is similar with the
study of Galtung (1975) defines the creativity and open-mindedness of youth to “transcend”
structures and attitudes, which promote conflict as their greatest strength in peace building. On
his study he explores that the relationship between youth and peace building, examining how
youth approach peace building differently than other age demographics. The result is also
consistent with the finding of Wuerth, (2015) which states that young people are openness,
energetic, creativity, and they are especially well-positioned to come up with new ideas to
address community problems. They can play a vital role in the peace building process by
modeling alternatives to violence and showing that change can be made peacefully.
Based on these results, therefore, we can interpret as follows in Fagita Lekoma woreda most of
the youths can come up with new ideas to address conflicts and they perceive that they play a
vital role in peace building process, transfer their war capacities to peace promotion and they
also perceive that they are important actors in the peace building process. Youth in the woreda
42
are creative, open-minded and dynamic in peace building that the youth in Fagita Lekoma
Woreda have the abilities in analyzing and resolving various conflicts.
4.4 Challenges of Youth Involvement in Peace Building Process

The challenges of youth engagement in peace building were presented in this part of the study. It
is thematically discussed the data gained through questionnaire, interview and focus group
discussion as follows.
Table 4.6: Challenges of Youth involvement in Peace building Process
No Challenges of Youth Strongly Strongly

Engagement in Peace dis agree agree
building Process no % No % No % No % No %
1 Unemployment hinders
youth from peace building 12 9.2% 15 11.5% 16 12.3% 34 26.2% 53 40.8%
Involvement
2 Inferiority feeling is a
challenge to youth peace 16 12.3% 11 8.5% 8 6.2% 27 20.8% 68 52.3%
building involvement
3 Excessive alcohol consumer
youths lack peace building 8 6.2% 8 6.2% 9 6.9% 29 22.3% 76 58.5%
mechanisms
4 In adequate youth
communication platform 9 6.9% 6 4.6% 15 11.5% 39 30% 61 46.9%
challenges peace building
5 Inadequate awareness
creation challenges peace 9 6.9% 12 9.2% 8 6.2% 42 32.3% 59 45.4%
building
The above table 4.6 shows that, most of the questionnaire respondents (40.8%) or 53 youths
reported that unemployment hinders youth from peace building involvement. 34 (26.2%) of the
respondent were replied that they agreed unemployment hinders youth from peace building
involvement. However, 12.3% of youths were undecided to unemployment hinders youth from
peace building involvement. 11.5% of respondents were dis agreed that unemployment hinders
youth from peace building involvement whereas 9.2% of respondents replied that unemployment
43
did not hinder youth from peace building involvement. Thus, based on this data it can be inferred
that the majority of the participants believe as unemployment hinders youth from peace building
involvement.
In a similar ways the above tables shows that, large number of the respondents 68 (52.3%) were
claim that inferiority feeling is a challenge to youth peace building engagement while 20.8% of
the respondents were agreed that inferiority feeling is a challenge to youth peace building
engagement. Nevertheless, the other small number of the participants (6.2%) or 8 youth claim
that they were undecided that inferiority feeling is a challenge to youth peace building
engagement. 16% of youths were replied that inferiority feeling is not a challenge to youth peace
building involvement. Therefore, it implies that inferiority feeling is a challenge to most of the
youth to involvement in peace building practices.
In the above table, 76 respondents (58.5%) agreed on excessive alcohol consumer youths lack
peace building mechanisms, the other 22.3%, 6.9%, and 6.2% respondents were agreed,
undecided and dis agreed on excessive alcohol consumer youths lack peace building
mechanisms. however 8 respondents (6.2%) strongly disagreed as excessive alcohol consumer
youths lack peace building mechanisms. From this we can understand that excessive alcohol
consumer youths lack peace building mechanisms.
In the same manner table 4.5 states that, most of the participants (46.7%) or 61 youth strongly
agreed that inadequate youth communication platform challenges peace building. 30% youths
were agreed that inadequate youth communication platform challenges peace building and 11.5%
of were replied undecided about inadequate youth communication platform challenges peace
building . However, in contrast to this view, some of the participants (4.6%) and 6.9% youths
believe that inadequate youth communication platform do not challenges peace building.
Accordingly, it can be concluded that inadequate youth communication is a challenge for most of
the youth to involve in peace building activities.
Finally as it can be seen in the table shown above, more of the respondents (45.4%) or 59 youth
strongly agreed that inadequate awareness creation challenges peace building. 32.3% of the
respondents were agreed about inadequate awareness creation challenges peace building.
Nonetheless, a small number of the respondents (6.2%) or 8 youth were undecided about whether
inadequate awareness creation challenges peace building or not. 9.2% and 6.9% of youths were
44
dis agree and strongly dis agree about inadequate awareness creation challenges peace building
respectively. As a result, the above result shows that inadequate awareness creation challenges
peace building in the study area.
In addition to the questionnaire data, the interviewees and focus group discussion respondents
also reported that there are various challenges in peace building practices. The participants
replied that there are many challenges for peace building practice like lack of strong and non-
corrupted leaders, lack of quality awareness creation, and excessive number of unemployment of
youth in the kebele are the prominent challenges.
One of the interviewees from Fagita Kebele spoken that:
In Fagita Kebele the common challenges of peace building were Lack of quality
education, inferiority, lack of effective peace building training manual, drinking
too much alcohol, and unemployment.
The interviewees more explained that, unemployment, lack of budget to the youth for job
creation and drinking much amount of alcohol are the prominent challenges. And also another
challenge is that rather than solving conflicts by youth sometimes some conflicting parties
believe as conflicts should be solved only through court.
In addition to this, the other interviewee said that:
In my kebele peace building experience, I faced different challenges. When

conflicts occur many people want to report or applicants their easy conflicts to
police and court rather than solving it with the local youths. Beside to this, some
of the people in the kebele did not want to accept their problems due to different
kind of reasons for instance some of them did not listen to our elders due to
inferiority comple. Moreover, lack of knowledge and budget from the concerned
bodies were also the major challenges.
Similarly, one of the participants replied that the challenges that she faced in her peace building
experience are while some people who got into conflict did not believe with youths‟ peace
building ability, the others are difficult to be convinced with youth. In addition, there are some
people who want to aggravate conflicts for their personal consumption. Lastly, she rose that lack
of budget is their problem.
45
In the same way, another respondent forwarded that “there is lack of job opportunity in the
kebele and many youths are job less. In addition, some people who got into conflict lack
willingness to make peace. Apart from these, I do not have deep knowledge and skills of conflict
resolution”.
The following speech was reported from one of the interviewee from chiguli kebele:
Some conflicting parties considered me as a kid who is not capable to

peacemaking. Apart from this, still some others do not want to be negotiated by
youth peacemakers rather than elder religious leaders. The other conflicting
parties neither understand the youth peace makers’ ideas, nor accept the
negotiating mechanisms.
Regarding to challenges of peace building the following points were mentioned by one female
interview participant, she states as follows when she tried to negotiate some conflicting parties,
they considered her as a kid who is not able to make peace, and voiced her “grow slowly still you
become an elder”. The conflicting parties thought that only elders make peace excluding the
youths‟ role of peace making. Some conflicting parties denied negotiations unless their ideas are
accepted. Apart from this still some others leave the role of peace for their future life. Finally, the
interviewees stressed that youths‟ emotionality and unemployment are the most challenging
problems in Chiguli, Fagita and Dimama Kebeles.
The focus group discussion participants also mentioned that there are many challenges faced by
youths while involving in peace building activities. Accordingly, some government officials
believe that some conflicting parties need to be negotiated by only religious fathers excluding
youth peace builders. In addition, they replied that some peace maker youths become hopeless
when the conflicting parties oppose each other during reconciliation.
As one of the government employed participant speak out:
In my openio, in Fagita kebele lack of knowledge and experience in peace

building are the challenges of youth peace builders. The kebele and woreda level
leaders are unable to provide adequate budget and trainings on peace and
security. some individuals demoralize the youths during the negotiation process.
Lack of rule of law and lack of budget are the other challenges. In other terms,
46
some people did not respect the rules and regulations of the Youth Association.
Some conflicting parties are unable to come to the negotiation place due to lack
of willingness.
The above finding of the study was discussed as follows with different scholars, in line with this
point Sellevold (2012) revealed that youth have various challenges which hinder them from full
engagement of peace building activities, and essential factors that promote them to participate in
various peace building activities. The biggest challenges for promoting youth participation in
peace building are poverty and unemployment.
Hartmann (2016) also revealed that there is a great deal of youth who are unemployed in Uganda
and therefore it makes them unable to construct living and engage in peace building initiatives.
In line with unemployment related obstacles, education may contribute to community peace and
enhance youth to be part of the economic development, as it may lead to further social and
political participation.
In the same vein, Walton (2010) found out that youth need to get quality education and other
vocational trainings so that they get required skills, and get into jobs. If youth are brought
together like in a vocational school, that would promote peace because this would bring youth
together and this would create avenue for supporting one another and building longer
relationship, apart from skilling them. The demanded possibility of technical and vocational
schooling is understandable since such training aims to link education to employability and can
lead to poverty reduction.
Lastly, Rabe and Kamanzi (2012) investigated that the other issue which keeps youths‟
perpetrating conflict instead of contributing to peace building is so much of poverty. Since
economic empowerment is a key element for social and political engagement, engaging youth in
income generating activities is essential. The feeling of inferiority is the other challenge for
youth peace building engagements. For this reason, youth needs to be empowered in order to
embrace peace building approaches and gain self-esteem.
The main challenges for greater youth participation in peace building are related with
unemployment, poverty, alcohol abuse, and inferiority feelings. Moreover, alcoholism which
often results in violence is a hindering factor to unable to participate in peace building. Excessive
47
consume of alcohol among youth is one of the main conflict-drivers, as well as it hinders youth
involvement in peace building Such youths did not think of various peace building activities as
important like for instance instead of meeting fellow colleagues to discuss good things, a youth
would choose to go and take alcohol so that it enables them to forget the problems (Hartmann,
2016).
Generally, based on the above result the researcher conclude that unemployed youths are
exposed to make conflict, youths feeling inferiority were not participated in peace building
activities. Intake of excessive alcohol has direct influence on youth‟s involvement of peace
building. In addition, insufficient youth communication platform and inadequate awareness
creation about the necessary of peace to the community are the main challenges of youth
involvement in peace building.
4.5 Opportunities of Youth involvement in Peace building Process

The data gathered through questionnaire, interview, and focus group discussion on the
opportunities of youth involvement in peace building process have been presented respectively in
this sub section of the study.
Table 4.7: Opportunities of Youth Engagement in Peace building Process
Opportunities of Youth Strongly Strongly

No Engagement in Peace dis agree agree
building Process no % No % No % No % No %
1 Youth have access to education
which empower them to 70 53.8% 30 23.1% 9 6.9% 8 6.2% 13 10%
practice peace building
2 Youth are empowered to gain
self-esteem and embrace peace 74 56.9% 23 17.7% 13 10% 15 11.5% 5 3.8%
building approaches
3 There are job opportunities
which promotes youth peace 79 60.8% 24 18.5% 11 8.5% 12 9.2% 4 3.1%
building involvement
4 There are unities of youth
which promote peace building 91 70% 19 14.6% 6 4.6% 9 6.9% 5 3.8%
involvement
48
Table 4.7 shows that most of the respondents (53.8%) or 70 youth reported that youth have no
access to education which empower them to practice peace building. 23.1% of the respondents
replied that they were dis agreed about access to education empower them to practice on peace
building. 12% or 14 youth were undecided whether they have access to education which
empowers them to practice peace building or not while 6.2% of them were agreed. However, the
remaining respondents (10%) or 13 youth reported that youth have access to education which
empower them to practice peace building. Therefore, it can be understood that most of youths
have no access to education which empowers them to practice peace building.
The above table also indicates that, most of the questionnaire respondents (56.9%) or 74 youths
strongly dis agreed that youth are empowered to gain self-esteem and embrace peace building
approaches. 17.7% of the respondents replied that they were dis agreed about youth are
empowered to gain self-esteem and embrace peace building approaches. 10% or 13 youth were
undecided whether youth are empowered to gain self-esteem and embrace peace building
approaches or not and 11.5% of them were agreed. However, small number of questionnaire
respondents (3.8%) or 5 youth reported that they agreed that youth are empowered to gain self-
esteem and embrace peace building approaches. Based on the above information, we can
understand that most youths were not empowered to gain self-esteem and embrace peace
building approaches.
Regarding to job opportunities the result on table 4.7 shows that, most of the participants
(60.8%) or 79 questionnaire respondents strongly dis agreed that there are job opportunities
which promotes youth for peace building involvement, and (18.5%) or 24 respondents dis agreed
about that there are job opportunities which promotes youth peace building involvement. 8.5% or
11 respondents were not sure as there are job opportunities which promote youth for peace
building involvement or not. However the small number of respondents (3.1%) were strongly
agreed that, there are job opportunities which promotes youth for peace building involvement
and the remaining 9.2% were agreed about there are job opportunities which promotes youth for
peace building involvement. Thus, it can be concluded that there are no adequate job
opportunities that promote youth peace building involvement in fagta lekoma woreda.
Finally, large number respondents (70%) or 91 youth strongly dis agreed that there are unities of
youth which promote peace building involvement. 14.6% of the respondents were dis agreed
49
about that there are unities of youth which promote peace building involvement while 4.6% of
youths were undecided whether there are unities of youth which promote peace building
involvement or not. However, the remaining 6.9% and 3.8% of the respondents were agreed and
strongly agreed about there are unities of youth which promote peace building involvement
respectively. Therefore, considering this result we can conclude that there are no unities of youth
which promote peace building engagement in the study area.
Generally, access to education, job opportunity, self-esteem empowerment, and unities of youth
were not given for youths to involvement in peace building process.
Regarding the opportunities of youths in involving on peace building practices, the youth
interviewees reported that even though there are various peace building opportunities in chiguli
kebele including the availability of peace committee, community policing, and peace advisors
they are not work properly. As they reported, most importantly, since the police officers work
with the community, it helps us to work on peace building efficiently. The interviewee from
chiguli Kebele stated that:
Even though, adult education, training and the availability of youth leaders in the
kebele are the good things for youths’ peace building involvement. Most of the
youths in Chiguli Kebele do not get these opportunities. In addition, some youths
are organized in various developmental teams which can be taken as
opportunities. Apart from these, there are still inadequacies, the kebele and
woreda leaders provide trainings on peace building, the police officers work with
youth, and the society share farming land to some youth.
Similarly, the interview participants further explained that the access for various communication
technologies like cell phone, radio and Television are good opportunities. But there is no
additional availability of various educational institutions in the kebele. The existence of elderly
fathers and mothers who regularly provide advices is also an opportunity to work on peace
building. One of the respondents from Fagita Kebele reported that:
The good opportunity for youth involvement in peace building practice that I
found is the society’s good acceptance to the youths’ peace building engagement.
Most people of Fagita Kebele have accesses to mass media like Newspaper,
50
Television, and radio. The access to these mass media can be taken as
opportunities to our peace building practice in the kebele.
As an interviewee in Dimama Kebele replied, one of the opportunities is that when the youths
provide awareness creations on peace and conflict in different places including religious
institutions, most of the people understand them. In addition, the peace and security concerned
bodies of the kebele work with them. The availability of mass media to transmit their peace
building ideologies to the society can be taken as a good opportunity. Most people of Dimama
Kebele give value for their peace and security. In addition, the peace and security concerned
bodies work for peace day and night.
Similarly, one of the government officials voiced that:
The government creates job for jobless by letting them to work together means
that youths who mostly got into conflict are now joining some jobs. This might be
an opportunity for the peacemaking youth. The provision of practical adult
education, strong teams of youths, and the positive view of the society. Since the
chairman of the Youths’ Association is ethical enough, he can consider peace
and conflict issues in all directions. The availability of practical adult education
and youth association are the good opportunities to work on peace building.
The focus group discussion participants from Dimama kebele expressed that, mutual
understanding of youth peace builders, having youth association and the availability of peace and
security concerned bodies in the kebele are the good opportunity for peace building. Likewise
the availability of societal support, having plowing land, and the provision of quality adult
education in the kebele can be considered as opportunities of peace building in Dmama Kebele.
Regarding to youth opportunities in peace building involvement, the finding of the study has
been discussed with different scholars‟ findings as follow. The study was consistent with
Hartmann (2016) who conducted a study on youth participation in peace building in Gulu
District, Northern Uganda: Opportunities and challenges revealed that the common opportunities
to promote greater youth participation in peace building are access to education and job
opportunity to economically empower them which later entail them to open up new perspectives
for social and political participation. Furthermore, youth views unity with their peers as one key
51
to enhance participation in peace building. Many young people view unity with their peers as one
opportunity to promote greater involvement in peace building activities, and to contribute to a
peaceful coexistence.
Therefore, from the result of this study, it can be interpreted that in Fagita Lkoma Woreda most
of the youth have no access to education which empower them to practice peace building. In the
woreda youths were not empowered to gain self-esteem and embrace peace building approaches.
There is no much job opportunities which promotes youth peace building involvement and
youths are not unite to promote peace building involvement in Fagita Lekoma Woreda.
52
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary
The study assessed youth peace building involvement in Amhara National Regional State in the
case of Fagita Lekoma Woreda, Awi zone. This study mainly focused on investigating the
youths‟ perception on peace building, actual practice of youth in peace building, challenges of
youth in peace building process, and opportunities of youth in peace building process and some
socio demographic characteristics of youth.
The result of the study revealed that most of the participants were males though the number of
females is not that much small. Regarding to age of the respondents, most of the participants
were youths though there were some elders and the majority of the youths were complete their
primary and secondary level of education.
On this study youth in Fagita Lekoma Woreda play great roles in peace building. Accordingly,
most of the youths perceive that they have peace building abilities. The youth were dynamic,
open-minded, can influence peace building decisions, and involve in peace building practices
regardless of age, gender, and religion. They were participating and have the abilities in
analyzing and resolving various conflicts.
Most of the youths have positive views towards peace building involvement. Hence, the youth
have new ideas to address conflicts and play a vital role in peace building process. Youth were
important actors in the peace building process. In addition to this youth are creative, open-
minded and dynamic in peace building process.
The study assessed various challenges which were faced by Fagita Lekoma Woreda youth in
their peace building activities. Unemployment and inferiority feeling is a challenge to most of
the youth to engagement in peace building practices. Drinking excessive Alcohol is a challenge
for most of the youth to involve in peace building activities. Similarly Inadequate awareness
creation challenges peace building in the study area. Generally, unemployments, inferiority
feeling, alcoholism, inadequate youth communication platform and inadequate awareness
creation are the challenges of youth involvement in peace building.
53
The findings revealed that in Fagita Lekoma woreda opportunity creation for the youth to engage
in peace building practices were less. The youths in the Woreda have no access to education
which empowers them to practice peace building. There are no unities of youth which promote
peace building involvement in the study area. Likewise, youth were not empowered to gain self-
esteem and embrace peace building approaches. In general, even though, access to education, job
opportunity, self-esteem empowerment, and unities of youth were the opportunities of youth in
peace building involvements process but youth in this woreda did not get the opportunities.
5.2. Conclusion
Based on the findings gained, the following conclusions were made.
 The youth in Fagita Lekoma Woreda perceive as they have the skill to build peace in
their areas. They perceive that they have peace building skills.
 The youths have positive views towards peace building involvement. Accordingly, they
provides with socio-economic opportunities to be engaged in peace building;
 The challenges which were faced by Fagita Lekoma Woreda youth in their peace
building practices were unemployment, inferiority feeling, intake of more alcohol,
inadequate youth communication platform and inadequate awareness creation are the
challenges of youth involvement in peace building.
 however, the youth in Fagita Lekoma Woreda has no the opportunities of having access
to education, self-esteem empowerment, and unities of youth are the opportunities of
youth involvment in peace building process
5.3. Recommendations
Based on the findings of this empirical study, the researcher forward the following
recommendations for the concerned bodies, institution, individuals and for the society at large;
the major constructing factor, policy makers at all stages of the society should design supportive
polices, strategies and allocate appropriate resources.
 The government should reform the policy towards peace building process considering the
role of youth in the country for sustainable stability
 Societies need to support the role in which youth are playing for peace building process,
54
 All stake holders including private and governmental organizations should pay more
attention to youth peace building involvement apart from the elders‟ of indigenous
conflict resolution mechanism; they have to support them in terms of idea, experience
sharing and logistics.
 Various opportunities like workshops and trainings towards peace buildings should be
provided for youth.
 The youth need to strengthen their platforms with the help of kebele and woreda
officials, by giving different responsibilities, encourage them to participate in the
community services and working with youths.
 It would be better if the youths share their experiences to other youths who live in various
kebeles and woredas, sharing experience like peace building process, community
participation, how to take responsibilities, how to live with another and how the youth
help each other.
55
REFERENCES
Abbink, J. (2006). Ethnicity and conflict generation in Ethiopia: Some problems and prospects of
ethno-regional federalism. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 24(3), 389-413.
Ayo (2016). Post-Conflict Peace building: Youth Participation in Sierra Leone. (Master‟s
Thesis). UIT the Arctic University of Norway.
Benson, P. L., Mannes, M., Pittman, K., & Ferber, T. (2004). Youth development,
developmental assets, and public policy. Handbook of adolescent psychology, 2, 781-
814.
Bista, B. and O‟Kane, C. (2015). Evaluation of Child and Youth Participation in Peace building.
Global Partnership for Children and Youth in Peace building. Nepal.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices.
Boutros-Ghali, B. (1992). An Agenda for Peace. New York: United Nations.
Boyatzis, R. (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code

Development, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christiansen, C., Utas, M., & Vigh, H. E. (2006). Navigating Youth, Generating Adulthood:
social becoming in an African context. Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Cursi, R. (2017). The Role of Youth in Peace building. Retrieved from
http://www.pacedifesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-role-of-youth-inpeacebuilding.pdf
on 2017-07-08.
De Visser, P. (2015). The role of youth in transforming conflict. University of Notre Dame.
Danesh, R. (2008). Youth and Peace building. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Peace
Education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. https://www.quora.com
(110/04/2019.
56
Durham, D. (2000). Youth and the social imagination in Africa: Introduction to parts 1 and
2. Anthropological quarterly, 113-120.
Galtung, J. (1975). Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping. Peacemaking, and Peace

building' in Johan Galtung (ed), Peace, War and Defense: Essays in Peace Research, 2.
Gliński, P. (1998). Young Generation as a Medium of Social Change–Political Mobilisation and

Active Participation in Social Movements. Youth and Political Changes in
Contemporary World, Warszawa, 1998, 31-46.
Global Forum on Youth, Peace and Security (2015) Amman Youth Declaration on Youth, Peace
and Security. Online at: https://www.unteamworks.org/node/505475, accessed
26/11/2015.
Gofie, S.M (2016) Emigrants and the state of Ethiopia: transnationalism and the challenges of
political antagonism. African and Black Diaspora: An international journal, 9(2),134-
148
Gupta, A., Lamba, H., Kumaraguru, P., & Joshi, A. (2013, May). Faking sandy: characterizing
and identifying fake images on twitter during hurricane sandy. In Proceedings of the
22nd international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 729-736).
Hartmann, K. (2016). Youth participation in peace building in Gulu District, Northern Uganda:
opportunities and challenges (Doctoral dissertation).
Jeong, H.W. (2005). Peace and conflict studies: an introduction. USA: George Mason
University.
Kemper, Y. (2005). Youth in War-to-Peace Transitions: Approaches of International

Organizations. Berlin, Germany: Bergh of Research Center for Constructive Conflict
Management..
Lederach, J.P. (1997) Building Peace. Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace Press.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Sample size determination. Research Methodology. New Age

International Publications, 1, 74-1.
57
Luise. K. (2016). A Concurrent Mixed Method Study Exploring Iraqi Immigrants' Views of
Michigan. Walden University.
Lund, M S. (1996). Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy

Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Machel, G. (2001). The Impact of War on Children: A Review of Progress Since the 1996 United
Nations Report on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. United Nations Children's
Fund, 3 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017.MacKenzie, M. (2009). Empowerment boom
or bust? Assessing women's post-conflict empowerment initiatives. Cambridge Review
of International Affairs, 22(2), 199-215.
Marie, D. (2013). A Case Study of a Mixed Methods Study Engaged in Integrated Data Analysis.
Loyola University Chicago.
Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McEvoy-Levy, S. (Ed.). (2006). Troublemakers or peacemakers?: Youth and post-accord peace

building. University of Notre Dame Press.
Miall, H., Ramsbotham, O., & Woodhouse, T. (1999). Contemporary Conﬂict Resolution: The
Prevention. Management and Transformation of Deadly Conﬂicts (Cambridge and
Oxford: Polity Press and Blackwell)..
Michelle (2006). Peace-building: Theoretical and concrete perspectives. Peace and Change. Vol.
31, No., 4.
Mikkelson, B. (2005).Methods for Development Work and Research: A new Guide for
participation, 2nd Ed, sage publication, New Delhi
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. Handbook
of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 1, 189-208.
Newman, J. (2005). Protection through participation: young people affected by forced migration
and political crisis. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre.
58
Norris, P. (2007). Political Activism: New Challenges, New Opportunities. In C. Boix and S.
Stokes (ends), Ch. 26, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D., & David, N. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge University
Press.
Pavanello, S. (2009). Pastoralists‟ vulnerability in the Horn of Africa: Exploring political

marginalization, donors‟ policies and cross-border issues. Humanitarian Policy Group
(HPG) Overseas Development Institute London, UK.
Price, R., & Reus-Smit, C. (1998). Dangerous liaisons? Critical international theory and
constructivism. European journal of international relations, 4(3), 259-294.
Pruitt, L. (2013). Fixing the girls‟ neoliberal discourse and girl‟s participation in peace building.
International Feminist Journal of Politics. 15(1), p. 58-76.
Rabé, P., & Kamanzi, A. F. (2012). Power analysis: A study of participation at the local level in
Tanzania.
Rajasekar, S. P. P. and Chinnathambi, V. (2013). Research methodology, 1-20..
Redekop, P. (1999). The Emerging Discipline of Conflict Resolution Studies. Peace

Research, 31(1), 76-88.
Roche, C. J. (1999). Impact assessment for development agencies: Learning to value change.
Oxfam.
Schwartz, S. (2010). Youth and post-conflict reconstruction: agents of change. US Institute of

Peace Press.
Sellevold, M. (2012). Youth as Peace Builders: A Comparative Study of Educational Response in

Post-Conflict Burundi (Master's thesis).
Smithson, J. (2009) Focus Groups, in Alasuutari, P, Bickman L., and Brannen, J. (eds), The Sage
handbook of Socal Research Methods, Sage: London, (357-371).
UNDESA, U. (2012). Governance and development.
59
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund).2016. “The Somali Youth in Figures: Better Data
Better lives.” Info graphic, UNFPA P&D Unit.
United Nations. Economic Commission for Africa, African Union, United Nations. Economic
Commission for Africa. Publications, & Conference Management Section.
(2009). Economic report on Africa 2009: developing African agriculture through
regional value chains. United Nations Publications.
Uvin, P. (2007). Human security in Burundi: The view from below. African Security Review.
VOl.,16. No., 2. P. 38-52.
Walton, O. (2010). Youth, armed violence and job creation programmes: A rapid mapping study.
Wuerth (2015). Lessons on Youth and Peace Building in Lebanon.
Yalew (2005). Educational Research (Epsy. 223). Course Module for Year II Education
Students. Ethiopia: Bahir Dar University.
World Youth Report (2005). United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs. New York: United Nations Publication. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/wyr05book.pdf on 2017-02-08.
60
APPENDICES
Appendix –I
ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL EDUCATION
Youth Questionnaire
Dear youth,
I am a postgraduate student at Addis Ababa University, Department of Civics and Ethical
education. Currently, I am conducting a study on the assessment of youth peace building
involvement in Amhara National Regional State; the case of Awi Zone, Fagita Lekoma Woreda.
Accordingly, this questionnaire is prepared to gather data on the assessment of youth peace
building engagement in Amhara National Regional State: the case of Awi Zone in Fagita
Lekoma Woreda. Thus, you are kindly requested to respond the questions sincerely and
thoughtfully. All information provided shall be treated as confidential and used strictly for this
research purpose only.
Please, put a thick mark ( ) on the given spaces.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation!

PART 1: RESPONDENTS’ BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Gender: Male _______ Female ________
2. Age: Less than 20 ___ 20 - 30 years ____ 31- 40 years ____ 41-50 ___ Above 50 years ____
3. Level of Education: Illiterate ___ Adult education ____ Primary ___
Secondary ___ Certificate __ 1st Degree ___ Master‟s degree ___ Other, please specify ____
61
Part 2: youth peace building ability
Direction: the following questions are regarding youth peace building ability and please thick in
the table from the given alternatives which is suitable for you.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree
I actual practices of youth in peace building 1 2 3 4 5
1 I have good qualities of peace building
2 I create strategies in peace building processes
3 I am open-minded to transform conflicts
4 I am dynamic in a peace building process
5 I have got trainings on peace building
6 I have influenced decisions about peace building in my community
7 I involve in peace building regardless of age, gender, and religion
II Perception of youth on peace building 1 2 3 4 5
1 I can come up with new ideas to address conflicts
2 I can play a vital role in peace building process
3 Youth can transfer their war capacities to peace promotion
4 Youth are important actors in the peace building process
5 Youth are creative, open-minded and dynamic in peace building
III: challenges of youth involvement in peace building process 1 2 3 4 5
1 Unemployment hinders youth from peace building involvement
2 Inferiority feeling is a challenge to youth peace building involvement
3 Excessive alcohol consumer youth lack peace building mechanisms
4 Inadequate youth communication platform challenges peace building
5 Inadequate awareness creation challenges peace building
IV: opportunities of youth involvement in peace building process 1 2 3 4 5
1 Youth have access to education which empower them to practice peace building
2 Youth are empowered to gain self-esteem and embrace peace building
approaches
3 There are job opportunities which promotes youth peace building engagement
4 There are unities of youth which promote peace building involvement
62
OPEN ENDED ITEMS
The following items and write your answers on the given blank spaces.
 How do you express the effectiveness of your own peace building practice?
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
 What are your challenges, as a youth in your peace building process?

________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
 What opportunities do you have in your peace building process?

________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
63
Appendix – II
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND BEHAVIORAL STUDY
Interview Guideline
(Youth’)
1. How do you express the effectiveness of your peace building practice?
2. In what kind of conflicts do you involve in peace building?
3. What are your challenges in your peace building process?
4. What opportunities do you have in your peace building process?
5. What is the view of youth towards peace building involvement?
6. Do you have any other idea about youths‟ peace building?
64
Appendix – III
INTERVIEW GUIDELINE
(Elders and Government Officials)
1. How do you view youths‟ involvement in peace building?
2. In what kind of conflicts do youths involve in peace building?
3. What are youths‟ challenges in the local peace building process?
4. What opportunities do they have in the local peace building process?
5. How do you support the youths‟ peace building involvement?
6. Do you have any other idea about youths‟ peace building?
65
Appendix –IV
Focus Group Discussion Guideline
(Youths)
1. What does peace building mean to you?
2. In what kind of conflicts do you involve in peace building?
3. What are the processes or procedures involved in the peace building process?
4. What are your challenges in your peace building process?
5. What are your strategies to deal with these challenges?
6. What opportunities do you have in your peace building process?
7. What is the view youth towards peace building involvement?
8. Do you have any other idea about youth peace building involvement?
66
Appendix V
አዲስ አባባ ዩኒቨርሲቲ
ማሕበራዊ ሳይንስ ፊክልቲ
ስነ ዜጋ ና ስነ ምግባር ትምህርት ክፍል
የጽሑፍ መጠይቅ
ውድ ወጣቶች፡-
እኔ በአዲሲ አባበ ዩኒቨርሲቲ የስነ ዜጋ ና ስነ ምግባር ትምህርት ክፍል የሁሇተኛ ዲግሪ

ተማሪ ነኝ፡፡ በአሁኑ ሠዓት በአማራ ክልል የሚገኙ ወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ሚና፤ ከአዊ ዞን
ፊግታ ሇኮማ ወረዳ አንፃር በሚል ርዕስ ጥናት እያካሄድኩ እገኛሇሁ፡፡ በመሆኑም ይህ የጽሑፍ
መጠይቅ የተዘጋጀው ሇዚህ ጥናት ግብዓት የሚሆን መረጃ ከእናንተ ከወጣቶች ሇመሰብሰብ
ነው፡፡ በጽሑፍ መጠይቁ የምትሰጡት ማንኛውም መረጃ በጥንቃቄ የሚያዝ ሲሆን መረጃውም
ሇዚህ ጥናት ዓላማ ብቻ የሚውል ይሆናል፡፡ ስሇዚህ ጥያቄዎቹን በማንበብ በጥንቃቄ ትመልሱ
ዘንድ በትህትና እጠይቃሇሁ፡፡
እባክዎ እርስዎን የሚገልፀው ባዶ ሳጥን ውስጥ የራይት ( ) ምልክት ያድርጉ፡፡
ስሇትብብርዎ በቅድሚያ አመሰግናሇሁ!
ክፍል 1፡- የተሳታፉዎች አጠቃላይ መረጃ
1. ፆታ፡- ወንድ ሴት
2. ዕድሜ፡- ከ18 - 20 ዓመታት ከ20 - 25 ዓመታት ከ25- 30 ዓመታት
3. የትምህርት ደረጃ፡- ያልተማረ የጎልማሳ ት/ት የመጀመሪያ ደረጃ ት/ት
ሁሇተኛ ደረጃ ት/ት ሰርተፉኬት ዲፕሎማ

ዲግሪ ማስተርስ
ሌላ ከሆነ እባክዎ ይግሇፁ _____________
67
ክፍል 2፡ የወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ግንዛቤ
መመሪያ: ከዚህ ቀጥሎ ያለ ጥያቄዎች የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ግንዛቤ የሚጠይቁ ሲሆኑ
በተሰጠው ሰንጠረዥ ውስጥ ከተዘረዘሩት 1 እስከ 5 አማራጮች ዉስጥ ሇእርስዎ ተስማሚዉ

ቦታ ላይ የራይት ( ) ምልክት ያድርጉ፡፡
1 = በጣም አልስማማም, 2 = አልስማማም, 3 = እርግጠኛ አይደሇሁም, 4 = እስማማሇሁ,
5 = በጣም እስማማሇሁ፤
I የወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ሚና በተግባር 1 2 3 4 5
1 በሠላም ግንባታ ላይ የመሥራት አቅም አሇኝ
2 ግጭትን በመፍታት ሂደት ላይ የተሇያዩ ዘዴዎችን ማፍሇቅ እችላሇሁ
3 ግጭትን ሇመፍታት የሌሎችን ሃሳብ የመቀበል ዝንባሌ አሇኝ
4 ግጭትን በመፍታት ሂደት ላይ ከሌሎች ሠዎች ጋር የመግባባት አቅም አላኝ
5 በሠላም ግንባታ ዙሪያ ስልጠናዎች ወስጃሇሁ
6 በአካባቢዬ ባሇው የሠላም ግንባታ ላይ አወንታዊ ተፅዕኖ አሳድራሇሁ
7 ያሇእድሜ፣ ፆታ እና ኃይማኖት ገደብ በሰላም ግንባታ ላይ እሳተፊሇሁ
II ወጣቶች ሇሰላም ግንባታ ያላቸው እይታ 1 2 3 4 5
1 ግጭትን ሇመፍታት አዳዲስ ሀሳቦችን የማመንጨት ችሎታ አሇኝ
2 ሰላምን በመገንባት ዙሪያ ትልቅ ድርሻ አሇኝ
3 ወጣቶች የጦር ችሎታቸውን ሇሰላም ግንባታ ማዋል ይችላለ
4 ወጣቶች ሇሰላም ግንባታ ወሳኝ ተዋናኞች ናቸው
5 ወጣቶች ሇሰላም ግንባታ ጥሩ የፇጠራ ችሎታ፣ ታታሪ እና የተሻሇ አስተሳሰብ አላቸው
III: በወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ሂደት የሚያጋጥሙ ተግዳሮቶች 1 2 3 4 5
1 ሥራ አጥነት የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ያደናቅፊል
2 የበታችነት ስሜት የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ያደናቅፊል
3 አልኮል የሚያዘወትሩ ወጣቶች ሠላም የማስፇን አቅም ያንሳቸዋል
4 የወጣት ሇወጣት የውይይት መድረኮች ማነስ የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ይቀንሳል
5 የግንዛቤ ፇጣራ እጥረት የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ይቀንሳል
IV፡ የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ የሚያበረታቱ መልካም አጋጣሚዎች 1 2 3 4 5
1 የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ የሚያጠናክር የትምህርት እድል አሇ
2 ወጣቶች በራስ የመተማመን አቅማችው እንዲጎሇብት እና የሠላም ግንባታ ሥልቶችን
እንዲያዳበብሩ ተደርጎላቸዋል
3 የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ የሚያጠናክሩ የሥራ እድሎች ተስፊፍተዋል
4 የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ የሚያጠናክር የወጣቶች ኅብረት ተፇጥሯል
68
ማብራሪያ የሚሹ ጥያቄዎች
መመሪያ፡ የሚከተለትን ጥያቄዎች ያንብቡና መልስዎን በተሰጡት ባዶ ቦታዎች ላይ ይፃፈ፡፡
 የእርስዎን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ውጤታማነት እንዴት ይገልፁታል?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
 ወጣት ከመሆንዎ ጋር ተያይዞ በሠላም ግንባታ ሂደት ላይ የሚያጋጥምዎ ተግዳሮቶች ምን

ምን ናቸው?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
 ወጣት በእርስዎ የሠላም ግንባታ ሂደት ምን ምን መልካም አጋጣሚዎች ተፇጥረዋል?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
69
የወጣቶች የቃሇ መጠይቅ ጥያቄዎች
1. የእርስዎን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ውጤታማነት እንዴት ይገልፁታል?
2. በእርስዎ የሠላም ግንባታ ልምድ ምን ምን አይነት ግጭቶችን በመፍታት ሂደት ላይ
ተሳትፇዋል?
3. በእርስዎ የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ምን ምን ተግዳሮቶች አጋጥምዎ?
4. በእርስዎ የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ምን ምን መልካም አጋጣሚዎች ነበሩ?
5. ከወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ጋር በተያያዘ የማኅበረሰቡ መንድን ነው?
6. ከወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ጋር በተያያዘ ተጨማሪ ሃሳብ አሇዎ?
ሇወጣቶች የቡድን ውይይት መነሻ ነጥቦች
1. በእናንተ አገላሇፅ ሠላም ግንባታ ማሇት ምን ማሇት ነው?

2. በምን በምን ዓይነት የሠላም ግንባታ ሂደት ላይ ተሳትፊችኋል?
3. ግጭቶችን በመፍታት ሂደት ውስጥ ምን ምን ነገሮችን ታከናውናላችሁ?
4. ግጭቶችን በመፍታት ሂደት ውስጥ ምን ምን ተግዳሮቶች ያጋጥሟችኋል?
5. በግጭት አፇታት ሂደት ላይ የሚያጋጥሟችሁን ተግዳሮቶች እንዴት ትፇቷቸዋላችሁ?
6. በሠላም ግንባታ ሂደት ላይ ምን ምን መልካም አጋጣሚዎችን አገኛችሁ?
7. በወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ላይ የማኅበረሰቡ እይታ ምን ይመስላል?
ከወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ጋር በተያያዘ መናገር የምትፇልጉት ሌላ ሃሳብ አላችሁ?
የሀገር ሽማግሌዎች እና የመንግስት አካላት የቃሇ መጠይቅ ጥያቄዎች

1. የወጣቶችን የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ እንዴት ይገልፁታል?
2. ወጣቶች የሚሳተፈት ምን ምን አይነት ግጭቶችን በመፍታት ሂደት ላይ ነው?
3. በወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ምን ምን ተግዳሮቶች ያጋጥማቸዋል?
4. በወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ምን ምን መልካም አጋጣሚዎች ነበሩ?
5. የወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ በምን በምን መልኩ ትደግፈታላችሁ?
6. ከወጣቶች የሠላም ግንባታ ተሳትፎ ጋር በተያያዘ ተጨማሪ ሃሳብ አሇዎ?
70
Appendix-VI
The profile of research participants (semi-structured interviewees and FGD
discussants)
1. Semi-structured interviewee
Table-1 Chiguli Kebele Participants
No Interview code Sex Participants Place of Date of
given interview interview
1 A M Youth chiguli kebele 16/05/2020
Office
2 B M » Residence 16/05/2020
3 C M » Football 16/05/2020
station
4 D F » Fetching water 16/05/2020
chiguli 29/05/2020
5 E M Elder Administration
Office
6 F M Police officer Community 29/05/2020
Police office
Chairman Public 29/05/2020
7 G M Administration
Office
71
Table -2 Dimama kebele Participants
No Interview Sex Participants Place of Date of

code given Interview interview
1 A M Youth Dimama 19/05/2020
Kebele School
2 B M » Football station 19/05/2020
3 C M » His Residence 19/05/2020
Kebele 19/05/2020
4 D F » Administration
Office
5 E M Police officer Community 05/06/2020
policing office
6 F M Elder Church 05/06/2020
7 G F Chairman Public 05/06/2020
Administration
Office
72
Table-3 Fagita Kebele Participants
No Interview code Sex Participants Place of Date of
given interview interview
Fagita Kebele
1 A M Administration 12/06/2020
Youth
Office
2 B M » Football 12/06/2020
station
3 C F » School 12/06/2020
4 D F » Church 12/06/1020
5 E M Police officer Community
policing Office 14/06/2020
6 F M Chair man Public
Administration 14/06/2020
Office
7 G M Chairman Public 14/06/2020
Administration
Office
73
2. FGD Discussants
Table-4 Chiguli, Fagita and Dimama Kebele Group Discussants
No. FGD Amount of Group Of Place of Date of
Participants Group Participants Discussion Discussion
Code given participants
Chiguli Kebele
Farmers
Training
1 FGD 01 4 Youth 21/06/2020
Center
2 Fagita Kebele
FGD 02 4 » Administration 23/06/2020
Office
» Dimama
3 FGD 03 4 Kebele 27/06/2020
Farmers
Training
Centre
Total 3 12 12 3 3
74

Yosef Beyene

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yosef Beyene

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yosef Beyene

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addis Ababa University

College of Educational and Behavioral Studies

Department of Civics and Ethical Education

Assessing Youth Involvement in Peace Building: The Case of

Advisor: Teferi Mekonnen (PhD)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

College of Educational and Behavioral Studies

Department of Civics and Ethical Education

Assessing Youth Involvement in Peace Building: The Case of

A Thesis Submitted to the Department Civics and Ethical Education in Partial

Advisors: Teferi Mekonnen (PhD)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

College of Education and Behavioral Studies

Department of Civics and Ethical Education

Assessing Youth Involvement in Peace Building: The Case of

Approved By Board of Examiners

Advisor Signature Date

External Examiner Signature Date

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

_Yosef eyene___________ August /2020

Student’s Name Signature Date

Advisor’s Name Signature Date

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 33

Table 4. 1: Sex of the respondents ................................................................................................ 33

Table 4.2: Age of respondents ...................................................................................................... 33

Table 4.3: respondents‟ education level........................................................................................ 34

Table 4.4: Youth Actual Peace building ability in practice .......................................................... 35

Table 4.6: Challenges of Youth involvement in Peace building Process ..................................... 43

Table 4.7: Opportunities of Youth Engagement in Peace building Process ................................. 48

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 16

Figure 3.1: Map of study area ....................................................................................................... 25

ANRS Amhara National Regional State

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FLWADO Fagita Lekoma Woreda Agriculture Development Office

MYSCE Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture of Ethiopia

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NIDIA National Institute Development for International Affairs

PCYB Positive Change Youth Behavior

SPP Social Psychology Perspectives

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

SSDP Social Security Development Policy

UNDAP United Nation Document Agenda for Peace

UNDP United Nation Development Program

UNFPA United Nation Population Fund Agreement

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WHO World Health Organization

WWII World War Second

YCAO Youth and Child Administration Office

Key words: Assessment, Youth, involvement, and Peace building

1.2. Statement of the Problem

1.3. Research Questions

The research questions for the study were the followings:

1.4. Objectives of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

 To explain the perceptions of youth on peace building in Fagita Lokoma Woreda.

1.5. Significance of the Study