Earlier this month, CPCS released the latest in an important series of listening projects. Its title is Listening to Voices: Myanmar’s Foot Soldiers Speak. Looking inside the peace process, the report notes that fighters in frontline infantry units, the individuals Americans sometimes call grunts, are critical to lasting peace. It therefore sets out to capture the views of 100 rank and file soldiers in non-state armed groups. It is not clear when the study was undertaken. A little more than two years into the peace process, which dates from about September 2011, is the best guess.

The bulk of the respondents come from the armed wings of two key ethnic nationality groups: 41 of them link to the Karen National Union, and 21 to the Kachin Independence Organization. The remaining 39 are distributed across four smaller groups. The listening methodology adopts a list of about a dozen guide questions, and searches for key themes and messages in the responses. On this basis, it makes recommendations to the NSAG leaderships and the Myanmar government, and to NGOs and INGOs.

CPCS advises political elites to focus on trust, accountability, grassroots input, detailed preparation for demobilization and reintegration, and good governance of environmental resources. It advises NGOs and INGOs to support reintegration of soldiers through financial transfers and training, to provide neutral monitoring of ceasefire agreements, to assist with infrastructure development notably in education and healthcare, to facilitate sustainable natural resource management, and to help deliver basic human rights.

This attempt to “elevate the voices” of actors who typically play little part in peace talks is very welcome. The recommendations all make sense. At the same time, I was slightly disappointed by this 90-page CPCS report. A 2009 listening project on Myanmar civil society’s response to Cyclone Nargis ran to 215 pages. A 2010 listening project enabling ethnic people to speak extended to 350 pages. Each was filled with deep contextual analysis and abundant direct testimony. Still today, both are superb resources. In comparison, the current report seems a little thin.

Nevertheless, as Myanmar explores fresh ways to bring ordinary people into the policy process, listening projects remain an important tool. More use could certainly be made of them as the country attempts to reshape an authoritarian polity.