| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Why are some peace processes accompanied by bloody political violence while others are not? Recent scholarship suggests that when factions fear that they will not benefit or will be excluded from a negotiated settlement these groups may protect their interests by sabotaging the peace process through violent tactics. We compare three peace processes in Africa - the negotiations to end armed struggles in Mali, the Western Sahara and Sudan - to investigate why spoilers arise in some contexts and not others. We argue that peace process exclusivity, that is negotiations between only some of the potential parties to a conflict, is more likely to breed violence than inclusive peace negotiations where all relevant groups have a seat at the bargaining table. A key to our argument is that the number and form of combatant groups is endogenous to peace process negotiations; as a result, exclusivity encompasses not just leaving out warring parties but also the exclusion of groups that might object to the terms of the peace should they be left out of the bargaining process. This is particularly important since many peace agreements include provisions regarding the distribution of government services, jobs, and representation that may indirectly impact the availability of those goods for other stakeholders, particularly non-combatant parties. While inclusive agreements may be harder to reach, our findings suggest that international organisations that participate in peace negotiations need to carefully consider the real-world trade-off between the ability to reach an agreement and the sustainability of that agreement over time.
|