|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
141779
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues for a reflexive perspective on the ‘local’ in peacebuilding. While it is now widely acknowledged that anything local is complex, unstable, and relational, scholars continue to make truth claims about local actors and practices. This leads to an incomplete account of peacebuilding, as it conceals the powerful effects of representation, which shape our perspective on the local. We argue that the local is both used and produced through practices of representation, and that these representations serve to define what good peacebuilding entails. We consequently suggest a perspective on perspectives, which focuses on how representations of the local relate to political agendas in peacebuilding, and which can account for the effects of choosing one mode of representation over another. Through case studies from Burundi and South Sudan, we show that representations of the local are conflictingly produced by scholars, practitioners, and government officials, telling about the true, the good, and the bad local, empowering some and disempowering other actors, institutions, and practices. These dynamics have tangible effects on peace, conflict, and (in)security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
137756
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Power-sharing agreements have become a blueprint for efforts to end violent conflicts in many parts of the world, particularly in Africa. Such agreements, however, rarely include territorial power sharing – at least, not according to the formal, rather unhelpful narrow definition that includes federalism and decentralization. This article argues that the concept of territorial power sharing needs to be broadened in order to account for the manifold informal or indirect manifestations of such arrangements. Drawing on extensive fieldwork data from the DRC, Liberia, and Kenya, the article analyses the history of spatiality and power in Africa in order to explain why formal mechanisms of territorial power sharing are rare and why more subtle types of informal territorial power sharing are much more common. Based on this analysis, we conclude that territorial power sharing is present in many African states, but that typically it is overlooked because of its informal nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
124262
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Research on power-sharing in Africa remains silent on the effects of national peace agreements on the sub-national level. Conversely, most armed conflicts originate and are fought in (or over) specific areas. A plausible hypothesis would be that for power-sharing to have the desired pacifying effect throughout the national territory, it needs to be extended to the local level. Based on fieldwork in six former hotspots in Liberia, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) we find that there is hardly any local content, including local power-sharing, in national agreements. However, contrary to our hypothesis, neither local content (inclusion of actors or interest) nor local-power-sharing (either introducing a local power balance or monopoly) are indispensable to effectively bring about local peace, at least in the short-term. On the contrary, it might even endanger the peace process. The importance of the sub-national level is overestimated in some cases and romanticised in others. However, the history of spatial-political links, centralised policies, and the establishment of local balances or monopolies of power ultimately play an important role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|