|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
171774
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyzes the success factors for external engagement aimed at fostering peace in conflict-affected states. It focuses on a set of three factors that have been under-researched so far: the strategic prioritization between stability and democracy, the degree of coordination, and the mode of interaction. We compare international engagement in six countries—Burundi, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Senegal, and Timor-Leste. These countries all struggled with violent conflict and experienced a democratic transition in the period 2000–2014. We use an innovative approach to assess the impact of external engagement by analyzing twenty critical junctures in the domestic political processes of these countries mainly linked to elections, constitution-writing processes, and peace agreements, as well as disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. Based on over 300 interviews, we find that prioritizing stability over democratization is problematic, good international coordination has positive effects, and preferring cooperative forms of interaction over coercion is mostly but not always useful. In discussing these general features of international support, this article contributes to the broader discussion of factors that explain the impact external actors can have on transformative political processes after conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
157782
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article shows that the international community can have a decisive impact on peace and democracy in a country, based on a paired comparison of Kenya and Kyrgyzstan. Both countries have experienced similar political trajectories, amongst them a struggle to consolidate peace and democracy after outbreaks of major interethnic violence, but show varying degrees of international influence on these processes. Analyzing several critical junctures in the two countries’ peace and democratization process through over 80 interviews reveals that although crucial international impact is rare, it is possible if donors jointly pursue a political agenda that connects to a home-grown process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|