Perspectives on Peace: An Examination of Post-Conflict Societies

Hey all,

Not sure if this is where I post on the blog but here goes anyway.

Here is the link to that article I mentioned in class about measuring citizens’ perceived supply versus demand of democracy in their respective countries:

http://www.afrobarometer.org/papers/AfrobriefNo67_19may09_final.pdf

I’ve become very sceptical of democracy where circumstances don’t warrant a democratic opening yet. I believe it is a desirable end, but there are different ways to achieve that end. Many repressive, illiberal democracies such as Zimbabwe have elections but in reality only serve to frustrate voters. Unfair elections often mobilize opposition and discontent and increase the threat of violence. DDRR ought to be pursued after a conflict to an extent that:
1. citizens are ready to vote in an election in a peaceful manner
and
2. institutions are in place to hold free and fair elections so that contestants can campaign without fear for office.
There is an Western obsession that countries can transition from war to peace if arrangements are made quickly after a conflict to have elections. Often bilateral and multilateral incentives of aid depend on post-conflict governments committing to elections, so they choose the short-term financial benefits offered by hastily pursuing an election, regardless of whether the time is right for one.

For an example, we can look at Angolan rebels UNITA who did not fully disarm after an agreement to do so with government forces to “end” a long civil war in 1991. Elections were pursued with haste in 1992, and the second round of voting never took place after UNITA perceived a loss in the election. UNITA was in a military advantage as the government DID abide by the disarmament agreement, so they resumed a civil war that would end 10 years later.

Conditions conducive to democracy take time to build, and so basically my argument in addition to the two general components I listed which allow for elections to take place after a conflict, is it takes time to democratize. Waiting combined with hard work to develop institutions are often the answers when creating ripe conditions for elections, or else the elections threaten to do more harm than good, and only increase the possibility of a conflict relapse.

Here is another article to support the discussion we had that pushing democracy does not always work. The article discusses the situation in Afghanistan where voters showed up in large numbers, despite constant threats from the Taliban, only to have the results marred by fraud. This week, during new elections, it seems many voters have given up and many polling stations shut down out of fear of the Taliban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/world/asia/20afghan.html?ref=world

and in relation to our readings this week….some more sad news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/world/africa/24congo.html?_r=1&ref=rwanda