Party Nationalization After Armed Conflict: Evidence from Latin America

• In Event: Democratization in the Shadow of Civil War: Parties, Warriors, and Voters

Abstract

Why do some post-conflict democracies develop nationalized parties and party systems while others do not? Civil conflict can be very destructive, making institutional building a difficult endeavor, even after the fighting has ended. Post-conflict can be a hard case for building national party institutions in particular, yet it is not the case that all post-conflict democracies fail to build nationalized party systems. I argue that both violence during civil war (its intensity, distribution, and type) and the nature of conflict termination, change the incentives of politicians and party leaders and their strategies. When violence is high, geographically spread out, and non-ethnic, governments can more easily embark on nationalization processes. When conflicts end in military victories, incumbents move to quickly nationalize the systems as a preemptive measure against conflict recurrence. I focus on Latin America given its long history of both civil conflict and party politics: almost all countries in the region have been democratic at some point, and a majority of them have experienced civil conflict in the last half century.

Author

• Jose Antonio Fortou Reyes, Ohio State University