Impact of Consensus Among Key Political Actors on Civil War Recurrence

• In Event: Post-Conflict Institutional Structures

Abstract

This study seeks to reveal why civil wars recur after peace agreements are signed. After the halcyon days of unrealistic optimism fade away, conflicting sides face a bitter reality: peace agreement (PA) implementation. In countries where PAs have recently been signed with great hope for the future (such as Colombia and the Philippines), the implementation does not seem promising. Colombia’s former President Juan Manuel Santos was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for pursuing a peace deal (Casey, 2016). However, the situation is now very fragile; investment and economic development have yet to manifest, infrastructure and government services continue to fail, and as many as 3,000 ex-rebels have restarted fighting. New armed groups are emerging and the drug trade is again on the rise (Casey, 2019). In the Philippines, President Duterte is having a difficult time implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which was signed in 2014. He signed the law to create an autonomous region in Mindanao. However, Congress voted in December to extend martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus for another year (Freedom House, 2019). Meanwhile, militant groups continue their attacks (Freedom House, 2019). These striking examples are just two among many peace processes that began with positive feelings and hope for reaching a sustainable peace, but now stumble. The question, then, is what factors actually cause the recurrence of violent ethnic conflict.

It is crucial to review the literature to delineate this gap. There have been studies on the effects of relationships among different actors such as a) the state and rebels, b) the state and third parties, c) the state, rebels, and third parties, d) within the rebel group, and even e) among third parties and international actors. Some research has also analyzed the validity and binding status of PAs, which is an important factor in guaranteeing compliance among conflicting parties.

However, assessing the state as a unitary actor can be misleading. Multiple individuals affect government policies. The executive branch is one actor, the opposition party (or parties) in parliament is another, the judiciary (especially supreme audit institutions such as the Supreme Court or High Court) is a third, and in some cases, the military makes up a fourth.

My argument is that in addition to the effects of each actor in the political system, the relationships among key actors also have an impact on the success or failure of Peace Agreement implementation on the recurrence of civil wars. In this sense, I attempt to determine the effect of consensus among Key Political Actors on the recurrence of civil war. The importance of this analysis is that it develops our understanding of “the state” and provides an opportunity to pursue questions not previously asked, such as: Who are the key actors within a state that influence the decisions of the executive branch? Do Key Political Actors have an impact on the peace process? What kinds of impact(s) do Key Political Actors have on the peace process? Do Key Political Actors change during the peace process? Does a consensus among Key Political Actors impact the validity of a Peace Agreement? Does a consensus among Key Political Actors impact the implementation of a Peace Agreement? Should Key Political Actors take part in the peace process?

This study will make a significant contribution to civil war recurrence literature because it disaggregates the state into its essential components and analyzes the impact of their relationship on Peace Agreement implementation and civil war recurrence.

Author

• Isa Haskologlu, University of Delaware