Democracy and Conflict Management

Aug 01, 2013 Editorial

---

 

 

Democracy is a system of conflict management, because it allows for the resolution of social conflicts through the rough-and-tumble competition in electoral and legislative arenas, replacing open confrontation on the battlefield for a seemingly unending process of bargaining and negotiation within the rules of the democratic game.
As the late scholar Donald Rothchild perceptively argued in a seminal work on Kenya’s independence negotiations, democratic institutions offer ongoing opportunities and incentives for the continuation of bargaining and negotiation among parties in conflict, that is, some types of democratic institutions and practices may provide tangible reinforcement of moderation in politics, reinforcing the management of conflict among contending groups.
Other scholars such as Ben Reilly and Andrew Reynolds have offered in-depth penetrating analyses of how different election systems, for example, can provide complex systems of incentives to encourage moderation, ethnic, racial and religious integration, and meaningful public participation in high-conflict, post-war societies.
Despite its promises for nudging parties to compromise, there are deeply entrenched reasons why democracy is inherently difficult in deeply divided societies, especially those seeking to escape intractable conflicts and violent encounters. Parties in intractable conflict lack the inherent trust needed for democracy to prosper. For parties who were only recently in deep conflict or even war, embracing democracy as a post-war system of conflict management is inherently risky because there is usually a deep-seated lack of trust, a pervasive fear of uncertainty. Why should parties in conflict accept the likely uncertainties of elections in a post-war democracy — where there will be winners and losers at the polls? Why lose at the ballot box what was not lost on the battlefield?
Majority rule can mean majority tyranny. Conflicts that are fought along identity lines in which there is a clear majority and minority (like Sri Lanka, Kosovo, or Northern Ireland) seem especially ill-suited to “normal” majority democracy because parties in conflict expect that political majorities will not respect the rights and interests of minorities. This is especially true when there is an expectation in society that voting will occur along ethnic lines, such that referenda, political parties, and election outcomes will be the outcome of polls that are essentially an “ethnic census.” This was definitely the reality in Guyana before the elections of November 2011, which dramatically changed the political landscape.
With so many conflicts today fuelled by ethnic or religious ideologies, the core issue over which the war is fought — exclusively defined ethnic identity — is a significant barrier to striking a democratic compromise. When absolute claims for self-determination and independence clash with inflexible positions on territorial integrity, as in Russia/Chechnya, there is little room for compromise on basic principles of democracy as an alternative to war. (Luckily Guyana has never reached this state and all our politicians agree on the need for an overarching “Guyanese” identity.) Democracy requires a basic consensus on a future of living together, which may be absent in many intractable conflicts today.
The perils of introducing democracy after deep conflict or civil war are many and serious. Trust is weak, the issues are emotionally strong, the parties are faction-ridden and incoherent, and much is required of outside parties to guarantee a settlement.
Can democracy work in deeply divided societies? The evidence is mixed. There are relative successes like South Africa to inspire our thinking about democratisation after civil war. The country has managed to sustain procedural democracy while making slow, and seemingly steady, progress toward democratic consolidation. On the other hand, the problems experienced by Cambodia (which suffered setbacks to democracy after a period of failed power sharing), or Bosnia (which has struggled with overcoming ethnic tensions) temper optimism about democracy as an effective post-war conflict management system.
Scholars and practitioners alike agree that two elements that determine the relative success of sustainable democracy in deeply divided societies are well-chosen institutions and public policy practices that promote ongoing inter-group bargaining and negotiation.
Among the types of democracy that must be considered are majority-rule approaches, which feature winner-take-all competitions for political power, and forms of power sharing democracy.
Likewise, well-chosen public policies such as those that promote non-discrimination, equal access of all groups to state resources, and sensitive rules on language use can promote trust, and reduce fears that democratic competition for power will produce intolerant majority governments.

 

---

---