Recent studies have asked why elites resort to violence, yet many overlook the process and dynamics of mobilizing violence. How do politicians convince their supporters to fight? This article argues that in multi-ethnic and democratizing societies where land and property rights are weak and politicized, land grievances can provide leaders with a powerful tool to organize electoral violence. We develop a theory to show how land grievances can give rise to violent mobilization when leaders frame elections as a threat to the land security of supporters or an opportunity to reclaim land or strengthen land rights. Conversely, land grievances are ineffective when citizens do not believe that elections signal a credible threat to their land security or an opportunity to strengthen land rights. We further specify how the type of land grievance shapes the logic and form of violent action. Grievances based on land insecurity shape a preemptive logic of violence, while grievances based on competing land claims often shape an opportunistic logic of electoral violence. The article examines the validity of our theory using a comparative case study between zones of escalation and non-escalation of violence during post-electoral crises in Kenya (2007-08) and Côte d'Ivoire (2010-11). By observing the variation between positive and negative cases, the article identifies factors that foment and constrain the mobilization of election violence.

IntroductionMost of the literature on terrorist attacks’ health impacts has focused on direct victims rather than on distal consequences in the overall population. There is limited knowledge on how terrorist attacks can be detrimental to access to healthcare services. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of terrorist attacks on the utilisation of maternal healthcare services by examining the case of Burkina Faso.MethodsThis longitudinal quasi-experimental study uses multiple interrupted time series analysis. Utilisation of healthcare services data was extracted from the National Health Information System in Burkina Faso. Data span the period of January 2013–December 2018 and include all public primary healthcare centres and district hospitals. Terrorist attack data were extracted from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project. Negative binomial regression models were fitted with fixed effects to isolate the immediate and long-term effects of terrorist attacks on three outcomes (antenatal care visits, of facility deliveries and of cesarean sections).ResultsDuring the next month of an attack, the incidence of assisted deliveries in healthcare facilities is significantly reduced by 3.8% (95% CI 1.3 to 6.3). Multiple attacks have immediate effects more pronounced than single attacks. Longitudinal analysis show that the incremental number of terrorist attacks is associated with a decrease of the three outcomes. For every additional attack in a commune, the incidence of cesarean sections is reduced by 7.7% (95% CI 4.7 to 10.7) while, for assisted deliveries, it is reduced by 2.5% (95% CI 1.9 to 3.1) and, for antenatal care visits, by 1.8% (95% CI 1.2 to 2.5).ConclusionTerrorist attacks constitute a new barrier to access of maternal healthcare in Burkina Faso. The exponential increase in terrorist activities in West Africa is expected to have negative effects on maternal health in the entire region.

Abstract:Although many scholars have noted the salience of mobility throughout the African continent, there has been little systematic investigation into the link between migration and conflict. Most scholarship has tended to see migration as primarily a by-product of conflict and not as a security issue in its own right. In analyzing and contrasting the different migration–conflict trajectories across two similar case studies—Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana—this article attempts to develop an empirically informed theoretical framework for understanding the nexus between migration and conflict in Africa and to shed light on key intervening variables linking migration processes with violent outcomes.

No abstract

This paper revisits the World Bank's land law reform agenda in Africa by focusing on two central issues: (1) land law reform as a tool for resolving land conflicts, and (2) the role of land law reform in addressing gender inequalities. While the Bank's recent land report provides insights for improving land governance in Africa, it fails to acknowledge the exploitative and contentious politics that often characterize customary land tenure systems, and the local power dynamics that undermine the ability of marginalized groups to secure land rights. Using insights from recent fieldwork, the paper analyses the links between land law reform and conflict in Ghana, and the gendered dynamics of reforming land governance in Tanzania. These “crucial cases” illustrate how land law reform can provoke conflicts over land and threaten the rights of vulnerable populations (e.g. migrants and women) when customary practices are uncritically endorsed as a means of improving land governance. As such, the paper concludes with a series of recommendations on how to navigate the promise and perils of customary practices in the governance of land.