Agonistic peace agreements? Analytical tools and dilemmas

Abstract

Later years have seen the growth of a vibrant theoretical discussion on agonistic peace and the importance of creating space for contestation, plurality, and dissensus post-accord. However, there has been very few attempts at embedding agonistic theory in empirical analyses of peace agreements. This study attends to that lacuna by investigating how agonistic principles can be integrated and investigated in peace agreements. We suggest a threefold set of indicators for assessing the degree to which peace agreements are invested with agonistic dynamics: (1) what types of spaces for interaction are offered post-accord; (2) what forms of inclusion are stipulated; and (3) how is the peace agreement framed in terms of conflict termination and consensus/dissensus? We illustrate how the various indicators could be put into motion in concrete analyses applying them to examples from the Oslo Accords, the Belfast Agreement, and the Colombian Peace Agreement. Finally, we discuss four dilemmas and problematiques of integrating agonistic ideas in peace agreements; the issue of power, the mixing of agonistic and liberal ideals in peace agreements, the principle of ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ and the related double-edged potential of constructive ambiguity and finally the challenges of implementing peace agreements.

7 The web of relations shaping the Philippine peace talks

“…Inspired by the relational peace framework and theorizations of agonistic peace (Shinko 2008;Strömbom 2019;Strömbom et al 2022), one could argue that what is needed in the Philippines is a reform of the political system that would allow insurgent groups to continue their fight with political means, so that violence does not become their only means of influence (Santos 2022). However, such reforms are currently not within sight, particularly not with the new president in place (as of May 2022).…”

Peace beyond the Absence of War: Three Trends in the Study of Positive Peace

“…These indicators were subsequently used in longitudinal surveys to establish whether peace was increasing or decreasing over time in this particular community ( [48], pp. [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76].…”

“…More recent contributions to this line of thinking have stressed the need for an "agonistic" understanding of peace [73][74][75][76][77]. Building on the work of Carl Schmitt and Chantal Mouffe, these authors argue that peace consists of the transformation of antagonistic (openly hostile) conflicts into agonistic ones, in which the opponent is thought of as an "adversary" rather than an enemy.…”

“…In order to achieve this, structures should be put in place that channel conflicts between adversaries along nonviolent paths. Especially the work of Lisa Strömbom and colleagues should be mentioned here, who valiantly try to operationalize this idea into an analytical framework [75][76][77].…”

Introduction

“…In this paradigm, conflicts are accepted as healthy signs of all societies, while post-war power constellations may be contested by non-violent means, and there is space for conflict to transform from antagonism and enmity to agonism and adversity (see e.g. Shinko 2008;Aggestam et al 2015;Björkdahl and Mannergren Selimovic 2016;Rumelili and Çelik 2017;Klem 2018;Strömbom 2020;Çelik 2021;Rumelili and Strömbom 2022;Strömbom et al 2022). 3 Here, other peace concepts operate differently, where everyday peace is mainly seen as hyperlocalized, even if it can scale out (Mac Ginty 2021: 14, 25-50), whereas Millar has developed a framework for trans-scalar peace for analyzing peace across analytical levels, but its threshold for being classified as peace is higher than that of the relational framework (Millar 2021).…”