Navigating Inclusion in Transitions from Conflict: The Formalised Political Unsettlement

Abstract

The project of ensuring that political settlements are inclusive is key to attempts to navigate transitions from conflict over the last quarter of a century or so. Examining such transitions, we point to the emergence of the ‘formalised political unsettlement’ as a persistent outcome. The formalised political unsettlement translates the disagreement at the heart of the conflict into a set of political and legal institutions for continuing negotiation. As the conditions of its emergence are unlikely to change and the formalised political unsettlement may be here to stay, we point to the opportunities for navigating between elite inclusion and broader societal inclusion that it offers. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Functional Coexistence in Intractable Conflict: A Decades‐long View of Conflict Intervention

“…Such a long timeframe is suggested because a significant passage of time necessary for a generational shift represents a useful indicator of the staying power of this distinct subtype of negative peace. It is inferred from previous studies such as Bell and Pospisil (2017), Feldman (2012), and Volkan (2004) that the endurance of a conflict system over a generation indicates its robustness and adaptability to outlive leadership transitions, regime changes, outside pressure, and possible longitudinal shifts in the public mindsets on conflict experience. 20. Coexistence is an evolving relationship in which two or more parties, either individuals or groups, interact in a shared geographic and/or social-relational space.…”

Illiberal peace-building in Asia: a comparative overview

“…First, political settlements 'unsettle' as much as they settle. 29 Second, they do not end violence; rather, they may be intrinsically violent, may involve instrumental uses of violence, or may prompt violent contestation. 30 Third, political settlements are also critically shaped by non-elites and contestation over inclusion.…”

Human Security: Practical Possibilities

“…The consequence is that while violence may be reduced, as the armed groups no longer fight against each other and cannot target civilians with violence as easily by framing it in conflict terms, the agreement essentially freezes the ethnic or sectarian polarisation in time and leads to the various parties continuing to enrich themselves from state coffers at the expense of the population. Poposil and Bell call these agreements 'political unsettlements' [6]. They establish power sharing agreements among the ethnic and religious warlords, ensuring their immunity from prosecution and continued predation, but have few benefits for the society at large, with the consequences for the state including dysfunctional governance, the neglect of public services, and the absence of the rule of law.…”

“…The civil society room and the women's advisory board in the Syria talks are a good example of the latter. 6 Because new wars are decentralised and fragmented, it is always possible to identify what might be called 'islands of civility' where local authorities have succeeded in avoiding violence, for example, places like Tuzla in Bosnia, Hama in Syria, or Novi Pazar in Serbia. External efforts should focus on how to sustain and replicate such cases.…”