Pushing the doors open: Nonviolent action and inclusion in peace negotiations

Abstract

Whereas previous research shows that peace agreements which include a broad segment of society are more likely to lead to sustainable peace, little effort has gone into explaining inclusion itself. We address this gap in the literature by providing the first large-N study to examine the causes of inclusive peace negotiations across civil wars. We argue that civil society actors can gain leverage through mobilization of civilian protest, or build trust through dialogue efforts, thereby enhancing the chances of inclusion of non-warring actors at the negotiation table. The argument is examined by analysing unique and new monthly data on peacemaking efforts in all intrastate armed conflicts in Africa and the Americas, 1989–2018, including measures beyond mere nominal participation, such as whether civil society actors or political parties had substantive roles as either mediators or full participants at the peace talks. Our findings show that protests by civil society actors increase the likelihood that non-warring actors will have a seat at the negotiation table, whereas we find no such effect concerning dialogue efforts. The article contributes by providing new insights into how nonviolent action can shape peace processes by opening the doors to negotiations and is thus part of an emerging research agenda that seeks to bring together the fields of civil resistance and inclusive peace processes.

Guest Editors’ introduction: Nonviolent resistance and its discontents

“…These findings shed light on the reasons why mobilization by identifiable political groups rarely elicits sympathy or support from their partisan opponents in a deeply polarized society. Furthermore, these findings also generate greater insight into the power of mobilizing diverse coalitions across class, partisan identity, gender, religion and age, as Dahlum (2023) and Nilsson & Svensson (2023) demonstrate in this special issue.…”

“…Our contributions feature a wide range of methodological and empirical approaches, demonstrating the pluralistic approaches to these topics that have emerged in recent years. Among the contributions, we see the use of novel datasets (Dahlum, 2023; Kang, 2023; Nilsson & Svensson, 2023; Shay, 2023), qualitative process tracing (Clarke, 2023), observational data analysis (Cunningham, 2023; Dorff, Adcox & Konet, 2023; Turner, 2023), field surveys (Croco, Cunningham & Vincent, 2023; Grewal, Kilavuz & Kubinec, 2023) and mixed methodologies (Sombatpoonsiri, 2023). Methodological pluralism leads to more generalizable findings and greater engagement with a broader research and policy community.…”

Civilian Protest in Civil War: Insights from Côte d’Ivoire

“…Third, the study suggests that permanently putting an end to civil wars that see frequent wartime civilian protest may demand greater investments in anchoring peace among civilians and demobilizing wartime protest networks (Nilsson and Svensson 2023). There are good reasons to believe that wartime protest brokers and social networks can leave lasting legacies, and both form a basis for strengthening peace and democracy as well as become breeding grounds for radical postwar politics.…”

“…Existing research explores both the causes and consequences of nonviolent civilian action in civil war (Avant et al 2019; Chenoweth, Hendrix, and Hunter 2019; Dorff 2019; Masullo 2021; Vüllers and Krtsch 2020). Incipient evidence shows that nonviolent civilian action can encourage and shape conflict resolution (Abbs 2021; Dudouet 2021; Nilsson and Svensson 2023), make rebel governance more responsive (Arjona 2016; Rubin 2020; van Baalen 2021), and limit violence against civilians (Kaplan 2017; León 2017).…”

Peacemaking through the lens of participation: Revisiting the 2016 Colombian peace accord

“…Power‐sharing arrangements commonly engage former insurgent parties in peacebuilding processes, but inclusiveness has become the paramount strategy to engage civil society in peacemaking overall. Nilsson and Svensson (2023) state that the inclusion of civil society actors in peace accords is common and vital to anchor the peace or draft the terms of the agreement. Cuhadar and Paffenholz (2020) point out that three decades ago, the pioneers of a multilayered peace process fostered connecting different levels of society with the so‐called “circum‐negotiation” or “public peace.” Paffenholz and Zartman (2019) introduce political parties, armed actors, and processes to map a dialog methodology to disclose how to engage citizens in a peace process, in addition to the elites.…”