Over the last several decades, numerous civil wars have ended as a consequence of negotiated settlements. Following many of these settlements, rebel groups have made the transition to political party and competed in democratic elections. In this paper, I assess the legacy of civil war on the performance of rebel groups as political parties. I argue that the ability of rebels to capture and control territory and their use of violence against the civilian population are two key factors explaining the performance of rebels as political parties. I test these hypotheses against the case of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) in El Salvador using one-way ANOVA and multivariate regression analyses. In analyzing the FMLN's performance in the 1994 "elections of the century," I find that, as a political party, the FMLN benefited both from the state's violently disproportionate response and its ability to hold territory during the war.Keywords El Salvador . Guerrillas . Civil war . Elections According to Fearon and Laitin (2003), there were 127 civil wars from 1945 to 1999. While the majority of all civil wars end in military victory by government or rebel forces, roughly 25% have ended as a result of negotiated settlements (Licklider 1995). These negotiated settlements typically involve not only a cessation of armed conflict and the disarmament and demobilization of former combatants, but social, economic, political, and military reforms. The settlements are designed to facilitate the transformation of a system based upon violent political conflict between armed groups to one based upon nonviolent political conflict between competing political parties. Unlike those civil wars that end through military victory, these negotiated settlements do not allow either the government or the rebel group to claim outright victory and impose its will upon the defeated. Elections are frequently used to determine who will rule in these post-civil war societies because they are supposed St Comp Int Dev (2010) 45:104-124