Why is Liberal Peace-building so Difficult? Some Lessons from Central America

Abstract

According to the liberal peacebuilding paradigm the termination of war is a window of opportunity for fundamental change. Central America has been one of the first laboratories of international policies promoting the threefold transformation process of pacification, democratization and economic liberalization. Although none of the post-war countries (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala) slipped back into war, serious deficits abound that can neither be explained as mere consequences of war nor as 'normal' developmental problems. The paper introduces an analytical framework locating these problems at the intersection between external influences, societal foundations, consequences of war and violence as well as peacebuilding. The comparative analysis of the three transformation processes -democratization, market economy and pacification -shows how path dependent patterns remain dominant while reform processes are fragile. This allows for an explanation of common features as well as differences inside the region.

The Contingent Nature of Democracy Promotion

“…In her study of the fragile democracies of Central America, Sabine Kurtenbach argues that the key to instituting reforms is not found in enhancing the ‘repressive capacity of the state’, but in inclusion and participation (Kurtenbach, , p. 106). She argues that while we have seen a predominance of short‐term strategies being pushed by ‘external actors looking for exit options and needing to adjust their resources to global necessities or priorities’, what is really needed is a long‐term, patient approach that will allow reform‐oriented ‘drivers of change’ to align themselves with the global democracy movement (Kurtenbach, , p. 108). Finally, in a globalized world, we must be aware that without a good deal of care, democracy promotion efforts may be overshadowed by the imperatives of the market.…”

Evolución de las percepciones de las élites políticas en democracias frágiles: los casos de El Salvador, Guatemala y Nicaragua

“…También adquirieron un gran protagonismo un nutrido grupo de actores de la comunidad internacional, incluyendo Estados Unidos, la Unión Soviética y algunos países europeos. Los actores externos jugaron un papel particularmente preeminente en Guatemala, donde los Acuerdos de Paz fueron, en parte, resultado de la presión internacional (Kurtenbach, 2010). Los partidos políticos más importantes que se consolidaron fueron fruto de la mutación de las organizaciones presentes en el escenario bélico, incluyendo el Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN), el Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) y la Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG), así como diversos grupos conectados a la contrainsurgencia paramilitar, tal como Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA) o el Frente Republicano Guatemalteco (FRG) (Lehoucq, 2012).…”

Judicial Reform – A Neglected Dimension of SSR in El Salvador

“…6. Critics of liberal peace-building strategies (Barnett and Zürcher 2009;Kurtenbach 2010;Mac Ginty and Richmond 2013; Newman 2013; Jarstad and Belloni 2012) highlight a set of problems such as the lack of local ownership and the dominance of technocratic approaches.…”