Exams for Peace and Conflicts.pdf

75 Pages
51 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Peace, Conflict and Justice Studies
Course
PCJ260Y1
Professor
Sara Cumming
Semester
Winter

Description
COURSE SUMMARY 1) Conflict to negative peace (peace as a moment) ---> Negative Peace to Positive Peace (peace as a process) gradual movement to post conflict 2) Democracy as social justice after conflict (once we enter the process of democracy, we offer methods of dealing with, injustice, during movements in the democratic process. In democracy we use liberalism to deal with injustices, but these methods are inadequate as they theoretically cause structural injustices 3) This leads us to critiques of liberalism as normative standards- (this process is outlined by Paris) 1. Negotiating peace: getting to the end of conflict KEY TERMS/DEFINITIONS Peace-making, -enforcing, and -building - The moment of the cessation of violence/end of conflict · Peace: the restoration of the monopoly of the means of violence to the state - Puzzle vs. Problem Peace as a puzzle? (Burton, last semster) ○ ●Peace building is the process of rebuilding and state consolidation after conflict- a process that begins after a negotiation has taken place, to return the state to a norm ●draws directly on UN reading ●Peace-Making: the parties stop talking with guns, and start with words, this is a non coercive way of bring them to the table, which may last a while before there is any progress ●Peace enforcement: now using force to make peace, including using military. The security council comes into play ●Conflict-- >peace making/enforcement--->peace-keeping--->peace building ●Stedman: peacebuilding is a process ● FIVE WAYS TO THINK ABOUT PEACE ○ Five ways to think about peace: Harmony, Unity (Concordia), Order, Discordia (Diversity) and Justice ○ Peace as harmony refers to a mystical type of experience, hardly achievable, devotes wellness, the divine, this type is rather undesirable in a political or social setting because people have needs, that will inevitably clash, so for those who critique this type of peace, it is seen as solitary ○ Unity: being of the same mind, distinct from harmony because it allows for ingroup sameness and outgroup hostility, hinges where the boundary is for who is in and who is out. The boundary can be set at a family, a nation, even humanity is a boundary (animals outside, against humans) characteristic of traditional society ○ Order: stability, predictability, safety, distinctly for politics, its efficiency is measured by a counter factual analysis, by the violence that is being prevented. Seen as preserving of the status quo, and is clearly connected to states, realist and liberalist scholars work within this paradigm of peace ○ Discordia: peace that rests on the clashes of needs but that they are maintained and controlled so that they do not spur conflict, so conflict and diversity act as catalysts for growth, peace is a process, a network of relationships full of energy and conflict ○ Justice: self-explanatory (Galtung = positive PEACE (ie. adding social justice)= ABSENCE OF VIOLENCE; negative peace (ie. taking away violence) = government has monopoly over violence) DIfference between peace making and peace building??? peace making is during the conflict, peace building is after conflict. * Process Of Conflict and Peace (Important) 1. conflict prevention, > 2. conflict, > 3. peace making/peace enforcement, > 4. peacekeeping, and > 5. lastly peacebuilding (peacebuilding intersects all of them). - Peace building, history of (post-conflict) - building institutions and processes Peace building starts at the end of the WW2 (1945)? formation of international institutions: league of nations (failed), WB, UN, etc. Americans rebuilt Europe in order to have a sphere of control (liberalism) def.: building the capacity for peace = institutions, rule of law, law enforcement - Peace keeping Suez (1956) intervention > Bosnia, Rwanda works on the assumption that there was peace. Inter-state conflict, meant to divide borders - major transition from inter-state to intra-state. - creating conditions for peace to be maintained - peace making (during the conflict - stand in middle in order to stop fighting, take away the guns) cold war 1989 - things are falling apart and you are trying to establish intervention - Peace enforcement intervention (disaster in Somalia) > thinking about Peace building ● Paris: Liberal (democratic) peace thesis critique - contrary to peace as justice ○critique of the motives behind Huntington’s third wave ● Takeaways: peace as order v. peace as justice ● Galtung ○Peace as the absence of violence, not conflict (violence is not realizing potential, conflict does not necessarily limit potential in theory) ■negative v. positive peace ○His peace can work in all spaces and regions ○2 types of violence (DEFINITION OF VIOLENCE) ■Violence is the gap between potential and actual realization of human action. Cause of gap can be somatic or psychic (of the body or of the mind), note that it is only ‘violence’ if it is somehow preventable. TB was not violence in the 14th century because we couldn’t prevent or cure it. Now it is because we can. ■Two main articulations: personal / structural ● Violence can be (intentional or unintentional), (manifest or latent), (physical or psychological), (with objects or without objects) - My rational for de-coupling intentional/unintentional with personal is that I think structural can be intended or unintended as well, and likewise, I think personal violence can be manifest or latent (especially when you consider later in the article he talks about brainwashing as a form of violence - I kid you not) ~SL ■Two modes of violence ●Anotomical (@ body parts) / Physiological (@ processes of life) Peacebuilding - “Peace-building is an action to identify and support structures that would tend to solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse in conflict” – Boutros Boutros-Ghali (UN Secretary General 3 SGs ago) (week 13 lecture) Peace enforcement: Coercive action undertaken with the authorization of the United Nations Security Council to end armed hostilities, restore a cease-fire, or enforce a peace agreement. It includes diplomatic and military measures, the latter usually being carried out by a third-party or multinational force. Enforcement operations do not require the consent of the affected parties. (from the United States Institute of Peace) Peacekeeping: Traditionally, action undertaken to preserve peace where fighting has been halted and to assist in implementing agreements achieved by the peacemakers. Typically authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter 6 or 7 of the UN Charter, these operations usually include lightly armed military personnel and have the consent of the parties. The scope of peacekeeping activities has gradually broadened since the end of the Cold War to include civilian and humanitarian activities such as food distribution, electoral assistance, refugee return and reintegration, civilian protection and prevention of gender-based violence, restoration of transportation and other basic services, and establishing safe havens. In recent years, peacekeepers have been placed in areas where fighting is continuing, and their role is more to position themselves between hostile parties, a situation in which there is often a mismatch between their mandate and their capability. (United States Institute of Peace) Peacemaking: Activities to halt ongoing conflicts and bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter 6 of the Charter of the United Nations: “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or agreements, or other peaceful means.” Peacemaking typically involves the process of negotiating an agreement between contending parties, often with the help of a third-party mediator (U.S. Institute of Peace) 2. Process of Transition: From agreement to democracy ●Huntington’s Waves ○ First wave: very long 17th -19th century democracy achieved in long social processes culminating in revolutions (Britain and France) ○ New demands for voice, representation came out of new industrialization, urbanization, wealth etc. ○ Second wave: after WW2 democracies are imposed on Germany, Japan and Italy, and is adopted in countries who are rejecting colonialism and imperialism ○ Third wave: begins in April 1974 with the military overthrow of the Portuguese dictatorship What changes occurred for the third wave to occur? 1. Problems with legitimacy occurring from economic problems– if you’re not appealing to popular legitimacy you strike a bargain. But a loss of legitimacy is hard to recover from 2. Rise in economic growth creating a middle class 3. Changes in the Catholic church 4. New policies of External Actors- Changes in IMF, World Bank, EU which leads to democracy being the only model you can appeal 5. Snow ball affect- demonstrations, protests, technology ● Games of transitionPRZEWORSKI ) : ● 4 groups of elites, 2 on the side of the regime: Hard Liners and Soft Liners (reformers), 2 on the side of the opposition: The radicals and the moderates. The games of transition are the struggles between these four groups to make society in their ideal. For effective democratic transition the soft liners must coopt the hard liners. The moderates must coopt the radicals and the two less intense forces must work together for a peaceful transition. ● Hardliners- provide people with economic stability, and if its not enough we’re just going to repress them, seeking out possible opposition groups ● Softliners start consultation with the opposition, use a threat of a coup to limit the opposition ● Doesn’t think legitimacy has anything to do with the breakdown of hegemony ● Unlike Huntington ● Only when collective options are available are political choices available to isolated individuals (page 107) The Democratic moment - Kaplan and Sisk ● Kaplan makes three claims ○1) democracy is value neutral it is not inherently good- if the will of the majority is good the policy will be good ○2) democracy emerges successfully only as a capstone to other social and economic achievements, it is an organic outgrowth of development ○3) based on these conditions, most states are not ready for democracy ●Democracy can’t happen until a certain level of development has been reached, but it can also be subverted at a high level of development - hence, democracy is just a moment (The point is that, rather than approaching democracy as a checkmark on a list a la Huntington, it must be seen as a process linked to positive changes in social and economic conditions) Agreement with Paris? ●Sisk: ○ The foundations of democracy require the acceptance of the uncertainty of the electoral outcomes, and in order for this acceptance to emerge groups need to have mutual security - “institutionalized distrust” ○ Means that the ascendance of one group needs to not mean the assimilation or extinction of the other ○ Two approaches of political engineering in which minority groups and can enjoy security and representation – power sharing approaches ■Consociational (Lipjart) – relies on elite cooperation/accommodation, minority veto, proportionality, and segmented group autonomy/subsidiarity (decisions for a group are made at the government level closest to the group) ● Problem: does not overcome the dividing lines ■Integrative (Horowitz) – relies on fragmentation, decentralization, and vote pooling ● Done by manipulating electoral district lines so that there is never a clear majority based along the dividing lines, people have to stop voting along the lines which they just fought ● Added element of moderation ● Problem: no empirical evidence of working ○arguing that democracy is not a good thing in societies that are not able to deal with it ●Snyder: ○ democratic transitions that happen too quickly or when a country is not ready can cause conflict ○ two reasons: ■popular rivalries - ancient hatreds (wrong) ■elite persuasion - during the early stages of transition elites utilize nationalism to gain mass support/power ● can be tied to a critique of the consociational model 3. Peace as Justice: State Centric Transitional Justice Transitional Justice > transition into the process of peace building. Ins Fo tru Type cu me s nts Retributive Guilty, perpetrators, societTrials, purges, lustrations and victims indirectly Conciliatory Victims, society, perpetrators Files, TRC Restorative I Victims, descendants Restitution of property Restorative II Presently disadvantaged, Acknowledgement, compensation for survivors, beneficiaries material/cultural loss History, representation of Commemorative Memorials, education, reform silenced voices ● Retributive Justice: when a new society constitutes a new rule of law, bringing the guilty to trial and vindicates those who have been wronged, we condemn what has happened in the past, its aim is to seek out the guilty, revenge, but the trials should not underline the principles of judgment or violate the associated agreement, us and them ○Stan, Mcadams - Eastern Europe ● Commemorative Justice: involves the rewriting of history, very political process ○Torpey ● Restorative Justice 1:comes chronologically first – the first generation after conflict, involves restitution, fully victim-centered and state headed, the former system is judged in its entirety rather than guilty individuals ○Torpey, Jeff Spinner-Halev ● Restorative Justice 2:focus broadens in that the direct perpetrators and victims may have died already and those that are held responsible are those who still benefit, challenge is to establish the continuation and obligation and the continuance of harm ● Conciliatory Justice:less concerned with the guilty, the focus moves towards the victims, might mean the opening of archives, TRCs are the most famous tool of reconciliation ○Hayner, Jodi Halpern RECONCILIATION ● Restoring a relationship as a political project a.Contradictory in two senses ■ We are bringing the past back to life – are we turning back the clock/erasing the hurt? Clearly cannot work like this ■ How is one to restore something that never was? ● Truth and Reconciliation Commissions ■ 5 aims of TRCs - Hayner: ■acknowledgement of past wrongs (repentance and forgiveness) ■Hearing, respecting and responding to victims and survivors (reparations) ■Assigning institutional responsibility and recommend reforms ■ Ending impunity – holding people accountable (accountability) ■Sanctioned fact-finding – setting the record straight/rectifying history, to uncover secrets or to just speak openly about secrets that everybody knows, important because it changes the parameters of discourse around a country’s histor(search for truth) b. ■ these 5 things have a restorative effect and combine a comprehensive vision of restorative political reconciliation ■ differs from trials where the point is to establish guilt c.5 arms of TRCs ■ victim-centred approach - conciliatory ■ ending practices of impunity - retributive( Punishment but this must be differentiated from the court)???? ■ institutionalized responsibility and reform - restorative ■rewrite the history books - commemorative ■(WHAT’S THE FIFTH ONE?) Reparations d.Limitations of TRC – what are they not capable of doing? ■Must work within the context of the transition ■Have an underlying assumption of an agreement – undemocratic in the assumption of one single truth ■Amnesty - trading truth for justice? Who can decide this is a fair trade? ICC as a way of overcoming this? ■Carrying over of prejudices into the new system – e.g. conceptions of rape as not a form of violence ■In emphasizing individual responsibility it can obscure institutional responsibility – also there is the practical problem of needing someone to run the country, if you disband an entire institution (e.g. police force) that is found guilty you will likely have to hire them back in order to create a new police force e.Mamdani and Jung ●Reconciliation- a heaven where there is forgiveness and justice, this is a utopia, another contradiction Contradictory in two senses: 1) says we’re bringing the past back to life, so are we turning back the clocks, bypassing? 2) how is one to restore something that never was · Political ruptures creates seven types of suffering 1) brute harm (physical, harm is intentional) 2) destruction of trust (ideal that is not being lived up to, and arbitrary application of law) 3) not knowing of the source or reason or perpetrator 4) exclusion from the community to which justice is owed (stripped of rights, not a citizen) 5) exclusion from the community of sufferers (denial of the right you have a right to feel pain) 6) impunity of perpetrators 7) failure of perpetrators to make amends · These seven different types of suffering show how complex political reconciliation is Main Tasks: Search for truth, reparation, accountability, repentance and forgiveness ●Halper and Weinstein a.peace-building looks at state level of analysis when we really should be focusing on the individual/social level b.3 factors needed to commit war crimes: dehumanization, routinization and authorization c.therefore rehumanizing the other is key to reconciliation - empathy is needed to achieve this REPARATIONS POLITICS Torpey ● categorizing reparations: ○symbolic - Commemorative justice ○economic - restorative justice - negating the symbolic (substantive?) ○cultural, legal: are conditional on the state’s choice in pursuing a symbolic or economic framework, moral approach or legal approach ● transitional justice as a continuum - not static, always shifting focus between different frameworks ● notes the difference between “reparation” and “reparations” Spinner-Halev ● Three types of injustices: ○current- immediate (no historical reason for injustice) ○historical - no one currently living was a part of the injustice ○enduring injustices - (what we need to address) a historic one, which is still present and manifests in current forms of injustice - Ex. Slavery in the US ● One of the features that unites all cases of enduring injustice is the “failure of liberalism” to remedy them ○Question of liberal politics – it is about juridical legal equality, property ownership rights and a modest redistribution of wealth ○Reparations under liberal politics means money ○Some harms cannot be financially compensated for and therefore cannot be repaired through liberal politics ○The memorialization and acknowledgement required by some injustices is outside of the realm of liberalism ●Collective memory: ○ Only compensating with monetary reparations has limited effects. It takes away from the collective narrative (identity) of the group as their claims for reparations fade over time. ○ How can the liberal state compensate for the “holiness” of people’s land that has been taken away? ○ Liberal language does not capture the acknowledgment of people’s claims (Armenians) ○ Collective memory requires that we think outside of the box of liberal politics ○ In pluralistic societies, these identities need to be mediated ○ Emphasizing collective memory casts the light on the failures of economic compensation – in this sense liberal politics is not equipped to judicate these claims and we need something else ○ Acknowledging the minority narrative requires disrupting the collective memory of the dominant society – problematic ■Points out the importance of who gets to write history ■problematic because of the ‘no more harm’ principle (ex. how to repair Rybna 9 situation?) 4. Problems with Liberal Society: After Democracy ●The liberal state has had historical problems producing and managing difference of any kind - To organize life in such a diverse society the liberal state must be neutral ○ A. It will not espouse substantive values ○ B. It will treat all groups who hold substantive values equally ●Liberalism has 4 principles ○ Personal freedom – absence of coercion ○ Limited government – the state is to serve society not be an end in itself ○ Equality of rights – all must abide by the same laws ○ Consent of the governed ●Liberalism therefore claims to have no goal and no fundamental truths in itself - BUT liberal practice is defined by a wholesale exclusion and explothe above principles have historically applied only to property-owning white males ○through the practice of wholesale exclusion the liberal state is implicated in the production of minorities CULTURE ● Protection v. Privatization ●protection: state centric, categories defined by the state, creates minorities and need for tolerance ○Eg US. doesn’t define the dominant culture but there is a dominant culture which, by logical extension, does exclude all groups outside of this dominant culture (protecting the church from the state) eg. of protection ●privatization: public secular space (culture pushed to the private/personal, keep your culture at home) ○Eg. France. (protecting the state from the church) eg. of privatization ○In the public space you must act like a French citizen ● Kymlicka: ○two types of multicultural states ■multinational states: ●national groups that have claims of self-determination and group autonomy - territorial concentration/claim ●often relevant to colonized peoples but not necessarily ●initial parties to the colonizing encounter ●e.g. Yugoslavia (“Who moves to Yugoslavia?”) ■polyethnic states: ●ethnic groups that immigrated by ‘choice’, have distinct culture and language but no defined claim to autonomy/territoriality - no claim to ownership ○since historical exclusion occurred along the cultural line and culture is necessary for autonomy, societies need to grant differentiated rights to aggrieved groups to help them protect their culture ○equality requires differentiated rights because groups did not start at the same position ○ promotes protection policy for multinational states and privatization policy for polyethnic states (we owe immigrants less) ○ concept of differentiated rights as a critique of liberal society? ● managing differences: representation, redistribution, recognition ○ representation: what is being demanded is the inclusion in the political citizenship, people want to be part of governing and have the voice to give consent – basic part of democracy ■ solution: inclusion of minorities in political citizenship ○ redistribution: Rests on the socio-economic understanding on injustice rooted in the political economical structure of society – exploitation, economic marginalization, and deprivation (Torpey - economic reparations) ■ solution: dedifferentiation ○ recognition:most recent historically and its understanding of injustic, injustice is rooted in the social patterns of communication and representation that are rendering minority groups invisible (Torpey - symbolic reparations) ■ solution: change the patterns of representation in society, differentiate groups - redraw the borders of differentiation ○ *inherent tension between redistribution and recognition - do we emphasize or de-value the group? Problem Solution Lack of inclusion in the Representation governance Include in public sphere structure/process socio-economic Redistribution disparities/injustice De-differentiation some groups are becoming provide some form of cultural Recognition Invisible recognition through differentiation of groups Challenges to the liberal assumptions of culture ○Liberalism is itself a cultural formation ○ Liberalism produces cultures, subjectivities, and people ○ Liberalism uses the discourse of tolerance to produce the ‘other’ ●*legitimacy of categorizing authority crumbles if liberalism is itself a cultural formation ●Appiah: 3 understandings of culture (predominantly American) ○ common ○ national ○ dominant ●Jung’s two critiques: ■What is culture and why should it matter so much? ●Cultural identities are a political project to categorize people ■Culture is what your essence is all about ● Culture is constructed ■Identity changes over time - many histories beliefs and stories are borrowed and inaccurate ■Social categories are constructed: religion/sexual preference are a result of constructed boundaries/norms in society ■People are multiply situated - a gay black jew - some identity markers are elevated while others aren’t ■State defines groups through identity politics (recognition) and interest politics (mostly economic) shaping political affiliations ● political identity is advanced through boundary making ● cultural identity is used to reconstitute terms of struggle ○ Takeaways: Culture is sociologically and politically constructed. Therefore it can’t sort us. ○ Given all this, multicultural claims to justice are shaky. TOLERANCE ●Tolerance is a strategy of coping, bearing and enduring - It’s necessitated by something we consider repelling ●gives those who tolerate a sense of virtue, not a conversation of equals. ●Movement of tolerance from acts to people. ○Brown reading: Jews v. Women ■Jews must be given everything as individuals and nothing as a group - the group acts are the problem that must be tolerated ■Women just suck - what must be tolerated is inherently part of their body ●Tolerance is given when the state doesn’t want to grant full equality. it is given in exchange for assimilation and is based on superiority. IMMIGRATION ●3 models of integration: ○multiculturalism - Canada/Netherlands/Amurrica ■Easy access to social and political rights ■while at same time facilitating expressions of foreign identity ■ They expressively value diversity and see culture as essential to a person’s being (essentialized view - critiqued by Jung) ■*complicated by need for uniformity in liberal public sphere. ■groups live along each other, not with - no way of defining proper integration ○Assimilationist - France ■Immigrants/minorities are expected to assimilate to dominant culture ■involves degree of acceptance of minorities by dominant society (more than just tolerance, but willingness to accept and integrate) ■3 commitments of assimilationist ● Liberal/republican traditions subsume cultural belonging under civic one ● Commitment to equality of rights + obligations ○you can have culture but state wont exclusively protect it ● Secularism - state protected from religion ■It works socially/culturally but not economically - French muslims are most socially integrated in world but still using food stamps. SHITTY. :( ○Segregationist (Germany) ■ No explicit policy for immigrant integration ■ Migrant workers - expected to work and then return home ■ Example of germany who had highest immigrant acceptance yet didn’t acknowledge till 2000. LIBERALISM AS CULTURE ● Promotes culture of individualism - culture of entrepreneurship ● must be entwined with some version of ‘national culture’ ● Liberal Orders affirm non-liberal practices ○What’s up with differentiated rights? ● Works as Culture! ○produces subjects’ beliefs, relationships, relations ○produces certain ‘kind’ of person, reproduces without offering explicit consent ○re-produces itself through cultural-like transmission ○***claims universality yet is a boundary in itself. ■ this universality and claim to value-neutrality is what makes it capable of cultural imperialism and legitimizes intervention in the world - but if we understand liberalism as not inherently good (kaplans critique) and a cultural formation in itself this legitimacy crumbles. - Distributive Justice - Lustration - purging members of old regime from position of power/office. Active involvement in former government = exclusion from new order = form of punishment - problem: lead to re-emergence of old political conflict and painting the image of who is guilty and who is not - makes perpetrators in to victims. · - International Law - systemic injustice - Democratization - Culture - Liberalism culture, takes away our rights to interfere - Tolerance and multiculturalism UN CHAPTERS 6 AND 7 Sections of the United Nations Charter that deal most directly with dispute resolution. Chapter 6, “Pacific Settlement of Disputes,” stipulates that parties to a dispute should use peaceful methods of resolving disputes, such as negotiation and mediation. It authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations, but they are generally considered advisory and not binding. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions Chapter 7, “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression,” authorizes more forceful methods such as economic coercion and severance of diplomatic relations. Should those measures prove inadequate, the Security Council may then “take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security".The informal term Chapter 6 and a Half refers to traditional UN peacekeeping operations that fall between the two (from the United States Institute of Peace/ Wikipedia) 5. Reading summaries WEEK 13 Dorfman, Ariel. “Epitaph for another day.” The New Statesman 140. 5069 (Sept 5, 2011): 57-59 “Because I grew up as a child learning English in New York and spent my adolescence and young adulthood falling in love with Spanish in Santiago, because I am as much American as I am Latin American, I can't help taking that parallel destruction of the innocent...” Comparing Sept. 11 1973 and Sept. 11 2001: bombings in Santiago and New York. Contrasts the Chilean and American reactions a“contrasting models of how to react to a collective trauma”. (Also mentions 1906 non-violent resistance by Gandhi) ●Considers these events in a personal context (grew up in NYC, spent adolescence and young adulthood in Santiago). The events “constitute the twin cornerstones of (his) hybrid ”.entity Questions after collective trauma: ○How to pursue justice for the dead and reparation for the living? ○Can the balance of a broken world be restored by giving in to the understandable thirst for revenge against our enemies? ○Are we not in danger of becoming like them, in danger of turning into their perverse shadow, do we not risk being governed by our rage? 11 Sept. 2001: 9/11 is a test the US failed: the fear generated by a few (terrorists) led to a series of actions that far exceeded the original damage caused ○two unnecessary wars ○resources diverted from environment and education ○thousands dead, millions displaced ○erosion of civil rights in American ○use of torture and rendition abroad (gave carte blanche to other regimes) ○increased the already-bloated national security state 11 Sept. 1973: Chilean armed forces bombed the presidential palace in Santiago as the first stage of a coup against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende (killed later that day). General Pinochet took power and “if ever there was a justification for taking up arms against a tyrannical overlord, our struggle met every criterion” but used two decades of non-violence instead. Chile did not meet violence with violence: the people and resistance leaders used active nonviolence against Gen. Pinochet's regime. Example of how to create lasting peace out of loss and untold suffering. 11 Sept. 1906: Mahatma Gandhi lead non-violent resistance (of thousands of Indians) in Johannesburg to “an unjust and discriminatory pre-apartheid ordinance.” Chile's peaceful resistance echoes this. Dorfman's Hopeful 11 Sept. Epitaph: “Violence will prevail over violence, only when someone can prove to me that darkness can be dispelled by darkness.” -- Gandhi Questions? Ask Kay. (Is this article about politics of national trauma?) ______________________________________________________________________________ ---- United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines. New York, United Nations, 2008: Part I (pages 11-43). Available online: http://www.peacekeepingbestpractices.unlb.org/PBPS/Pages/Public/viewprimarydoc.a spx?docid=481 What is this document? -Aims to set out the guiding principles, core objectives and the main factors contributing to success in the field for UN peacekeeping operations -For those preparing to serve on the field, this document provides a basis for development of training materials -Drafted in close consultation with field missions, Troop and Police Contributing Countries, UN system partners and other key stakeholders. -Draws on seminal documents such as "An Agenda for Peace", "Supplement to an Agenda for Peace" and "the Brahimi Report", as well as internal lessons learned materials, external research and academic commentary Focus -This guidance document focuses on only one element of that spectrum: United Nations-led peacekeeping operations, authorized by the Security Council, conducted under the direction of the United Nations Secretary-General, and planned, managed, directed and supported by the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the Department of Field Support (DFS) - The focus is that it recognizes the need for a clearer articulation of the doctrinal foundations of United Nations peacekeeping operations as a result of the new challenges posed by the shift in conflict from interstate to intra-state The 3 Basic Principles -Three basic principles have traditionally served and continue to set United Nations peacekeeping operations apart as a tool for maintaining international peace and security: Consent of the parties, Impartiality and the Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate. ______________________________________________________________________________ Stedman, John Stephen, Rothchild and Cousens, eds. Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements, 2002: Introduction (pages 1-40) · Argues that the six recurrent problems plague the implementation of peace agreements 1) the vague and expedient peace agreements, 2) the lack of coordination between mediators and implementers of agreements 3) the lack of coordination among implementing agencies, 4) the incomplete fulfilment of mandated tasks, 5) the short time horizon and limited commitment of implementers and 6) the presence of spoilers · Organization impediments: the performance of mediators and implementers affected the quality and outcome of civil war termination · Implicit argument: when peace agreements leave important matters undecided and then the warring parties are much more likely to hedge their bets take advantage when provisions of an agreement are not specified and interpret ambiguous terms in ways that the benefit them during implementation · In a world where implementers are limited to confidence building the quality of any resulting peace agreement looms large · Observations through UN peacekeeping work 1) where international actors had succeeded in implementing peace in south Africa, none of them had provided security guarantees 2)confidence building was absolutely ineffective if one or more sides decided to return to war and block the implementation of peace agreement 3) strategic deception by parties who sought to use an agreement and its implementation as a source of advantage to winning the war · His research included the differentiation among cases of civil war termination by putting forth a typology of spoilers based on their position in the peace process, number of spoilers, their intent and whether the locus of spoiling behaviour lies in the leader of followers of the party (personality and goals of the spoiler) · Is the spoiler greedy, possessed by goals that expand based on the prospect of inducement? · In the absence of a peace agreement, the concept of spoiler should not apply · Where spoilers have access to easily tradable commodities and where they can rely on the support of neighbouring countries that oppose peace, they are a more likely and greater threat to peace · Elizabeth wood argues that economic interdependence between or among warring parties provides a powerful incentive for them to cooperate in the face of spoilers · Difference between traditional peace keeping and peace enforcement · Traditional peace keeping: approaches stress monitoring and verification of compliance · Peace enforcement: where the outsider uses force to compel compliance · Traditional verification is often not enough when consent of warring parties is weak, tactical or eroding · Peace enforcement has proven extremely risky and costly to troop contributors who are unwilling to go to war to make peace · Strategies of enhanced consent: appealing beyond elites to the masses who want to make peace and need assistance in changing political and social institutions · Transformation on the other hand does not imply content and strategic direction, it says that when compliance of the parties is in jeopardy and when their consent to the mission is weak, implementers should try to improve the lives and institutions that govern the mass of people in a society · Multidimensional strategies do not provide guidance about which dimensions are most important and deserve more resources · Implementers as outsides trying to impose these goods immediately at the end of a civil war and for only two to three years time, actually do more harm than good (Afghanistan) 18 · The greater the amount of resources devoted to a given case, the greater the likelihood that implementation will succeed , but there must be a source willing to provide these resources 21 · Context is important for which strategy to choose · Peace agreements are arrangements entered into by warring parties to explicitly regulate or resolve their basic incompatibility · Mediators of civil wars an pursue one of two strategies of political settlement: one that emphasises the group basis of rights and representation and one that rests on individual rights and majoritarianism · The tasks and priorities of economic reconstruction are usually after thoughts in peace agreements · Where civilians do not feel secure in a newly created state, they will be vulnerable to the appeals of ethnic extremists who provide communal protection in competition with the state · Non coercive case studies: Nicaragua, El Savador, Guatemala, Rwanda – the peace process recognized that to end the region’s civil wars, action was necessary both within countries- a commitment by governments to negotiate with rebels, to initiate democratic reforms and to implement human rights and between countries: a commitment by governments to refuse rebel groups sanctuary and bases on their territory from which they could attack across borders as well as to stop the flow of weapons and military supplies across borders that maintained rebels Locating Stedman: Views implementation as a checklist. While implementation of peace agreement is a process (with pitfalls and problems), peace itself remains understood as a moment from the analytical point of view. Once the peace agreement (if well formulated) is implemented, we have peace. (Distinction between implementation of peace agreement and peace itself). Factors that mediate success of implementation include: ●Environmental factors ○Presence of spoilers ○Neighbouring states and their agreeability to agreement ○Spoils (natural/exploitable resouces) ●Commitment / Resources ○Enforcement capacity ○De-militarization capacity (DDR programs, etc) ○Security capacity Problems that weaken agreements themselves: ●Vague/expediant agreemnts ●lack of co-ordination (both on the level of mediators impelementors, and all implementors with each other) ●capacity to implement/fulfill tasks ●unrealistic time horizons (and therefore capacity commitments) ●spoilers at the negotiating table ______________________________________________________________________________ Barnett, Michael. “Humanitarianism with a Sovereign Face: UNHCR in the Global Undertow.” International Migration Review 35(1): 244-277. 2001 The transformation from juridical sovereignty emphasizing the core principle of noninterference to popular sovereignty residing in peoples has changed the meaning and practice of humanitarianism as well. Popular sovereignty concerns the domestic practices of states. In the post-Cold War politics, domestic governance is thought to be an international governance issue. International refugee regime was designed to safeguard states’ sovereignty. Only displaced peoples who crossed the border were regarded as refugees, which served to limit states’ obligations and honor their sovereignty. UNHCR was established as a humanitarian and apolitical organization, and initially was not expected to address ways to eliminate refugee problems which were political matters. Gradually its protection mission expanded from legal assistance to include other forms of assistance. The international community has a legitimate right to consider domestic issues. Earlier there were two refugee types; asylum from the Eastern bloc and illegitimate reasons from the Third World. In the Post CW era, most are from and in the Third World. Then, repatriation helps the individuals return home, as a form of protection. UNHCR began getting involved in the circumstances of refugee-producing countries since refugee flight could threaten international peace and security. Still, UNHCR could maintain its apolitical standing. Humanitarian assistance includes prevention and human rights protection, which helps reduce refugee flows. Repatriation was not a permanent but durable solution, a key way to protect refugees in the long run, though dependent on an improved situation in the refugee-producing country. The development of the category of the IDP had impact on the meaning of sovereignty and traditional refugee rights, and might make UNHCR implicated in a system of containment. However, thanks to in-country protection, individuals are encouraged to stay at home rather than to seek asylum. In addition to these changes, UNHCR’s effort to eliminate the root causes of refugee flows represents the progressive shifts in the humanitarian agenda. These environmental changes have greatly expanded UNHCR’s humanitarian space. Now UNHCR can extend protection inside the refugee-producing countries while it has been given this license to look inward because states are less willing to give asylum to and harbor refugees. ?? UNHCR isn’t so apolitical, and in fact helps to infringe on sovereignty? UNHCR, instead of helping refugees, shifted focus on stopping the flows. Repatriation as a form of power used against smaller states, thus violation of sovereignty (trying to control domestic politics or policies of ‘flow generating’ countries). ______________________________________________________________________________ WEEK 14 Paris, Roland. At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004: Introduction, Chapter 1, 2 (pages 1-51) *Kate disagreed with Paris’ view. Will did not.* Main Points/ Themes - 1990s gave rise to human security issue as well as threat to regional and global stability - Boutros-Ghali defined peacebuilding: “ to identify and support structures which tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict” - Fragile states are more likely to slip back into civil violence - Peacebuilding missions in 90s were guided by a widely accepted theory that political and economic liberalization will bring peace - Negative peace was success, but positive, sustainable peace was not very in the 90s - Promoting democracy may stimulate societal competition o We need to focus on the correct method of creating this change Author suggests: Institutionalization before Liberalization as a means to ease the transition to a democratic state (see Kaplan) - Institutions should be able to carry the strain of liberalization - International community should manage democratization and marketization in a series of steps and not unleash political and economic competition Aim of reading: to see the relation between liberalization, institution building and peace in states that just emerged from civil conflict The Origins of Peacebuilding - Original Reasons why peacekeepers wanted to stay out of domestic politics o UN Charter prohibited the intervening in matters that are within the jurisdiction of any state o Beyond the role of monitoring a cease-fire would have required a more intrusive role then they were willing to accept o UNSC members opposed with UN interference with domestic affairs o Cold War ideological difference made it impossible to promote any model of domestic governance - 1989 UN did more in Namibia, and prepared them for a fair election etc.. - Boutros-Ghali introduced peace enforcement: which allowed them to use force other than for self-defense The Agents of Peacebuilding - UN o UN Development Program o Definition of G. Governance: the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority that are participatory, transparent and accountable - Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) o Standardization of democracy as a basis for state interaction and inclusion - EU - NATO o Working with other agencies like CSCE - Organization of United States - Bretton Woods Institutions o Mix of IMF and World Bank o IMF was to before, to help get out of balance of payments problems o WB was more to help large-scale development projects § This separation soon disintegrated and they now care about the political quality of states and demand conditions on its loans (like what IMF did before) o “Washington Consensus”: international donors should encourage recipient states to implement economic liberalization policies on the ground that deregulation and privatization will create sustained growth - National Development Agencies NGOs - Human rights NGOs commented that too much was placed on elections and making the democratic structure, but civil liberties and rights are ignored - However they all support the democratic model in the end of the day, just with a different approach - World Polity: international norms have changed in which to be called legitimate statehood (like popular sovereignty) you need to be democratic - Boutros-Ghali thinks that peace, development and democracy are inextricably linked The Liberal Peace Thesis / - Liberal Peace Theory (LPT)* - John Locke and Adam Smith had these ideas of liberal values but it was Wilson that brought it to the world’s attention - Most debates have ignored the issues of liberalization and conflict - MANSFIELD and SNYDER argued that the transition from autocracy to democracy will make the state more likely to go to international war because political opportunists in the state will use nationalism as a means of creating domestic political support+ A Disappearing Leviathan - Peacebuilding assumes functionality of states o This assumption is common - Hobbes and Locke believed in governmental institutions capable of defending society internally and externally from threats - For Locke, limited government does not equal weak, it means they will always be checked and balanced Democracy created good keepers of sovereigns that therefore can help make and keep the peace - Kant spoke of that he was against ‘wild freedom’ (absence of rule of law of central authority) Author’s Bias/ Opinion - Transition is a big problem, one that not a lot of scholars and practitioners want to deal with - Agrees with Wilson, but he is too naïve and skipped the middle, the process - Author thinks that it was the Cold War that created a shift in Global norms and culture - We still know very little about internal violence and marketization Paris Summary Paris offers a normative trajectory of state-centric transition that, in his view, improves upon the “shoc k therapy” approach to democratization that preceded.Institutionalization before Liberalization relies on the Liberal Peace Thesis, simply says we need a better way to realize it. Offers two fixes to the methods of democratization to ensure success: 1.Delay liberalization of politics and markets until institutions that are capable of handling competitiveness of these liberalized spheres are established. (foundation first) 2.Manage the implementation of liberalization to control the volatility of liberalism’s competitive spirit on society. (gradual implementation) Paris then discusses some history. Basically, the only important stuff is this: UN, being the main actor i n peace couldn’t effectively build peace during CW. This classical peace keeping approach relied on the three principles outlined in the UNPKO reading (neutrality, consent of parties, no use of force except i n self defense or in protection of mandate). At the end of the Cold War, ideological victory of democracy become the only path to take (end of history narrative, Fukuyama). Institutionalization before Liberalization still approached democracy as a moment. Checklist approach (though the checklist would be ticked off more slowly compared to shock therapy approach) complicated the process of implementation, but democracy itself remained to be “consolidated” and “reached” as a moment. ______________________________________________________________________________ Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1969 If we hold on to the notion that peace is the absence of violence, we must further explore the meaning of violence to comprehend this definition. He describes it as “violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizatio n”. When the “actual” is avoidable, then it is understood as violence. He divides violence into dichotomies between: 1.physical (hit) vs psychological violence (harm) The physical entails bodily whereas psychological means diminished a reduction in mental potential by lies, indoctrination, etc. 2.Negative vs positive Within the moral compass of the subject- taking away something if he considers it wrong (negative) or rewarding if he considers it right (positive) 3.Is there an object being hurt? The threat of violence causes indirect psychological violence. The intention is enough. 4.Intended vs unintended In this tension guilt (important factor in abrahamic religions) is the predominant factor. 1.5.Personal/direct vs structural/indirect -personal violence is easily identifiable -structural is no easily identifiable and the victims may be persuaded to not perceive the violence at all. - also referred to as social injustice 1.6.Manifest vs latent -Manifest is observable while latent is something that is not there but may easily come about. Galtung focuses on the tension between personal and structural violence. -personal violence is bodily harm that can be caused by individuals or a group of people (gang, mobs, guerilla warfare). Personal violence can done by either destroying or by preventing the resources necessary for another to function. ○-Within structural violence there is a hierarchy. The “topdogs” create a “right” way for the rest to interact, and operates on the basis of these expectations. He also argues that the creation of this system is not abnormal but rather the tendency of every social system unless persistently prevented. Although one can occur without the other in the sense that structural violence will not change because of its subjects and personal violence can operate outside the parameters of the structure, it would nevertheless be inaccurate to assume that they cannot be traced in each other's pre history. A violent individual (“bully”) who remains at the top of a violent structural system existed before its creation, wh ile the now existing structure perpetuates the behaviour of these “bullies”. Could it not be that one type of violence presupposes the latent presence of the other? ○order to keep the status quo via mercenaries (e.g police) ○latent structural violence, but that the sum of violence is constant. ○He rejects this pessimistic idea, and argues that although seldom, there are instances where they exists in a pure form so there is no other second line of violence encountered when one falls. Further, he also rejects the notion that order is kept by violence. could it not be that one is the price we have to pay for the absence of the other? - Structural violence is sufficient to abolish personal violence: structural violence between the marginalized groups, not the feudal latter. It may perhaps capture personal violence in a small social space- periods of absence and presence of personal violence. -Structural violence is necessary to abolish personal violence: Its presence may offer an alternative threat to end personal violence. But to say that it is a necessity is empirically incorrect, as personal violence ceases to exist the moment the decision is taken not to do so. -Personal sufficient to abolish structural: it is a short term vision. It could be that if the topdogs are taken out by personal violence, new people may simply fill their vacancies or it could be that the structure has become a part of the society such as the next wave of political leaders end up submitting t o it. -Personal necessary to abolish structural: Empirically controversial (cases where structural violence diminished without personal violence). Theoretically, is it not likely that structures will replace structures rather than personal violence? -No empirical evidence that the consequences of one are more important than the other. If the definition of violence has been extended, the definition of peace must be extended as well. The notion of “absence of peace” is interpreted as negative peace, while the lack of structural violence is synonymous to social justice or positive peace. The three responses to including both are: ●is not one that is more important than the other. ●widely accepted and acknowledge for its deeper meanings. Secularly it is understood as representative of devotion and community, and even religious circles the word is interpreted to symbolize universal love. ●violence while also enhancing our hierarchical structure by thinking of ways to decentralize and encourage participation. No significant contribution will be brought by sacrificing either one of them. ______________________________________________________________________________ Snyder, Jack From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. W.W. Norton and Company, 2000: Chapter 1 (pages 15-42) Aim: To explain why and under what circumstances democratization causes national conflict. Nationalism ●Nationalism is largely a reaction to the social changes of the modern era (i.e WWII) ●Ernest Gellner: nationalism is the doctrine that the political unit (the state) and the cultural unit (the nation) should be congruent. Snyder: this definition. Is too reductive, equates ethnic groups to nations. Snyder ●“Nationalism is the doctrine that a people who see themselves as distinct in their culture, history, institutions, or principles should rule themselves in a political system that expresses and protects those distinct characteristics.” ●“Nationalist Conflict is defined as organized, large-scale violence motivated/justified by a nationalist doctrine.” ●Nationalists believe in the right to self-rule, and self-rule does not necessitate a democratic political process. Snyder’s definition meant to highlight concept of self-rule as a goal of nationalist w/o including democracy into definition. Avoids equating nationalism with ethnicity Two types of nationalism 1.Ethnic: legitimacy based on common culture, language, religion, history, myth of shared kin. This criteria can be used to include or exclude members from the nationalist group. 2.Civic: Based on loyalty to set of political ideas and institutions that are perceived as just and effective. Inclusion depends on birth, long-term residence, knowledge of nation’s language and institutions. Example: US, Britain. (These are ideal types, no nation is purely civic or ethnic.) Democratization ●Distinguishes between mature democracies and democratizing states. ●Mature democracies: government policies made by elected officials, elections are fair, free, and periodic, a substantial proportion of adult population can vote, officials constrained by constitutional provisions and commitments to civil liberties. Mature democracies need to have freedom of speech, freedom to organize groups to contest elections, and diverse representation in media. ●Snyder: states are democratizing if they adopt one or more of aforementioned features but still retain important undemocratic characteristics. Why Democratization Increases Risk of National Conflict: ●In any given decade, the chance of war in an average state is 1:6, in democratizing states it is 1:4. Democratizing states are more likely to be attackers rather than aggressors. Most war-risk states are newly democratizing states, which echoes the early stages of democracy for every great power (France, Britain, Germany, Japan) Popular rivalries argument: ●Long-standing popular nationalist rivalries precede democratization. Democratization gives a means to express the long-held aspirations of an already formed nation, which are incompatible with other nations. Elite persuasion argument (Snyder’s argument): ●Nationalism is weak/absent before democratization, and arises during the earliest stages of democratization when elites use nationalist appeals to compete for popular support; when powerful groups within the national need to harness support for war and economic development w/o surrendering real political authority to average citizens. Nations are not awakened by democratization, they are formed by the experiences they undergo during the process. Nationalism is a doctrine in the name of the people but not necessarily by the people, exploited by political elites to serve their own purposes. Each argument points to different solutions ●Population Rivalries’ solution: the partition of democratizing ethnic groups into separate states. Or, where partition is not possible establishing consociational democracies such that people have rights as individuals and as members of ethnic or national groups. ●Elite persuasion view’s solution: separation measures unnecessarily heighten hostilities. A better solution would be to promote more inclusive, civic identities and cross-ethnic political alignments. ●Exclusionary nationalism is most likely to prevail when the democratizing country is poor, its citizens lack the skills needed for successful democratic political participation, and when its institutions, political parties, and journalistic professionalism are weak during the early phases of transition. ●Adaptability of elite interests + the strength of country’s political institutions during democratization -> determine the intensity of state’s nationalism and the form that nationalist exclusions take. Three types of exclusionary nationalism 1. Counter Revolutionary nationalism - elite interests are not adaptable, administrative institutions are strong, representative institutions are weak. Attempts at nationalism will be effective, threatened elites will justify exclusions by portraying opponents as revolutionary enemies of nation. 2. Revolutionary nationalism - emerges when states institutions collapse, elites use nationalism to rally support against foes at home and abroad, nationalism will take an exclusionary revolutionary form. 3. Ethnic nationalism - likely when democratization begins when the basic building blocks of political or administrative institutions have never been laid down. Elites will be constrained to base appeals appeals to loyalty based on the only available alternative, ethnicity. ●Nationalism takes a civic form when elites are not particularly threatened by democratization and representative and journalistic institutions are well established beforehand. National Elites’ Strong Political Weak Political Interests Institutions institutions Civic: Strong Revolutionary Adaptable representative (Revolutionary institutions (Britain) France) Counterrevolutionary: strong admin. Ethnic (pre WWI Unadaptable Institutions (pre WWI Serbia) Germany) Snyder Summary Seeks to explain the convergence of nationalist conflict with the onset of democratization. Looks at the politics of transition. (Aside: this reading more or less points out the problems with shock therapy that Paris does from the lens of political analysis). Offers an elite pursuasion argument to explain types of nationalism and its relation to democracy, contra the popular rivalry argument (he is specifically arguing against the primodialist “ancient hatre ds” explanation of nationalist conflict). 4 Types of Nationalism, 3 exclusionary and 1 inclusionary. Exclusionary: 1.Counter-revolutionary: appeal to the nation against political opponents 2.Revolutionary: appeal to the nation against the foreign other 3.Ethnic: appeal to own national group against other national groups Inclusionary: 4. Civic: elites are not particularly threatened, so there is no appeal. The type of nationalism used is mediated by two factors: 1.adaptability of elite interests 2.strength of institutions before the process of democratization begins. Notice here that we can apply Paris’ analysis of institutionalization before liberalization (democratization). Only when there are strong institutions (thus, elites can adapt their interests without losing much ie, institutionalized mistrust Sisk ) do we have inclusionary (and presumably good) nationalism: civic. (See chart in reading). ______________________________________________________________________________ WEEK 15 Huntington, Samuel P. The Third Wave. University of Oklahoma Press, 1991: Chapter 2 (pages 31-108) Huntington addresses the question: What changes in independent variables in the 1960s and 1970s produced the dependent variable of a democratizing regime change in the 1970s and 1980s? He points to five changes that varied by region in significance and evolved as the 3rd wave progressed. Emergence of social, economic and external conditions favorable to democracy is necessary, but not sufficient, to produce democracy: political leaders have to be willing to take the risk of democracy to make it happen. 1st Wave: Economic development, industrialization, urbanization, growth of middle class, victory of Western Allies in WWI, dismantling of empires 2nd Wave: Democracy imposed by Allies after WWII, effects of Allied victory, de-colonialization 3rd Wave: 5 Patterns of Regime Change: 1. Cyclical – alternation between democracy and authoritarianism, where alternation actually begins to function as country’s political system (in lieu of alternation b/w two political parties) 2. Second-Try Pattern – Weak democracy gives way to authoritarianism, then replaced by stronger democracy. 3. Interrupted Democracy – temporary suspension of democratic system, then resumed. 4. Direct Transition – characterized 1st wave of democratization 5. Decolonialization Pattern – characterized 2nd wave 5 Reasons Democracy surged (according to Huntington): 1.Legitimacy Problems Post WWII – prevailing democratic “ethos” developed throughout the world. Even authoritarian regimes increasingly used democratic rhetoric to justify their legitimacy. Political legitimacy inevitably declines over time, and authoritarian regimes, unlike democracies, have no mechanisms for self-renewal. Poor economic performance and military failures undermined legitimacy of authoritarian regimes, b/c they had no “procedural legitimacy” to change policies, as in democracies. 2.Economic Development and Economic Crises Correlation b/w wealth and democracy indicates that democratic transitions should occur in countries at middle level of development. Most active supporters of third wave democratization came from urban middle class. Rapid economic growth can undermine authoritarian regimes if combined with short-term economic crisis or failure (author discusses the 1970s oil crisis and other economic crises). 3.Religious Changes Correlation between Western Christianity, esp. Protestantism, and democracy. Most prominent case of expansion of Christianity in third wave democracies is South Korea, where post WWII just 1% of population was Christian, by mid 1980s 25% Christian. Churches became principal forum for opposition to military regime and helped achieve transition to democracy in 1988. Changes in political alignment of Roman C 4.Catholic Church. Repositioning from accommodating authoritarian regimes to opposing them. 5.New Policies of External Actors By late 1980s, major sources of power and influence – Vatican, European Community (EC), U.S. and Soviet Union – were promoting liberalization and democratization. These ideals become conditions of loans. The USSR also stopped maintaining satellite states. This is a prevailing nostrum argument. 6.Demonstration Effects or Snowballing Definition: Successful democratization occurs in one country and this encourages democratization in other countries. Why did this happen? Countries saw that it was possible to bring down regimes and how to do it. This was made easier by technology such as the television. These effects were strongest in nations culturally similar. It was also strongest towards the end of the wave. ______________________________________________________________________________ Przeworski, Adam. “The Games of Transition”. In Scott Mainwaring, Guillermo O’Donnell and J. Samuel Valenzuela (eds.) Issues in Democratic Transitions: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective. University of Notre Dame Press, 1992 (pages 105-136) - Strategic problems of transition- how to get to democracy without either being starved by those who control productive resources or killed by those who have arms. - Do transitions lead to self-sustaining democracies? A system in which politically relevant forces 1) Subject their values and interests to the uncertain interplay of democratic institutions 2) Comply with the outcomes of the democratic process - A transition is complete when 1) There is a real possibility of partisan alternation in office 2) Reversible policy changes result from alternation in office 3) Effective civilian control has been established over the military - To consolidate democracy, 4 problems musts be solved 1) An international framework for contestation must be constructed 2) A competitive represemtative regime must be established 3) Economic conflicts must be channelled unto the democratic institutions 4) The military must under civilian control LIBERALIZATION - Liberalization is inherently unstable; it is a process meant to be controlled form above, and emergence of autonomous organizations and mass movements means liberalization is no longer viable - Liberalization does not always lead to transition DEMOCRATIZATION - Problem-> o will institutions that allow open ended contestation be accepted o will these institutions absorb the relevant political forces as participants willing to subject their interests to uncertain competition and to accept the outcome - extrication o is only possible if 1) agreement between reformers and hardliners is reached to establish institutions under which the social forces they represent would have a significant political presence 2) reformers can deliver the consent of hardliners or neutralize them 3) moderates can control radicals o understanding between reformers and moderates is imperative for extrication to result § agreements reached must induce hardliners to join with the reformers and dissuade radicals from mobilizing for more profound transformations o moderates have no political importance unless they can restrain radicals CONSTITUTION - negotiations->necessary to form a democracy - groups seeking to democratize face 2 problems o substance vs procedure o agreement vs competition - which decisions should be made by agreement and which should be subject to competition? - Representative regime is 1) Autonomous organizations exist 2) They are stratified internally into leaders and followers 3) Leaders have the capacity to a. Involve collective identities b. Control strategic behaviour of followers c. Sanction defections 4) Leaders participate in representative institutions 5) Representation makes a difference for well-being of followers - All followers against authoritarianism must stand together against the ruler, but must stand divided to consider their position under democracy - The factions mustn’t divide too early or too late o Too early division-could permit electoral victory for person associated with dictatorship o Too early division- leads to another authoritarian regime -> Solution to these dilemmas = political pacts, agreements among political parties to 1) Divide government offices among themselves independently of election results 2) Fix basic policy orientations 3) Exclude (and repress) outsiders - democratic institutions must either protect or suppress the basic interests of all political forces capable of subverting democracy - institutionalization of economic conflicts o we do not know in general whether democracy inhibits economic development, promotes it, or is irrelevant one way or another o unequal distribution of income provides greater opportunity for redistribution - imposition of civilian control over the military o democracies find it hard to keep civilian control over military because they fear being overthrown. Could provoke military intervention o if a govt. is intent on not provoking a coup and not risking repression, it must swallow its moral outrage and its democratic ideals and accept the limits set by military tutelage o two reasons why democracies might not want to dismantle the military threat even if they could 1) military tutelage is necessary to protect the regime from demands for greater representation 2) perpetuation of military domination is better than dismantling the military - There are Hardliners , Reformers VS. Radicals and Moderates 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ Sisk, Timothy. Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflict. Carnegie Foundation on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict/ United States Institute of Peace, 1996: Chapter 3 (pages 27-44) · Often conflict has been managed in divided societies through authoritarian domination of a group of groups over others · The approach may be revolutionary, attempting to remove the minority or majority factor from political life through forced assimilation or genocidal ·
More Less

Related notes for PCJ260Y1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit