Unintended consequences of post-conflict power-sharing. Explaining civilian activism

  • Roman KrtschEmail author
  • Johannes Vüllers


Under what conditions do civilians mobilize after power-sharing agreements? Research on post-conflict power-sharing has neglected the possible consequences of power-sharing agreements on micro level dynamics, i. e. civilian activism. We argue that (i) power-sharing practices increase the probability of civilian activism, (ii) political and territorial power-sharing practices are especially relevant in this regard, and (iii) ethnic identity groups affiliated to the former rebels are more likely to respond to power-sharing practices compared to other ethnic groups. Using data on power-sharing agreements and civilian activism in African post-conflict countries (1989–2006), we find support for our expectations. The results suggest that the effect of power-sharing practices on protests and riots is particularly high for ethnic groups with linkages to the former rebel organizations.


Micro-level Protest Power-sharing Peace process 



We would like to thank Roos van der Haer and Nils Weidmann for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.


Funding for this research was provided by the DFG project “Raise your voices! The occurrence of nonviolent campaigns in civil wars”.

Supplementary material

42597_2019_2_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
The online appendix includes further information on the composition of the sample (Fig. 4 and Tables 2, 3) and the results from the robustness checks (Tables 4 to 6 and Fig. 5 to 7).


  1. Adhikari, Aditya. 2014. The bullet and the ballot box: The story of Nepal’s Maoist revolution. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  2. Binningsbø, Helga Malmin. 2013. Power sharing, peace and democracy: Any obvious relationships? International Area Studies Review 16:89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binningsbø, Helga Malmin, and Siri Aas Rustad. 2012. Sharing the wealth: A pathway to peace or a trail to nowhere? Conflict Management and Peace Science 29:547–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brambor, Thomas, William Clark Roberts, and Matt Golder. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14:63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cammett, Melani, and Edmund Malesky. 2012. Power sharing in postconflict societies: Implications for peace and governance. Journal of Conflict Resolution 56:982–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, David B., and Curtis S. Signorino. 2010. Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data. Political Analysis 18:271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cederman, Lars-Erik, Nils B. Weidmann, and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch. 2011. Horizontal inequalities and Ethnonationalist civil war. A global comparison. American Political Science Review 105:478–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cederman, Lars-Erik, Andreas Wimmer, and Brian Min. 2010. Why do ethnic groups rebel? New data and analysis. World Politics 62:87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chenoweth, Erica, and Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham. 2013. Understanding nonviolent resistance. An introduction. Journal of Peace Research 50:271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeRouen, Karl, Jr, Mark J Ferguson, Samuel Norton, Young Hwan Park, Jenna Lea, and Ashley Streat-Bartlett. 2010. Civil war peace agreement implementation and state capacity. Journal of Peace Research 47:333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flores, Thomas, and Irfan Nooruddin. 2012. Ethnicity, the state, and the duration of civil war. Journal of Politics 74:558–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Girardin, Luc, Philipp Hunziker, Lars-Erik Cederman, Nils-Christian Bormann, and Manuel Vogt. 2015. GROWup—geographical research on war, unified platform. Scholar
  13. Glassmyer, Katherine, and Nicholas Sambanis. 2008. Rebel—military integration and civil war termination. Journal of Peace Research 45:365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gurr, Ted Robert. 2000. Nonviolence in Ethnopolitics. Strategies for the attainment of group rights and autonomy. PS: Political Science and Politics 33:155–160.Google Scholar
  15. Haass, Felix, and Martin Ottmann. 2017. Profits from peace: The political economy of power-sharing and corruption. World Development 99:60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartzell, Caroline, and Matthew Hoddie. 2003. Institutionalizing peace: Power sharing and post-civil war conflict management. American Journal of Political Science 47:318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartzell, Caroline, and Matthew Hoddie. 2007. Crafting peace: Power-sharing institutions and the negotiated settlement of civil wars. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hartzell, Caroline, and Matthew Hoddie. 2015. The Art of the possible: Power sharing and post-civil war democracy. World Politics 67:37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hegre, Håvard, and Håvard Mokleiv Nygård. 2015. Governance and conflict relapse. Journal of Conflict Resolution 59:984–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoddie, Matthew, and Caroline Hartzell. 2003. Civil war settlements and the implementation of military power-sharing arrangements. Journal of Peace Research 40:303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huff, Connor, and Dominika Kruszewska. 2016. Banners, barricades, and bombs: The tactical choices of social movements and public opinion. Comparative Political Studies 49(13):1774–1808. Scholar
  22. Jarstad, Anna K., and Desiree Nilsson. 2008. From words to deeds: The implementation of power-sharing pacts in peace accords. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25:206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joshi, Madhav, and John Darby. 2013. Introducing the peace accords matrix (PAM): A database of comprehensive peace agreements and their implementation, 1989–2007. Peacebuilding 1:256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawoti, Mahendra, and Susan Hangen (eds.). 2013. Nationalism and ethnic conflict in Nepal: Identities and mobilization after 1990. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Lijphart, Arend. 1969. Consociational democracy. World Politics 21:207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marshall, Monty G., and Keith Jaggers. 2014. Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2009. Dataset users’ manual. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  27. Mattes, Michaela, and Burcu Savun. 2009. Fostering peace after civil war: Commitment problems and agreement design. International Studies Quarterly 53:737–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mehler, Andreas. 2009. Peace and power sharing in Africa: A not so obvious relationship. African Affairs 108:453–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mukherjee, Bumba. 2006. Why political power-sharing agreements lead to enduring peaceful resolution of some civil wars, but not others? International Studies Quarterly 50:479–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Geophysical Data Center. 2014. DMSP-OLS nighttime lights time series, version 4. Scholar
  31. Nilsson, Desirée. 2012. Anchoring the peace: Civil society actors in peace accords and durable peace. International Interactions 38:243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ottmann, Martin, and Johannes Vüllers. 2015. The Power-Sharing Event Dataset (PSED). A new dataset on the promises and practices of power-sharing in post-conflict countries. Conflict Management and Peace Science 32:327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quackenbush, Stephen L. 2010. Territorial issues and recurrent conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science 27:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothchild, Donald, and Philip G. Roeder. 2005. Power sharing as an impediment to peace and democracy. In Sustainable peace: Power and democracy after civil wars, Philip G. Roeder, and Donald Rothchild (eds.). 29–50. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Salehyan, Idean, et al, 2012. Social conflict in Africa: A new database. International Interactions 38:503–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shaykhutdinov, Renat. 2010. Give peace a chance: Nonviolent protest and the creation of territorial autonomy arrangements. Journal of Peace Research 47:179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simons, Claudia, Franzisca Zanker, Andreas Mehler, and Denis M. Tull. 2013. Power-sharing in Africa’s war zones: How important is the local level? The Journal of Modern African Studies 51:681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simonsen, Sven Gunnar. 2005. Addressing ethnic divisions in post-conflict institution-building: Lessons from recent cases. Security Dialogue 36:297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stedman, Stephen John. 1997. Spoiler problems in peace processes. International Security 22:5–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tull, Denis M., and Andreas Mehler. 2005. The hidden costs of power-sharing: Reproducing insurgent violence in Africa. African Affairs 104:375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vogt, Manuel, Nils-Christian Bormann, Seraina Rüegger, Lars-Erik Cederman, Philipp Hunziker, and Luc Girardin. 2015. Integrating data on ethnicity, geography, and conflict. The ethnic power relations Dataset family. Journal of Conflict Resolution 59:1327–1342.Google Scholar
  42. Wallensteen, Peter, and Isak Svensson. 2014. Talking peace: International mediation in armed conflicts. Journal of Peace Research 51:315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walter, Barbara F. 1999. Designing transitions from civil war: Demobilization, democratization, and commitments to peace. International Security 24:127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walter, Barbara F. 2002. Committing to peace: The successful settlement of civil wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wucherpfennig, Julian, Nils W. Metternich, Lars-Erik Cederman, and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch. 2012. Ethnicity, the state, and the duration of civil war. World Politics 64:79–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wucherpfennig, Julian, Nils B. Weidmann, Luc Girardin, Lars-Erik Cederman, and Andreas Wimmer. 2011. Politically relevant ethnic groups across space and time. Introducing the GeoEPR Dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science 20:1–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung e.V. (AFK) und die Autoren 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany
  2. 2.University of LeidenLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations