Unintended consequences of post-conflict power-sharing. Explaining civilian activism
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.
KeywordsMicro-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”.
- Adhikari, Aditya. 2014. The bullet and the ballot box: The story of Nepal’s Maoist revolution. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Lawoti, Mahendra, and Susan Hangen (eds.). 2013. Nationalism and ethnic conflict in Nepal: Identities and mobilization after 1990. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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
- National Geophysical Data Center. 2014. DMSP-OLS nighttime lights time series, version 4. https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/NOAA_DMSP-OLS_NIGHTTIME_LIGHTS.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Walter, Barbara F. 2002. Committing to peace: The successful settlement of civil wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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