Post-conflict Elections

  • Benjamin ReillyEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_73-1

Definition

Elections are central to peacebuilding, but poorly timed elections may have negative consequences for the consolidation of both peace and democracy. This chapter examines key issues of electoral timing: how soon to hold elections following hostilities, whether to sequence national- and local-level polls, and which models of electoral system and administration are most appropriate in post-conflict environments.

Since at least the end of the Cold War, elections have been an integral element of post-conflict peacebuilding. Indeed, international norms often seem to consider no other avenues for conferring legitimacy and authority on a new government, and for concluding international support missions. Elections also have broader effects on the post-conflict environment including the development of political parties, government stability, and the reconciliation of former warring groups. Decisions on electoral processes are therefore linked to many of the broader objectives of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aspinall, E. (2010). Indonesia: The irony of success. Journal of Democracy, 21(2), 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, R. (1998). UN peacekeeping: Cosmetic or comprehensive? In R. Thakur (Ed.), Past imperfect, future uncertain: The United Nations at fifty (pp. 64–84). Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barkan, J. (1995). Elections in agrarian societies. Journal of Democracy, 6(4), 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berdal, M., & Zaum, D. (Eds.). (2012). The Political Economy of Statebuilding: Power after Peace. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bogaards, M. (2013). Reexamining African elections. Journal of Democracy, 24(4), 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogaards, M. (2015). The choice for proportional representation: Electoral system design in peace agreements. Civil Wars, 15(S1), 71–87.Google Scholar
  7. Brancati, D. (2009). Peace by design: Managing intrastate conflict through decentralization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brancati, D., & Snyder, J. (2011). Rushing to the polls: The causes of premature postconflict elections. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(3), 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brancati, D., & Snyder, J. (2013). Time to kill: The impact of election timing on postconflict stability. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(5), 822–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caplan, R. (Ed.). (2012). Exit strategies and state building. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Caspersen, N. (2017). Peace agreements: Finding solutions to intra-state conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cederman, L.-E., Gleditsch, K. S., & Hug, S. (2013). Elections and ethnic civil war. Comparative Political Studies, 46(3), 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Towards consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Flores, T., & Nooruddin, I. (2012). The effect of elections on postconflict peace and reconstruction. Journal of Politics, 74(2), 558–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flores, T., & Nooruddin, I. (2016). Elections in hard times: Building stronger democracies in the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fortna, V. P. (2008). Peacekeeping and democratization. In A. Jarstad & T. Sisk (Eds.), From war to democracy: Dilemmas of peacebuilding (pp. 39–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hulsey, J. (2015). Electoral accountability in Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Dayton framework agreement. International Peacekeeping, 22(5), 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hysa, Y. (2004). Kosovo: A permanent international protectorate? In E. Newman & R. Rich (Eds.), The UN role in promoting democracy: Between ideals and reality (pp. 296–297). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  20. International IDEA. (2006). Electoral management design: The international IDEA handbook. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.Google Scholar
  21. Joshi, M., Melander, E., & Quinn, J. M. (2015). Sequencing the peace. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lijphart, A. (1995). Multiethnic democracy. In S. M. Lipset (Ed.), The encyclopedia of democracy (pp. 853–865). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lindberg, S. (2009). Democratization by elections: A new mode of transition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe (pp. 98–107). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. López-Pintor, R. (2000). Electoral management bodies as institutions of governance. New York: United Nations Development Program.Google Scholar
  26. Lyons, T. (1998). Peace and elections in Liberia. In K. Kumar (Ed.), Postconflict Elections, Democratization and International Assistance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Lyons, T. (2005). Demilitarizing politics: Elections on the uncertain road to peace. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Mason, C. (2014, September 23). Fraud and Folly in Afghanistan. Foreign Policy., http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/23/fraud-and-folly-in-afghanistan/
  29. Matanock, A. (2017). Electing peace: From civil conflict to political participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McEvoy, J., & O’Leary, B. (Eds.). (2014). Power sharing in deeply divided places. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, S. (1998). Haitian elections and the aftermath. In K. Kumar (Ed.), Postconflict elections, democratization and international assistance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peou, S. (2004). The UN’s modest impact on Cambodia’s democracy. In E. Newman & R. Rich (Eds.), The UN role in promoting democracy: Between ideals and reality (pp. 258–281). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ponzio, R. (2011). Democratic peacebuilding: Aiding Afghanistan and other fragile states. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reilly, B. (2008). Post-war elections: Uncertain turning points of transition. In A. Jarstad & T. Sisk (Eds.), From war to democracy: Dilemmas of peacebuilding (pp. 157–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reilly, B. (2011). Understanding elections in conflict situations. In D. Gillies (Ed.), Elections in dangerous places: Democracy and the paradoxes of peacebuilding (pp. 3–18). Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Reilly, B. (2013a). Elections and post-conflict political development. In M. Berdal & D. Zaum (Eds.), The political economy of post-conflict statebuilding: Power after peace (pp. 33–47). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Reilly, B. (2013b). Political parties and post-conflict peacebuilding. Civil Wars, 15(S1), 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reilly, B. (2016). Centripetalism. In K. Cordell & S. Wolff (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of ethnic conflict (2nd ed., pp. 278–288). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Reilly, B., & Reynolds, A. (1999). Electoral systems and conflict in divided societies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Reynal-Querol, M. (2002). Ethnicity, political systems and civil war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynolds, A., Reilly, B., & Ellis, A. (2005). Electoral system design: The new international IDEA handbook. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.Google Scholar
  43. Richmond, O. (2015). The dilemmas of a hybrid peace: Negative or positive? Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sisk, T. (2009). Pathways of the political: Electoral processes after civil war. In R. Paris & T. Sisk (Eds.), The dilemmas of state building: Confronting the contradictions of postwar peace operations (pp. 196–224). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Taagepera, R., & Qvortrup, M. (2012). Who gets what, when, how – Through which electoral system? European Political Science, 11(2), 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zürcher, C, Manning, C, Evenson, KD, Hayman, R, Riese, S, Roehner, N (2013) Costly Democracy: Peacebuilding and Democratization after War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sandra Pogodda
  • Gëzim Visoka
    • 1
  • Oliver Richmond
    • 2
  1. 1.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.The University of ManchesterManchesterUK