Peacebuilding And Principled Pragmatism - Conciliation Resources

The political settlements concept can usefully assist the examination of peace processes. Instead of looking at either pure politics or broad institutional settings, a political settlement lens rediscovers an analytical middle ground which classic political science would refer to as the institutional layout of a political entity. This lens shifts attention from a normative peacebuilding framing based on state institutions, rule of law and democracy, towards a more dynamic, flexible and predominantly political approach that reflects and responds to the configuration of power. Political settlements thinking, therefore, also safeguards against actor-driven considerations predominantly focused on deal-making and accommodation. A political settlement is more than a deal.

Current mainstream thinking in peacebuilding, as spelt out, for example, in the United Nations ‘sustaining peace’ agenda (UN Security Council resolution 2282 of 2016), expects a focus on inclusion to deliver better results in forging political settlements after violent conflict. Constructing inclusive political settlements should be accomplished by making peace negotiations and peace processes more representative and participatory (actor inclusion) and by addressing broader societal concerns in the peace agreement (thematic inclusion). According to this logic, an ideal peace process sequence culminates in the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement – such as in Sudan in 2005, Nepal in 2006, or most recently the 2016 accord between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Identifying and addressing conflict drivers in an inclusive peace deal and properly implementing its commitments should, in theory, guarantee a successful transformation of the conflict and a return to normal politics.

However, in the ‘everyday’ of real peace processes, inclusive approaches have to face multiple trade-offs between competing priorities. Should the inclusion of groups and stakeholders in a peace process focus ‘horizontally’ on the conflict parties, or ‘vertically’ on broader societal groups? If the latter, who is representing these groups and their diverse memberships and views? Does professionalised civil society, which is often assumed to speak for the interests of more marginal actors, really have legitimacy to do so? Are societal groups prepared to sit in the same room and negotiate with conflict parties and make the necessary compromises to stop the fighting? Or will powerful conflict parties accommodate the interests of less powerful or unarmed interlocutors? Decisions regarding trade-offs between priorities of horizontal and vertical inclusion have political and ethical, but also practical implications. There is no easy and tested way to manage these, and even if navigated carefully and with the necessary emphasis, success in terms of an inclusive and peaceful political settlement is not guaranteed.

The peace negotiations in Colombia were arguably among the most inclusive to date (see conversation with Sergio Jaramillo in this publication). But, soberingly, they ultimately resulted in the rejection of the final peace agreement in a public vote. Politicking, of course, had a role to play in the negative outcome of the plebiscite. But the trade-off between short-term requests and long-term requirements played a significant role in pre-referendum campaigning – for instance, safety guarantees for the armed actors versus their accountability for wartime wrongdoings. Striking peace agreements, in most cases, demands substantial compromises which are not necessarily supported by society at large.