Do Democratic Elections Allow Achieving a Sustainable Peace - Coursework Example

Do Democratic Elections offer the Best Chance of Achieving a Sustainable Peace Following Violent Civil Conflict? Insert (s) name Course Code Date of Submission Do Democratic Elections offer the Best Chance of Achieving a Sustainable Peace Following Violent Civil Conflict? Introduction No, democratic elections do not always offer the best change for the achievement of a sustainable peace in post civil conflict countries. Instead, empirical evidence suggests that the best way to create sustainable peace is to form transitional governments in which the former combatants are equally represented in order to rebuilt the capacity of the shattered state and create order before meaningful democratic elections can be held. This is particularly because democracy is often not viable following civil conflicts since the political environment in such situations is often filled with uncertainties, lack of order, fears of individuals or groups as well as violence or threat of violence (Brancati and Jack, 2011, p.45). Democratic elections are in cases considered to be one of the greatest milestones in the democratization process. Many peace agreements normally include the provisions for elections. The debate regarding the potential use of democratic elections to enhance the achievement of sustainable peace following violent civil conflicts has increasingly become prominent in the field of post conflict peace-building (Brown, 2008, p.35). However, despite post-conflict elections are usually designed to advance war termination and enhance democratization, many experts concur that the only way to achieve a sustainable peace process after peace agreements is to promote transitional periods thereby providing the basis and the conditions necessary for holding democratic elections. Recent experiences and cases of states in which holding democratic elections has failed to guarantee sustainable peace following violent conflicts include Liberia, Cambodia, Libya, Angola, Afghanistan and many other third world countries. Although democratic elections are undeniably critical to peace process in most post-conflict states, organizing elections before sufficiently addressing the major root causes of the conflict and ensuring the political commitment of the former combatants or belligerents can only serve to further jeopardize the achievement of successful democratic transition and sustainable peace following violent civil conflicts. This paper argues that democratic elections do not always offer the best change for the achievement of a sustainable peace following violent civil conflicts. Post Civil Conflict Conditions and the Role of Elections Following Violent Civil Conflicts, many countries often undergo similar socio-political and economic conditions that significantly impact on their post-conflict peace-building development and the ultimate achievement of a lasting sustainable peace. For example, in most cases, states emerging from violent civil wars are normally characterized by delicate and fragile economy due to the destruction of infrastructure and tools of economic production, damage to both human and physical capital, inflation, disrupted markets as well as the shifting of economic resources towards war related functions. For example, during the war in Mozambique, the country witnessed nearly 80% reduction in economic production (Reilly, 2002, p.118). On the other hand, at the society level, the potential negative impact of wars often results in societal disintegration, human suffering and psycho-social trauma. This often result in a general breakdown of various social institutions, erosion of community bonds and disintegration of the bases of social exchange. Finally, and most importantly, the political impacts of violent civil conflicts are diverse. For example, violent conflicts may result in the state failure with the legitimacy of the governing authority being contested. In general, the above mentioned political, social and economic impacts of violent civil conflicts often significantly make it difficult to organize and administer credible democratic elections due to the lack of institutional, financial and technical capabilities as well as the necessary human resources needed to conduct elections. This is particularly because an election is not a single event but and an elaborate process that involve a diverse number of activities some of which may include registration of voters, voter education, registration of political parties and developing mechanisms to settle electoral disputes. As a result, holding elections following violent civil conflicts without taking into consideration the other socio-political realities has often presented higher risks of drifting back to war rather than helping towards the achievement of a sustainable peace. According to Sambanis (2004, p.815), before organizing elections, sufficient time may be needed not only to effectively prepare the administrative or technical aspects of the elections but also to allow for the healing of the traumas as well as for the warring parties to settle their differences. One of the best examples of how rushing to elections following a violent civil conflict can negatively affect the fragile peace process of a post-conflict nation is Angola’s 1992 elections. Although the elections were primarily intended to help bring sustainable peace following the 18 year long civil war, it ended up that none of the warring parties was even ready to accept electoral defeat and therefore peace remained illusive even after the elections. This was largely attributed to the rushed elections that were carried out under hastily drafted electoral laws, incomplete demilitarization of the warring groups namely MPLA and UNITA as well as little time for healing of the trauma (Brancati and Jack, 2011, p.102). Another remarkable example of a country where elections failed to deliver viable sustainable peace is Liberia (Tanner, 1998, p.147). For at the time of the rushed elections, only Charles Taylor was able to conduct nationwide campaigns and the warring parties had more faith in solving their disputes through violence than elections. Cambodia also shared a similar experience. The above cases highlights that organizing elections following violent civil conflicts does not always enhance the achievement of sustainable peace. Democratic elections owing to the on-going violent civic conflicts after each and every election periods are not the best chance of attaining a sustainable peace. Even though most electorates view democracy as the rule of the people, for the people and by the people this is not applicable in elections. Elections in most Democratic States result into civic unrests due to undertaking electoral process as per the tribal lines or political parties’ point of view (Tanner, 1998, p.48). As various political scientists such as Robert Dahl, Aristotle among others put it; democracy is often a theory that revolves around a common people, what they want and deserve to get. Democratic elections especially in the modern states give room for the corruption of absolute power absolutely. Through democratic elections the marginalised communities and races suffer at the expense of major communities. Democratic elections as much as it is marked independent, are basically as substitution of the governments by the incompetent many by the corrupt few. Democratic elections especially in most African states such as Uganda and Sudan republic is the major factor to blame for the rise of authoritarian rules in these States. These States, just to mention but a few are at war each and every time elections are held. This is due to the fact that election process in these states is a formality as those in power are prone to retain their powers through various unscrupulous and unconstitutional means. As we soldier on into the fourth decade ever since the global democratic expansion wave was initiated in 1974, the task of promoting democracy has always faced various deafening tasks and contradictions. These challenges revolve around two intertwined facts. First, the numbers of democracies have increased from 40 percent in 1974 to about 60 percent in the recent years. This has reduced the initial concentration of the world polarities in ensuring democratic elections are exercised globally. This fact is the reason as to why violent civic conflicts have become rampant in the contemporary states as there is no control in elections and political governance in these States. On the other hand, contradicting cases in democratic elections are lack of a classical system for facilitating democracy at a more advanced level. Controlling developed levels of per capital incomes, independent mass media, mass democratic arrogances, political parties and social values in the most states are in the hands of a few individuals. These individuals easily manipulate their subjects through cheap propagandas especially during electioneering periods hence leading to violent civic conflicts. Lack of a basic and well-coordinated political order is another drawback in democratic elections. Violent civic conflicts are in most cases experienced in the developing states due to the oppression and suppression of low level citizens. Most institutions set in these states additionally are weaker especially the electoral institutions. Before a country can have a democratic system it is advisable to first aim at having a state. A state is a set of sovereign political institutions with legitimacy to exercise power and authority over a given territory. Through this structure a legitimate and democratic elections will be guaranteed. Violent civic conflicts are often experienced after elections due to the weaker political systems which have failed to make and execute policies, extract and distribute revenue equally to the citizens, produce public goods and lastly maintain order by exercising an efficient and effective monopoly over various means of violence. Overly per se these are just suggestions in relation to the best ways to uphold democratic elections shun violent civic conflicts. As per now in the political history, the self-interest nature of man as a social and political animal will never give way for a free and fair electoral process (Reilly, 2002, p.114). Counter Arguments Proponents of holding elections following violent civil conflicts have presented a number of arguments. One of the arguments is that Democratic elections safeguard the people’s interests. Based on this argument, the chief merit of democracy as identified by Hentz, James (2013) lies in the facts that it safeguards the interests of the people. In democracy, the constitution bestows real power in the hands of the citizens. Throw democratic elections, people can elect representatives who will safeguard their interests exercise power on their behalf (p.37.). Individuals’ political, social and economic interests are served at their best under democratic system. Elected governments promote satisfaction, fairness and equity; leaving no room for possible suspicion that would catalyze political chaos, Hentz, James (2013, pg 40). In Kenya, for examples, the constitution clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when any party disputes an election. In addition, the constitution allows the electorates to remove any elected person from the power if they (representatives) disregard the citizen’s interests. Another argument in support of elections in post conflict states is that it enhances the principle of equality. For example, according to Doyle, Michael, Nicholas (2010), democratically elected governments allow all members of the state to enjoy equal political, economic and social rights, (pg 191). They conclude by stating that the elected government cannot allow discrimination among the people on the basis of sex, religion, property or caste, (pg 192). Since citizens are allowed to elect their representatives, sustainable peace will be experienced. The government establishes structures that enable resolutions of inequality cases. In Rwanda, ethnic groups accused each other of perpetrating inequality. They were suspicious that either group enjoyed a bigger share of the state’s properties. When the elected government took over power, elected representatives passed various laws that enhanced equality in sharing the state’s properties, (pg 207). Other proponents have also suggested that elections are critical after violent conflicts because democratic governments have the people’s mandate and therefore it will enjoy the support of the people in its functions. It will, therefore, be characterized by firmness, efficiency and stability, Lyons, Terrence (2010, 55). In Kenya, Rwanda and South Africa the tenure of elected positions is fixed. The administration is, therefore, conducted responsibly since the elective positions are renewable depending on how the representatives have conducted themselves. In addition, the people’s representatives discuss and take matters thoroughly and hence make reasonable decisions (p. 62). This mandate by the people ensures that the elected government sustains peaceful coexistence and stability in the country. Finally, another group argues that elected government derives its mandate from public goodwill and therefore there is little chance of public expression of displeasure. Citizens’ representatives conduct the affairs of the government with public support. If they fail to work with efficiency or do not meet the expectations of their masters (the public), they are removed and cast into the dustbin of political history in consecutive elections. Doyle, Michael, Nicholas (2010, p. 379) is of the opinion that popular or democratically elected governments function by building consensus and hence the question of protest or revolution does not arise. How to Achieve Sustainable Peace in Post-Conflict Settings The greatest fallacy of many governments, policy makers and peace experts has been their tendency to view elections as the only way to achieve sustainable peace while ignoring other important political realities. Yes, elections are a critical ingredient of good governance, security, rule of law and the maintenance of peace. However, despite the watershed significance of holding democratic elections, many post conflict nations such as Iraq, Cambodia and nearly two thirds of African countries that have rushed into elections have remained highly fragile and volatile (Lyons, 1999, p.124). For example, the holding of elections immediately following the violent civil conflict Libya has not created any sign of sustainable peace or stability in post-Gaddafi Libya. This should raise caution to policy makers and confirms that achieving sustainable peace in post civil conflict countries entails a number of variables designed to guarantee and ensure long term stability and peace between the former belligerents. According to experts, the key elements that should be incorporated in the development of a sustainable peace normally include disarming the warring or opposing parties, restoration of order and then organizing credible electoral process. Only after these processes is holding elections considered a viable way of achieving sustainable peace. Lyons, Terrence (2010, pg 25) lays emphasis on the fact that democratic elections are fundamental constituent of any democratic government. In this case, the democratic government will be a people’s government, for the people and by the people. The face value of defined democracy makes it charming, especially to nations that have endured a large period of civil war. Conclusion In conclusion, democratic elections do not always offer the best change for the achievement of a sustainable peace in post civil conflict countries. In most cases, sustainable peace following violent civil conflicts can only be achieved through the formation inclusive transitional authorities. This is particularly because sufficient time is often needed to disarm factions, create trust among the antagonizing parties, reorganize the disintegrated administration, ensure security and most importantly create a credible electoral body that would guarantee democratic elections. References Addison, T. 2009. Making Peace Work: The Challenges of Social and Economic Reconstruction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brancati, D., Jack, L. 2011. Rushing to the Polls: The Causes of Premature Postconflict Elections. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 55, 3, 469-492. Brown, F.Z. 2008. Postconflict Elections, Democratization & International Assistance. Colorado: Lynnes Rinner Publishers, Inc. Doyle, M.W., Nicholas S. 2010. Making War and Building Peace United Nations Peace Operations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Hentz, J. J. 2013. Routledge Handbook of African Security. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Lyons, T. 1999. Voting for Peace: post-conflict elections in Liberia. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Top of FormBottom of Form Lyons, T. 2012. Journal of Conflict Demilitarizing Politics: Elections on the Uncertain Road to Peace. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Reilly, B. 2002. Elections in Post-Conflict Scenarios: Constraints and Dangers. International Peacekeeping 9 (2): 118-139. Sambanis. N. 2004. What Is a Civil War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition. Resolution. 48(6): 814-858. Tanner, V. 1998. „Liberia: Railroading Peace. Review of African Political Economy 25(75): 133-147. Read More