Touted as celebrations of democracy, or the way to resolve power struggles peacefully, elections are an important, yet treacherous arena for peacebuilders. Electoral politics provides an arena to advocate for peace, to highlight what binds a political community together. Yet, it also tests peacebuilders' skills to build bridges and to remain neutral, especially when some candidates promote unpeaceful policies.
From the beginning of the international peacebuilding project in the early 1990s—which we should not confuse with the much older and broader human activity of bringing about peace—elections played an important, often central role in post-conflict peacebuilding. In many such contexts, elections featured as a central component of negotiated peace agreements, supposedly marking a return to non-violent politics, and establishing conflict-affected states as representative liberal democracies. And indeed, when functioning as intended, elections facilitate the periodic peaceful transfer of power between contending groups that had used violence to achieve this and offer representation in the legislative institutions of the state for diverse constituencies.
More often than not, however, reality has fallen short of these post-conflict aspirations. Approximately half of all the internal armed conflicts terminated through negotiations in the last three decades relapsed into violent conflict within five years of signing the peace agreement. Even in those cases which did not, the democracies that emerged are at best hollow, at worst turned into authoritarianism. There are a number of reasons for this, including the inherently conflictual nature of elections, which when held too early after the formal end of violent conflict may ignite simmering tensions that would be better addressed through conflict transformation first. Another reason is the often blueprint-based introduction of elections and other political institutions, which disregards context in favor of models that function in affluent, developed societies. In some countries, elections are held while violent conflict is ongoing (typically in rural areas), and in such cases, elections are naturally intermingled with other—violent—forms of political contestation. Added to all this is the crisis of the so-called mature liberal democracies of North America and Europe, characterized by popular disengagement, and the expansion and electoral successes of anti-democratic political forces of the extreme right.
Having said this, elections that are held in conflict-affected countries do somehow contribute to the constitution of governments, and most importantly create some space to articulate political positions, demands, and aspirations. This means that peacebuilders have work to do.
The first task of peacebuilders is to develop a realistic analysis of the broad socio-political landscape and situate elections in it. Benedict Anderson, the great scholar of Southeast Asia, said this about elections:
On a particular day, determined either by law or by government decision, between hours regulated by the same, at places settled on usually by local authorities [note the state's role in determining when, where, and how the political deed is done], one joins a queue of people whom one does not typically know, to take a turn to enter a solitary space, where one pulls levers or marks pieces of paper, and then leaves the site with the same calm discretion with which one enters it—without questions being asked. It is almost the only political act imaginable in perfect solitude, and it is completely symbolic. It is thus almost the polar opposite of all other forms of personal political participation. Insofar as it has general meaning, it acquires this meaning only by mathematical aggregation. From this perspective, one can readily conclude that, under normal circumstances, the logic of electoralism is in the direction of domesticating, distancing, punctuating, isolating.*
Elections are highly visible—a condensation of political competition as it were—and they are sometimes equated with democracy, and politics with electoral politics. Yet, neither democracy nor politics can and should be reduced to elections. Understanding how elections fit into the broad socio-political system of the country allows peacebuilders to develop a more nuanced approach to them. Crucially, it shows that while elections may be important, their impact on the political system, of which peacebuilding is a part is limited. There are more important and fundamental components of this system, which they need to work on, and which over time may have an influence on the outcome of elections as well. Also, the work of peacebuilders is not to engender one or another administration—it is to build bridges, create and strengthen communities, challenge harmful status quo, and promote positive peace, all of which are alien to the isolating and alienating experience Anderson describes. In fact, if we follow the above reasoning of Anderson, elections may be among the least important political acts.
Whatever the relative importance of elections, peacebuilding is political work and therefore needs to engage with electoral politics. Most peacebuilders seek to occupy positions that are either neutral vis-à-vis politicians, political parties, and conflict parties, or if they are partisan, they try to remain accessible to all and perceived as fair brokers. In situations of intense political competition, they may come under pressure from political actors, either trying to enlist peace activists into their camp or to discredit—even threaten and attack—them if that suits their purpose. Peacebuilders need to resist both, which can reduce their space for peace advocacy. For this reason, it is important that they articulate their 'for-peace' positions in advance and communicate it to society. Using the channels and fora available to them, they can try and thematize the public discourse around peacebuilding, with the aim of lifting peace—and in particular positive peace—into the electoral political debate.
As part of this effort, peacebuilders can proactively engage candidates at all levels, soliciting their views on various aspects of peace processes, peacebuilding, and any number of issues of relevance to progressing towards positive peace. This way they can help constituencies become better informed, keep peace on the agenda, and they may even help candidates to think through the question of peace and formulate their positions—which they may or may not have. This can be done through popular consultations, town hall meetings, and in the media—mainstream, alternative, or social media. They can also assess candidates' platforms based on pre-set peace criteria and publish their findings. If the situation is amenable, peacebuilders can create platforms where candidates can come together and debate the relative merits of their approaches to peace, or work with (media) organizations that organize such debates to put specific questions on the debate agenda.
Finally, take note that contrary to expectations, elections do not necessarily eliminate violence. In fact, elections often generate different forms of violence, either during the campaign, on election day, or after the ballots are closed. Peacebuilders already work on violence reduction and mitigation, so in contexts where electoral violence is prone to happen or a recurring phenomenon, peacebuilding organizations can work to prevent such violence, or at least mitigate it and its impact if it happens. This should be done in a locally appropriate, conflict-sensitive manner. For instance, in some contexts, it is appropriate to collaborate with the police or even the military towards this end, while in others, where these are among the perpetrators of violence it may make things worse.
Ultimately, elections are too important to not engage with, but not so important as to disregard other political peace work. A peacebuilding strategy thus needs to prepare for it. Elections tend to happen periodically, so investing in devising one's approach to it is a useful investment. At the same time, elections are also special events, and working around them is not business as usual. This means that one may need to rethink some of the approaches and assumptions that guide one's work. For example, is staying formally neutral when some of the candidates promote violence an appropriate stance? Often, we work with perpetrators of violence: militaries, police forces, non-state armed groups and insurgents, and private armed groups, to name a few. When doing so, we recognize this fact along with the specific motivations, drivers, and constraints that these conflict actors have, their legitimate concerns, demands, aspirations, and so on, as conflict actors. Would this be appropriate in the context of electoral politics? Similarly, when creating platforms for candidates to connect with constituencies, where are the limits of inclusiveness? And how should peacebuilders prepare for possible attacks due to their peace advocacy, which may not fit the interests of some politicians? All of these and many more questions need to be answered when preparing for peace work in the time of elections.
Balázs Áron Kovács was the Philippines country director of forumZFD, a German NGO working in the field of conflict transformation. He has taught international relations at Webster University in Thailand, and peace and conflict studies at the UN-mandated University for Peace in Costa Rica. Balázs has a PhD in peace studies/politics and international studies.
* Anderson, B. (1996). Elections and Participation in Three Southeast Asian Countries. In R. H. Taylor (Ed.), The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia (pp. 12-33). Cambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press, p.14.
Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash