Allison McCulloch

Gender, Representation and Power-Sharing in Post-Conflict Institutions

An emerging tension characterizes conflict resolution practice: promoting power-sharing between ethnic groups while simultaneously mandating womens inclusion in peace processes and in post-conflict institutions. Scholars of ethnic conflict have not adequately theorized the gender implications of power-sharing, and practitioners have failed to implement mechanisms that would make power-sharing representative of constituencies beyond ethno-national cleavages. There is no substantive reason why the representation of women and ethnic groups should be in tension. Nevertheless, gender is often ignored in the power-sharing literature and gender-mainstreaming practices appear irreconcilable with power-sharing practice. Drawing on three cases of post-conflict power-sharing – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, and Northern Ireland – this article identifies reasons why this tension remains in practice, especially the overriding emphasis in power-sharing on ethno-nationalist elites and conflict protagonists.

Consociational settlements in deeply divided societies: the liberal-corporate distinction

Consociationalism is often proposed for societies deeply divided along ethnic lines, yet its recommendation remains contentious. Critics argue that it has a low rate of adoption, results in political immobilism, and entrenches the divisions it seeks to alleviate. Overlooked in much of the criticism, however, is the distinction between liberal and corporate forms of consociationalism, alternatively premised on the self-determination or predetermination of the ethnic groups involved in power-sharing. The article considers whether the critiques apply equally to both versions. Corporate consociation freezes a particular inter-group configuration in time, leading to drawn-out executive formation and, in some cases, to a cementing of divisions. However, liberal consociation runs into its own difficulties: consociational settlements are generally negotiated at the very point at which group identities are most politically salient and divisive. Under these conditions, groups are unlikely to settle for anything other than a guarantee of their share in power, thus making liberal consociationalism less likely to be adopted in negotiated settlements. The article also considers the factors enhancing the adoption of liberal consociational rules.

Does Moderation Pay? Centripetalism in Deeply Divided Societies

Centripetalism suggests that the best way to achieve political stability in deeply divided societies is to enhance the political rewards of moderation by adopting electoral rules that require winning politicians to seek cross-community support. This paper considers the validity of this position by examining election results in eight deeply divided societies—Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Indonesia, Kenya and Northern Ireland—and argues that rather than consolidating moderation, the outcome is more likely to be increased instability, and even, in some cases, increased extremism.

Pathways from Power-sharing

Abstract This article focuses on power-sharing’s ‘exit dilemma’. While power-sharing may be a necessary transitional device to manage deep divisions, it also allegedly obstructs the long-term goals of peacebuilding and democratisation in divided societies. Three countervailing perspectives are considered here: (1) power-sharing is a transitional device unable to transition to more ‘normal’ political arrangements, creating instability; (2) power-sharing is a transitional device that can be designed for stability and adaptability; and (3) power-sharing is a lasting institutional fixture that facilitates peace and democratisation. The article presents a typology of pathways from power-sharing, arguing that the exit dilemma is real but not insurmountable.

Others in deeply divided societies: A research agenda

This article identifies a central problem in the theory and practice of democracy in divided societies: the systematic exclusion of Others. Defining the exclusion-amid-inclusion (EAI) dilemma of consociational power-sharing, whereby in including the main groups to the conflict it works to exclude those beyond these groups, the article offers the first systematic conceptualization of this issue. The article outlines the type of individuals and groups affected by the EAI dilemma, the varying strategies they adopt to navigate power-sharing frameworks and the potential routes out of this normative and empirical puzzle. Finally, it lays out a challenge for scholars to build on this conceptualization and address the EAI dilemma in future research.

Is Power-Sharing Bad for Women?

Is ethnic power-sharing gender-blind? If so, what are the consequences? And, what, if anything, can be done about it? This line of inquiry informed a 2-day workshop at Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) in November 2015, which explored the intersections of ethnonationalism and gender in comprehensive peace processes, with a specific focus on the extent to which power-sharing theory and practice can address new challenges emanating from the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, as embodied in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) and other subsequent resolutions. That conversation continues with this special issue. As the guest editors, we asked the contributors—many of them participants at the QUB workshop—to focus their analysis on three themes:

‘Bumps in the Road Ahead’: How External Actors Defuse Power-Sharing Crises

ABSTRACT Power-sharing is a governance approach favoured by external actors for building state capacity and legitimacy in post-conflict societies. Yet it can be unstable and crisis-prone, compelling external actors to guide cross-community cooperation. Why and how do external actors seek to maintain power-sharing and prevent its collapse when operational difficulties emerge? We explore the distinction between ‘light touch’ and ‘heavy hand’ techniques and the motivations of external actors in defusing power-sharing crises. We find a trade-off between the short-term value of crisis management (‘putting out fires’) and the long-term objectives of sustainable local arrangements and external exit (local actors ‘going it alone’).

The international mediation of power-sharing settlements:

Power sharing is largely accepted among scholars and policy-makers as a potentially effective mechanism for building peace in the aftermath of violent ethnic conflicts and self-determination disputes. Although the operation of power sharing may be prone to ongoing challenges and even political crises arising from the legacy of the conflict, international actors continue to promote power-sharing arrangements to manage self-determination and other ethnopolitical conflicts. This article investigates the normative and instrumental reasons why third-party mediators (on behalf of international organizations and/or states) turn to power-sharing strategies during peace negotiations. It considers the reasons why third-party mediators promote power sharing when its maintenance is likely to depend on their ongoing commitment and governance involvement. We argue that mediators draw from four different perspectives in their support of power-sharing settlements: international law, regional and internal security, democracy and minority rights, and a technical approach where mediators focus on the mechanics of power-sharing designs. The article draws on in-depth semi-structured interviews with officials from the United Nations and the European Union working for the organizations’ respective mediation units as well as documentary analysis of official mediation documents.

A Review of “The Study of Ethnicity and Politics: Recent Analytical Developments”

issues of exposition and explanation. As Donham states: “any exercise that accepts reports after violence more or less at face value will almost certainly mislead. One must understand exactly how any particular conflict became ‘ethnicized’ to understand what it was about” (p. 9). All too often in the South African transition, partisan and skewed reporting became fact and fact fed into broader narratives of Xhosa versus Zulu, ANC versus Inkatha Freedom Party. The Cinderella Gold mine was no different. Overall, Donham’s text is highly readable and generally persuasive. The insertion of more political economy-related discussions creep in unexpectedly in certain chapters, offering interesting points to consider but devoid of the larger exposition which precedes them. This probably relates to Donham’s own admission, however, that “I did not go to South Africa to study collective violence (I had intended to study the changes to the organization of production after the end of Apartheid)” (p. 194). Similarly, in this vein, it is somewhat disappointing that the exposition on the growth and development of Inkatha is rather short and stillborn given the organisation’s overall importance to the narratives and incidents under examination (pp. 89–92). These, however, remain rather minor quibbles. Ultimately, Donham offers a powerful micro-study of a South African mine at the close of Apartheid and the concomitant issues that went with it—ethnicity, violence, masculinity, nationalism and power. As a microcosm for some of the broader issues at play at this crucial time in South African history—as well as a more general comment on mining culture and migrancy in South Africa—his is a study which will prove highly useful for those studying the transition and ethnicity in contemporary South Africa. In challenging much of the crystallisation of ‘political’ and ‘ethnic’ violence narratives and showing the crucial place of memory and narration in distorting or projecting certain causes and stories—how to “problematize the data of violence” (p. 195) as it were—Donham has shown the dark, problematic nature of the liberation struggle and the unstable nature of timelines which emerged both in ‘Cinderella’ and further afield.