Domestic elites and external actors in post-conflict democratisation: mapping interactions and their impact

Following the end of the Cold War, post-conflict democratisation has rarely occurred without a significant international involvement. This contribution argues that an explanation of the outcomes of post-conflict democratisation requires more than an examination of external actors, their mission mandates or their capabilities and deficiencies. In addition, there is a need to study domestic elites, their preferences and motivations, as well as their perceptions of and their reactions to external interference. Moreover, the patterns of external–internal interactions may explain the trajectory of state-building and democracy promotion efforts. These issues deserve more attention from both scholars and practitioners in the fields of peace- and state-building, democracy promotion, regime transition and elite research. Analyses of external actors and domestic elites in post-conflict democratisation should therefore address three principal issues: (1) the identification of relevant domestic elites in externally induced or monitored state-building and democratisation processes, (2) the dynamics of external–domestic interactions and (3) the impact of these interactions on the outcomes of post-conflict democratisation

The significance of the kind of the treatment of conflicts for the pacification of civil war societies by the example of Angola and El Salvador

Die Studie versucht, die Hypothese eines kausalen Zusammenhanges zwischen der Art der Konfliktbearbeitung und dauerhaftem Frieden anhand der Fälle Angola und El Salvador zu plausibilisieren werden. Sie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass eine Kovarianz zwischen unabhängiger und abhängiger Variable vorliegt: Während die abkommensorientierte Konfliktbearbeitung in Angola zu keinem dauerhaften Frieden führte, folgte eben dieser auf die transformationsorientierte Konfliktbearbeitung in El Salvador. Diese Annahme konnte durch die Darstellung kausaler Zusammenhänge sowie die ansatzweise durchgeführte Prozessanalyse weiter gestützt werden, die zeigte, dass einige der aufgeführten Kausalmechanismen in Angola und El Salvador zu beobachten waren.The paper explores the question why peace processes succeed or fail. As a starting point for answering this puzzle, I argue that the form of an intervention is a crucial factor to explain the success or failure of a peace agreement. Thus, approaches focussing on conflict settlement are considered to be less likely to lead to an enduring peace than approaches focussing on conflict transformation. In order to enhance the plausibility of this hypothesis, I examine two cases of civil wars which were managed in different ways: (1) the civil war in Angola; (2) the civil war in El Salvador. The result of the comparative case study confirms the hypothesis: the conflict-settlement approach in Angola did not lead to an enduring peace, the conflict-transformation approach in El Salvador did. The paper further discusses causal mechanisms which are expected to be responsible for the better performance of the conflict-transformation approach. It is held that three factors are of utmost importance for the success of a peace process. First, the consideration of essential root causes of conflict and main interests in the peace agreement, second trust amongst the conflict parties and third the engagement of the population in the peace process