Document Library

Key Text Democratisation and Armed Conflict

Author: M Sï¿½derberg Kovacs and T Ohlson
Date: 2003
Size: 58 pages (318KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

What is the relationship between democratisation and armed conflict? What role can development assistance play in relation to this? This paper by Uppsala University seeks to challenge prevailing conceptions about the process of democratisation and to analyse how that process relates to state building, institution-building, civil society and the security sector. The focus is on the potential for political violence in the context of democratisation processes. It concludes that there is a need for a general reassessment among donors.

The recipe for transitions to democracy and liberalisation has up to now been a fairly streamlined one, aimed at attaining the Weberian state model. However, recent findings on democratic transitions suggest that there is nothing automatic about the process of democratisation. The realisation of normative goals depends crucially on a number of things, such as the presence of rule of law, general conditions for a mutually reinforcing alliance between an entrepreneurial class, a vibrant civil society and a vital, strong and proactive state apparatus. Success depends on whether or not the specific conditions into which a process of transition towards democracy is introduced are being taken into account. Consequently, the achievement of a responsible and legitimate system of rule is a complex and hazardous process.

The nature of the problem of democratising weak states has several interlinked dimensions:

While democracy is a method of resolving societal conflicts in a non-violent manner, the route to it is a conflict-generating process.
The structural conditions for moving from democratisation to democracy are often lacking in weak states. The conflict potential is entrenched in structurally conditioned grievances.
If there is no harmony between a political culture and political structure, the imposition of an alien political structure is doomed to fail.
The suggested political structure is simplistic and generalised, whereas the political culture into which it is inserted has certain perverse and counter-productive features.
Proposed structure and existing culture have to be modified to achieve success in the transition to democracy. Such modifications are also conflict generating.
Systems of patronage constitute a formidable societal force. It is important to make the positive elements part of the solution, rather than the key problem to be eliminated.

There are powerful arguments for continuing assistance to the democratisation process. However, donors must reassess how, with what purposes and with which effects, their funds are spent.

The risk of generating counterproductive outcomesï¿½such as faï¿½ade democracy, autocracy or warï¿½must be minimised. It is dangerous to move to multi-party elections too fast and to export a particular democratic structure.
The debate on whether the state or civil society should be supported in a democratisation process should be terminated. It is necessary to support both.
Processes of decentralisation should only be supported under certain conditions. A state apparatus that is an empty shell is pointless to decentralise.
Donors should seek to assist in curbing the negative effects of neopatrimonialism, including political exclusion, rewarding loyalty instead of efficiency and corruption.
The security sector and its role in the process of democratisation should be effectively managed. The emergence of a just taxation system, improved administrative capacities and the rule of law should be assisted.
The likelihood of successful donor support would increase immensely if there could be more coordination and less chauvinism and ignorance among donors.

Access full text: available online

Source: Soderberg Kovacs, M. and Ohlson, T., 2003, ï¿½Democratisation and Armed Conflictï¿½, Swedish International Development Agency, Sweden
Author: Thomas Ohlson , Thomas.Ohlson@pcr.uu.se