Chemistry
The Dynamics of Power-Sharing Agreements After Civil War
Quick fact
A study of peace agreements since 1989 found that power-sharing arrangements that include military power-sharing (integrating rebel forces into the national army) are significantly more likely to lead to lasting peace than those that only share political positions.
Why this is interesting
After a brutal civil war, why does peace sometimes last for decades while in other cases the same agreement collapses within months?
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Dynamics of Power-Sharing Agreements After Civil War
Imagine two rival groups, each armed and suspicious, agreeing to share control of a country after years of conflict. Power-sharing is essentially a contract that gives each side a stake in the new government—a seat in the cabinet, a share of military posts, or control over a certain region. The goal is to make each party feel secure enough to lay down her weapons. However, the contract is only the beginning. The real challenge is implementation: new laws have to be passed, rebels have to be integrated into the army, and elections have to be held. Each step is a moment where one side might fear the other is gaining an advantage. If one group delays its demobilization, the other group will likely respond by not disarming fully. This creates a vicious cycle of mistrust that can unravel the entire peace.
A deeper explanation
The fundamental mechanism that shapes the dynamics of power-sharing is the credible commitment problem. In the chaos after a civil war, each side worries that the other will use the peace to disarm them and then seize full power. Institutions that are designed to share power help mitigate this fear by creating permanent checks and balances. For instance, a power-sharing government might require a supermajority for major legislation, giving each group an effective veto, or it might provide a quota in the military so rebels retain a way to defend their interests. These mechanisms increase the cost of breaking the deal because the aggrieved party can punish the defector by withdrawing its cooperation, leading to renewed conflict. Power-sharing also affects the timing of elections: if elections are held too soon, they may polarize groups, while quotas can become permanent and fuel resentment. Understanding these dynamics shows that power-sharing is not a single event but a continuous balancing act between ensuring security and promoting democratic legitimacy.