Overview
Democratic Systems
Elections
A Three-Level Approach
Threats to the Process

Overview

Although democratization can be thought of as an integral part of institution building, because of its importance within the process it deserves an independent section. This decision acknowledges both the extensive literature on democratization as a separable element of institution building, as well as the important implications it has for conflict management. The design of political institutions is a key factor to reconcile deeply divided societies. Empirical studies indicate that democracy, rather than oligarchy or authoritarianism, is more conducive to reconciliation.

The challenge of democratization is to establish political institutions that allow for: accountability, meaningful competition for political power; participation in the selection of leaders and policies; and a level of civil and political liberties to ensure competition and participation. An inclusive and sustainable democratic system might not only avert relapse into violent intrastate conflict, but might also improve "democratic peace" amongst states. However, until democracy is consolidated, state and society pass through a volatile and fragile transformation phase, in which small incidents have the ability to reverse the democratization process.

For the purpose of post-conflict Peacebuilding it is paramount that democratization is embedded within a comprehensive process of institution building which addresses all levels of society. Otherwise, if democratic institutions are hastily "transplanted" to post-conflict societies without taking root, this might lead to subsequent resumption of hostilities.

Democratic Systems

The choice of an appropriate democratic system is paramount for the achievement of an equitable and sustainable state system. The structure of democracy should be carefully engineered to fit the specifics of the society that adopts it. Power-sharing or majoritarian democracy? Parliamentary or presidential governance?

Power-sharing versus Majoritarian Democracy

Power-sharing political systems are often a better choice to prevent the relapse into violent conflict in societies that are divided along identity lines. In power-sharing democracies all major identity groups are represented in the government. Ideally, the constitution will provide for decision making rules that are based on consensus, to ensure cooperation of all groups in policy making.

In a majoritarian democratic system the winner takes all; the loser will have to wait for the next chance to assume government power. The implementation of policies is easier, because the majority rules, but the successful political group may/should develop a spoils system. It will have to accommodate the demands of the opposition as long as the latter is strong enough to be a formidable opponent in future elections. Otherwise, if the political challenger represents only a minority, there is a substantial threat of "tyranny of the majority".

According to the circumstances of each single case, variations of these two forms of democratic governance might be more suitable models. For example, in countries where the difference in the relative size of different ethnic groups is large, a majoritarian system that includes extensive guarantees to the minority can be appropriate.

Parliamentary versus Presidential Democracy

The democratic system has to be supported by an appropriate constitutional framework. In a parliamentary regime a system of mutual dependence between the executive and legislative branches is devised. Executive power must be supported by a majority in the legislature who can subject it with a vote of non-confidence; at the same time the executive branch has the capacity to dissolve the legislature and call for elections.

A pure presidential regime in a democracy is a system of mutual independence. The legislative and the chief executive have fixed electoral mandates, from which they derive their own legitimacy. They are not accountable to each other.

Those two regimes have both advantages and disadvantages in addressing the needs of reconstructing the state and reconciling society after a violent conflict. Parliamentarism facilitates the inclusion of all groups within the legislature and the executive. It introduces accountability on the part of the government towards the people's representatives. At the same time, it often lacks the ability of efficient policy making of the presidential system and has propensity towards a weak and fragmented government.

Idealistically in a presidential system, the chief executive acts as a unifying national figure and moderates diverging interests of rival political groupings. However, this mandate, and the powers which are conferred to him, can have an adverse effect if the president is captured by one political or ethnic group. No real checks on the executive are integrated into the system.

Semi-presidentialism is a hybrid of the two regimes, in which a parliamentary system and a prime minister, with some executive powers, is combined with a president, who also has executive powers. This system combines the advantages of both systems, but also shows a propensity for deadlock between and within the executive arms of government.

All systems have advantages and disadvantages and no suggestion for the ideal system can be made. However, there are trends that should be considered for post-conflict democratization. Compromise, negotiation, moderation and inclusion are keys to democratic stability. The size of the competing groups as well as the way in which offices are elected influence the functionality of the systems. Therefore, a careful choice of the system has to be made.

Elections

Evidence from elections held in divided societies shows that an appropriate electoral system can foster accommodative tendencies. On the other hand, the implementation of inappropriate systems can severely harm the process of democratization.

An electoral system is one of the most important mechanisms in shaping political participation, because it translates votes in a general election into seats in the legislature. The electoral system influences the size and number of parties represented in the legislative bodies. With the same number of votes, one system might lead to coalition governments and the other to a single party assuming majority control. The electoral system is closely linked to the design of the democratic system.

Three major choices are particularly suited for divided societies:

Countries emerging from conflict may need to restructure their electoral administration to restore credibility and legitimacy of the election process. Elections must be administered successfully at the first time. The electoral commission has to be impartial and transparent. Voter registration has to be fair and accessible, each eligible voter has to be provided with the opportunity to make his political choice.

A Three-Level Approach

Support from all three levels of Lederdach's society is necessary for successful democratization:

Political elites have to understand the perils of political fragmentation. They have to have the ability to accommodate divergent interests. Most importantly, they must have the will to establish democracy and they must be willing to accept limits to their political power.

On the middle-level, the creation and institutionalization of political parties that represent all groups of the population are necessary to support a pluralistic democracy. Opinion leaders and NGOs have to be educated and informed. Appropriate laws and institutions have to be created; electoral laws, electoral commissions, democratization of institutions, etc.

Civil education, on the grass-root level, prepares the population for democracy through democratization of local institutions and teaching of tolerance and the ability to balance different opinions through cooperation and compromise. In the context of a post-conflict situation, humanitarian concerns such as deep partisanship and trauma will also have to be addressed. Furthermore, it should provide individuals with the capacity to identify demagogues and the threat that emanates from them.

Threats to the Process

Transition to a consolidated democratic system is a long and delicate process. Democratizing countries are often subject to coups or relapse into authoritarianism. This occurs, in particular, in states where the economy and social structures have been disrupted by the conflict and the new government's policies do not lead to immediate reconstruction. The population becomes impatient and hopes for better results through strong leadership.

If parties in a conflict have fought for control of the government, democratization may be understood merely as a continuation of that struggle. This tendency is exacerbated if a country with no prior experience of democracy adopts a system that does not properly address the original grievances.

Democratization, understood as merely holding elections, can aggravate social and political differences that contributed to the violent conflict. Often, ethnic, religious or regional as well as kinship loyalties are exploited for votes. Elections do not necessarily transform a society's political structure and culture, but can aggravate existing tensions.

When minority rights are not observed in deeply divided societies, the possibility that conflict resurges is imminent. An appropriate democratic system has to be established to prevent "tyranny of the majority."