Citizens and Peace Mediations in Divided Societies: Identifying Zones of Agreement through a Conjoint Survey Experiment

• Author: Neophytos Loizides,Charis Psaltis,Edward Morgan-Jones,Laura Sudulich,Raluca Popp,Tekin Baykiz
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221108221
• Published date: 01 October 2022
• Date: 01 October 2022
• Subject Matter: Special Feature Articles

Special Feature Article

Journal of Conf‌lict Resolution

2022, Vol. 66(9) 1619–1649

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00220027221108221

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

Citizens and Peace Mediations

in Divided Societies:

Identifying Zones of

Agreement through a

Conjoint Survey Experiment

Neophytos Loizides

1

, Charis Psaltis

2

, Edward Morgan-Jones

1

,

Laura Sudulich

3

, Raluca Popp

1

and Tekin Baykiz

4

Abstract

How can areas of potential agreement be identif‌ied and endorsed by citizens in

protracted conf‌licts? In an effort to answer this question, the article introduces a

conjoint experiment across the ethnically and territorially split communities of Cyprus

and tests a range of hypotheses about the structure of public opinion with respect to a

future settlement. We test hypotheses on security and credible commitments, the

legacy of past negotiations, as well as transitional justice mechanisms following United

Nations plans to mediate the conf‌lict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Contrary

to conventional wisdom, we demonstrate that a zone of possible agreement (ZOPA)

exists from a public opinion perspective. We specif‌ically explore power-sharing in the

context of security, provisions for the internally displaced, federal courts, and terri-

torial readjustments and highlight their relative importance for public opinion inter-

ventions across conf‌lict-ridden societies.

1

School of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

2

Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

3

Department of Government, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

4

Department of International Relations, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Corresponding Author:

Neophytos Loizides, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent, Keynes College,

Canterbury, CT2 7NP, UK.

Email: n.loizides@kent.ac.uk

Keywords

integrative (win-win) negotiations, ZOPA, peace agreements, conjoint analysis, power-

sharing, federal courts, displacement

Introduction

This article investigates the question of intractability from the perspective of citizens

and public opinion research in ethnically and territorially divided societies. While there

has been an extensive literature on peace settlements and their effects (Hartzell and

Hoddie 2007;Lederach 1997;Walter 2002), little work has so far incorporated the role

of citizen preferences in peace mediations (for exceptions see, Tuathail et al. 2006;Bar-

Tal et al. 2010;Tellez 2019 and Dyrstad et al. in this special feature section).

1

Public

opinion research can take place at different temporal orders and stages of a peace

agreement (see Haass et al. introduction to this special feature section) and might have

different impacts on the broader peace process depending on the nature of civil society-

state interactions and broader institutional setting. Establishing the extent of public

support for the terms of a negotiated settlement is a key element of peacebuilding

projects yet public opinion surveys often take place only after the introduction of a

peace agreement thus failing to incorporate public opinion at an earlier stage.

2

This

article focuses instead on the pre-settlement stage of peace negotiations specif‌ic ally

intracommunal divergences or possible zones of agreement by investigating political

attitudes among citizens in the two main conf‌lictual communities in Cyprus.

Peace settlements ending these types of intractable conf‌licts could contain multiple

dimensions, for instance, provisions on power sharing, the protection of human rights,

the location and management of internal (federal) or/and external borders and inter-

national guarantees, and support for property compensations and/or reconstruction.

Because of their inherent complexity involving interrelated areas of bargaining, peace

agreements are more often described as the product of elite compromise than of

grassroots involvement or public consultation (Agarin et al. 2018;MacGinty and

Richmond 2013;McEvoy 2018). A key policy priority is adding other voices to such

processes. Referendums and traditional surveys cannot identify the dimensions of a

peace settlement that are most troubling for ordinary citizens or detect the types of

compromises or trade-offs they might support. To address this problem, this article

introduces the use of conjoint analysis in ongoing peace negotiations to investigate

areas of potential agreement between two ethnically divided communities. The type of

survey experiment that we propose in detail below is unique in applying a conjoint

design to an ethnic conf‌lict, surveying each side’s preferences, and then identifying the

spaces of divergence and agreement. The technique permits us to answer three im-

portant questions about public support for peace settlements: the elements of peace

settlements most important to citizen support overall; the main divisions between

communities with opposing interests; and the location and extent of compromise

positions or zones of possible agreement (ZOPAs) between different groups. We

1620 Journal of Conf‌lict Resolution 66(9)