Wartime Experiences and Popular Support for Peace Agreements: Comparative Evidence from Three Cases
Author | Karin Dyrstad,Helga M. Binningsbø,Kristin M. Bakke |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221104728 |
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) 1562–1588
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220027221104728
journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr
Wartime Experiences and
Popular Support for Peace
Agreements: Comparative
Evidence from Three Cases
Karin Dyrstad
1
, Helga M. Binningsbø
2
, and
Kristin M. Bakke
3,2
Abstract
Peace agreements are negotiated and signed by representatives of the government and
the rebels, often after many years of violent conflict, but their ability to transform a
war-torn society hinges on the approval of ordinary people. Yet we have little sys-
tematic knowledge of what ordinary people think of peace agreements in the long run.
This study begins to fill that gap, drawing on a set of comparative public opinion surveys
from Guatemala, Nepal, and Northern Ireland, three cases where long civil wars were
ended by peace agreements. The peace agreements in these countries have strong
popular support, though there is variation across specific provisions. Across these
cases, our findings suggest that legacies of violence are not generally associated with
long-term support for peace agreements. However, when we look at provisions that
grant concessions to the rebels, there is some evidence of lasting legacies.
Keywords
peace agreement, civil wars, conflict, conflict resolution
1
Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),
Trondheim, Norway
2
Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Oslo, Norway
3
Department of Political Science, University College London (UCL), London, UK
Corresponding Author:
Karin Dyrstad, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), NTNU Dragvoll, Trondheim N-7491, Norway.
Email: Karin.dyrstad@ntnu.no
Introduction
This study examines public support for peace agreements in three post-conflict con-
texts, 10 to 20 years after the agreements were signed. Though peace agreements are
often ambitious documents offering prospects of fundamental restructuring of society
through specific reforms, they rarely represent ideal solutions or roadmaps for future
development—and many break down (e.g., Bell and Badanjak 2019) or are not im-
plemented in full (e.g., Walter 2002;Derouen, Lea, and Wallensteen 2009;Joshi,
Quinn, and Regan 2015). Peace agreements are negotiated and signed by political
elites—typically the result of lengthy bargaining processes between warring parties
who will not sign unless they believe they have more to gain from collaborating than
from continued fighting—sometimes with civil society involvement (e.g., Nilsson
2012). The ability of these elite-level agreements to transform a war-torn society hinges
also on what ordinary people think of the agreement (c.f. Nilsson and Gonz´
alez Mar´
ın
2020)—ordinary people who may have endured years of violence. We argue that
wartime experiences have long-term implications for what people think about peace
agreements. Indeed, peace agreements represent pivotal historical moments, bringing
hope about a peaceful future, but they often remain contentious long after they are
signed (c.f. Morgan-Jones, Stefanovic, and Loizides 2021).
A growing number of studies investigate what people think about peace processes
and peace agreements, but most examine the immediate post-signing period (e.g.,
Hayes and McAllister 2001;Ringdal, Simkus, and Listhaug 2007;Dyrstad et al. 2011)
or people’s perceptions in the midst of peace negotiations (e.g., Tellez 2019;Liendo and
Braithwaite 2018;Matanock and Garbiras-D´
ıaz 2018, Loizides et al. in this Special
Feature).
1
While people in conflict-affected societies may show support for efforts to
end violence when these efforts are fresh, particularly if they have experienced vio-
lence, our study asks if conflict legacies also drive people’s perceptions of peace
agreements in the long term? This research question situates us within the lower right
quadrant of this Special Feature’s conceptual framework (see Introduction in this
Special Feature), in which peace processes have long-lasting effects on citizens’
perceptions and behaviors. We pay special attention to provisions that give concessions
to the opposition—the ‘rebels’. Such concessions may be necessary, even crucial, to
end the conflict, but may be particularly controversial as they may be seen as rewarding
violence. To the degree that peace agreements often entail a shift in power relations in
favor of the rebels, we expect support for provisions granting them concessions to
follow wartime cleavages. That is, we expect that the ‘side’on which people par-
ticipated, or the ‘side’by which they were victimized by, will color their views on the
peace agreement.
Employing a most-different case approach, we examine public support for peace
agreements in three post-conflict contexts—Guatemala, Nepal, and Northern Ireland—
10 to 20 years after the agreements were signed. The comparative Post-Conflict At-
titudes for Peace (PAP) survey was conducted between January and July 2016. Our
analysis reveals that overall, the peace agreements in these countries enjoy strong
Dyrstad et al. 1563
To continue reading
Request your trial