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