Exploring analytical avenues for agonistic peace

Daring to differ? Strategies of inclusion in peacemaking

“…We argue that the various inclusion strategies varyingly allow for an articulation of agonistic difference, and that this lastly affects the kind of peace that can be achieved. In contrast to what some contributions on agonistic peace have suggested (Strömbom, 2019: 6), inclusion does not automatically enable contestation. As we argue, agonistic politics require a relational approach to the included, which neither brushes over difference, nor essentializes and augments single identity traits over others.…”

“…As Shinko put it, the ‘concept of agonism encompasses a range of contestational political strategies through which exclusions, marginalisations, and states of domination can be problematised, resisted and possibly altered’ (Shinko, 2008: 476). Relational inclusion can thus be understood as a platform that enables antagonistic contestation at the negotiation table (Strömbom, 2019: 9). This may require moving away from a notion of formal inclusion at the table that puts emphasis on the physical presence of a group representative voicing the seemingly homogeneous interests of a bounded constituency, towards a notion of inclusion that focuses on the themes and narratives underpinning the antagonistic relationships.…”

Agonistic peace and confronting the past: An analysis of a failed peace process and the role of narratives

“…WPC reports present original data generated by the committee members and are first of their kind in Turkey, since never before had the government initiated such a project to visit the ‘ordinary people’ and ask about their opinion and feelings about the conflict. Using these data is also important since it allows an analysis that supplements analyses focused on the elite level, and provides grassroots data to understand whether agonistic peace ‘can be deepened all the way throughout the society’ (Strömbom, 2019: 10).…”

“…At the same time, when efforts to listen to citizens’ narratives are imposed as a top-down mechanism without a strong and sustained political will and the depth and intensity such processes would require (Maddison and Diprose, 2018), dominant group members can perceive peace processes as projects of dividing the country, manipulation by foreign powers, a plan of high treason, and so forth. Moreover, such efforts can also disregard how minorities’ narratives are easily dismissed by the members of privileged groups in the society since they do not necessarily aspire to bring these groups into an agonistic dialogue aiming at an understanding of difference rather than creating a shared conflict history (Maddison, 2014), and because such groups have little to gain from including minorities in dialogue and collective narratives (Strömbom, 2019).…”

“…Such dialogue, however, needs to take place in a secure environment, be sustainable, and be supported by a political will. Agonistic peace, as argued by Strömbom (2019), requires that political will to change institutions be linked to the affective dimensions of processes of recognition and acknowledgment (not necessarily acceptance). In the absence of security in a peace process that ignores the relational and affective aspect of the conflict through short-term policies that are not carefully designed, such dialogues can provoke violent reactions rather than providing epistemic openings between these groups.…”