Illiberal peace? Authoritarian modes of conflict management

Abstract

In a contested international order, ideas of liberal peacebuilding are being supplanted by state-centric, authoritarian responses to internal armed conflicts. In this article we suggest that existing research has not yet sufficiently recognised this important shift in conflict management practice. Scholarship in peace and conflict studies has avoided hard cases of ‘illiberal peace’, or categorises them simply as military victories. Drawing on accounts of state responses to conflicts in Russia, Sri Lanka, China, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Turkey, we develop an alternative conceptual framework to understand authoritarian conflict management as a form of wartime and post-conflict order in its own right. Although violence is central to these orders, we argue that they are also dependent on a much wider range of authoritarian policy responses, which we categorise in three major domains: firstly, discourse (state propaganda, information control and knowledge production); secondly, spatial politics (both military and civilian modes of controlling and shaping spaces); and thirdly, political economy (the hierarchical distribution of resources to produce particular political outcomes). In conclusion, we propose a research agenda that moves on from discussions of liberal peace to examine hard cases of contemporary conflict and conflict management.

Studying Peace in and with Central Eurasia: Starting from Local and Trans-Local Perspectives

“…They shed light on the fact that many elites and political leaders in this region live off of corruption, an economy of rents and illegal offshore practices (among others Cooley and Heathershaw 2017). These practices often ultimately lead to the establishment of state-crime nexuses or even state capture (Cornell and Jonsson 2014) and feed 'authoritarian conflict management' (Lewis, Heathershaw, and Megoran 2018). The more these regimes follow authoritarian rules and act primarily as sources of security for elites, the more they become dysfunctional in relation to their societies (Kreikemeyer 2020).…”

“…Despite broad debate on the spatial and cultural imaginaries of Central Eurasia (among others, Ismailov and Papava 2010), top-down perspectives on this region have considerably hindered research on societal factors that influence peace and conflict in Central Eurasia (Melvin, Jung, and Larsson 2016;Khamidov, Megoran, and Heathershaw 2018, 244). With this said, viewing societies in this region as closed spaces in a way follows the path chosen by the more or less authoritarian and sovereigntist regimes in Central Eurasia, which are primarily interested in non-interference in internal affairs (Lewis, Heathershaw, and Megoran 2018).…”

A Solution in Libya: Elections, Mediation and a Victor's Peace

“…35 Defying UN mediation efforts, the model advanced by Haftar furthered a trend unfolding in the late 2000s in which elections (democracy) and negotiated settlements (mediation) have been replaced by military victories or state repressions --a trend referred to in the literature as "illiberal-peace" or "authoritarian conflict management." 36 In reaction to the failure of years of liberal-peace interventions, the affirmation of this trend occurred in an environment where norms and practices associated with building peace became increasingly contested. Indeed, internationally negotiated settlements began to decline in the 2000s, with some analysts seeing a reversal toward military victories as the main basis for conflict resolution.…”

Political stability, transition and conflict: Tajikistan compared with Georgia

“…Some colleagues maintain that an 'illiberal peace' exists in Tajikistan. 37 It is premature to speak with any precision about whether there is a large consensus among the Tajikistani population about all aspects of this mode of peacebuilding. However, the political and social affairs in Tajikistan may testify to such a consensus to certain degree.…”