Understanding Mass Atrocity Prevention during Periods of Democratic Transition

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide a better understanding of why some countries experience mass atrocities during periods of democratic transition, while others do not. Scholars have long regarded democracy as an important source of stability and protection from mass atrocities such as genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. But democratic transition itself is fraught with the heightened risk of violent conflict and even mass atrocities. Indeed, a number of studies have identified regimes in transition as containing the highest risk of political instability and mass atrocities. What is overlooked is the question of how and why some regimes undergo such transitions without experiencing mass atrocities, despite the presence of a number of salient risk factors, including state-based discrimination, inter-group tension and horizontal inequality. Utilizing a new analytical framework, this article investigates this lacuna by conducting a comparative analysis of two countries-one that experienced atrocities (Burundi) during transition, and one that did not (Guyana). How countries avoid such violence during transition has the potential to yield insights for the mitigation of risk associated with mass atrocity crimes.

The Responsibility to Protect norm cluster and the challenge of atrocity prevention: an analysis of the European Union’s strategy in Myanmar

“…Contributing to the existing literature (Collier and Rohner, 2008; Snyder, 2000), McLoughlin (2015: 30–34) demonstrates how political reform in Burundi, which culminated in the 1993 elections, did not end interethnic rivalries. Of course, democratic transition does not necessarily lead to atrocities (McLoughlin, 2015: 34–37), but democratic transition can heighten risk factors. From this perspective, then, the complementarity across the democracy promotion and atrocity prevention norms – a complementarity that is repeated in official EU discourse on Myanmar – is not as straightforward as might first appear.…”

“…This last point reflects an understanding in the literature that democratic transition can increase the risk of atrocity crimes. McLoughlin (2015: 28; see also Collier and Rohner, 2008; Snyder, 2000), for instance, accepts that ‘[t]here is no question that democratic regimes are far less likely to commit mass atrocities than autocracies’. He adds, however, that ‘the process of transitioning authoritarian rule can be perilous’ (McLoughlin, 2015: 29).…”

“…McLoughlin (2015: 28; see also Collier and Rohner, 2008; Snyder, 2000), for instance, accepts that ‘[t]here is no question that democratic regimes are far less likely to commit mass atrocities than autocracies’. He adds, however, that ‘the process of transitioning authoritarian rule can be perilous’ (McLoughlin, 2015: 29). Contributing to the existing literature (Collier and Rohner, 2008; Snyder, 2000), McLoughlin (2015: 30–34) demonstrates how political reform in Burundi, which culminated in the 1993 elections, did not end interethnic rivalries.…”

“…He adds, however, that ‘the process of transitioning authoritarian rule can be perilous’ (McLoughlin, 2015: 29). Contributing to the existing literature (Collier and Rohner, 2008; Snyder, 2000), McLoughlin (2015: 30–34) demonstrates how political reform in Burundi, which culminated in the 1993 elections, did not end interethnic rivalries. Of course, democratic transition does not necessarily lead to atrocities (McLoughlin, 2015: 34–37), but democratic transition can heighten risk factors.…”