Who Gets a Seat at the Table? A Framework for Understanding the Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Peace Negotiations

Abstract

Who gets a seat at the table and who does not is an important consideration for successful peacemaking. However, current research does not provide sufficient guidance for understanding the politics of participation in peace negotiations. The present article thus develops a conceptual framework for understanding these dynamics. Its central theme is that the inclusion or exclusion of a given actor in peace negotiations is affected by two independent factors. One factor pertains to the practical requirements of the peace process and addresses the following question: does the participation of a given actor augment the chance of reaching a sustainable peace settlement?The other factor relates to the normative dimension of peace talks: is the participation of a given actor consistent with the values of international mediators and sponsors of peace negotiations?The article argues that the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion result from the interplay of these two factors. The most straightforward situation for mediators is when practical requirements and international norms are mutually reinforcing. Difficulties arise from scenarios where practical effectiveness and norms contradict each other. This is the case when the involvement of a given person (or group) is imperative in terms of the peace process, but difficult to justify politically because this person has committed terrorist acts or is indicted by an international court.

Civil Society and Peace Negotiations: Beyond the Inclusion–Exclusion Dichotomy

“…As a rule, general provisions are rarely effective. In cases in which provisions were more specific, civil society groups had taken an important role during the negotiations, which supports the idea that negotiations need to include discussion of the details of the implementation and monitoring provisions (Lanz ).…”

“…Accountability is particularly relevant during the implementation stage, when civil society's critical watchdog function can place pressure on the conflict parties to maintain their commitments. But to ensure adequate participation in monitoring mechanisms, corresponding provisions must be included in the agreement (Interview with mediation team member, September 2, 2011; Lanz ).…”

“…Another delicate issue is whether so‐called “hardliners” should be included or not. In some negotiations, international norms (e.g., “we don't negotiate with terrorists”) or the political concerns of powerful actors do not allow for the inclusion of a key party to the conflict (Lanz ); for example, such groups as Hamas, Al Shabaab, and the Taliban have been excluded from negotiations. In such situations, mediators have tried two approaches that involved civil society actors: in the Afghanistan negotiations in 2001, mediators involved more democratic civil society groups to make the process more legitimate in the absence of the Taliban.…”

“…While many studies have confirmed the important role of civil society in peace processes (Belloni 2001;Orjuela 2003;Aall 2007;Paffenholz 2010), the particular role civil society organizations play has been a relatively neglected topic in the literature of peace negotiations. Moreover, although most researchers have argued for inclusion, mediators and negotiators have tended to favor the exclusion of civil society groups from peace negotiations (Chuffrin and Saunders 1993;Fisher 1997;Saunders 1999;Barnes 2002Barnes , 2005Hemmer et al 2006;Bell and O'Rourke 2007;Wanis-St. John and Kew 2008;Lanz 2011;Nilsson 2012).…”

Legitimate Representation: Civil Society Actors in Peace Negotiations Revisited

“…Spoflers can emerge, and more generally the population may feel left out from a process that is not really theirs (Donáis 2009:3;Wanis-St. John & Kew 2008:13). As Wanis-St. John pointed out, peace negotiations face two opposing needs -the inclusion ofthe minimum amount of participants or factions in order to obtain an agreement, as well as getting the broadest support possible among political parties and the population (2008: 4; see also Lanz 2011). It is without a doubt that there is a deep-found tension between inclusivity and exclusivity in peace processes (McClintock & Nahimana, 2008:74).…”