Who Shot the Bullets? Exposure to Violence and Attitudes Toward Peace: Evidence from the 2016 Colombian Referendum

Abstract

Does exposure to violence affect attitudes toward peace? Civilians living in war zones see peace agreements as an opportunity to improve their security prospects. However, in multiparty conflicts, this does not automatically translate into support for peace. Support hinges on the interplay between which faction has victimized civilians in the past and which faction is sitting at the negotiation table. If civilians have been victimized by the group that is involved in the peace agreement, they will be likely to support peace. On the contrary, if they have been victimized by another faction, they will be likely to refrain from supporting peace if they believe that this can trigger retaliatory violence against them. This article explores this argument empirically in the context of the 2016 peace agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC; both quantitative and qualitative data yield support to the study’s theoretical expectations.

Wartime Experiences and Popular Support for Peace Agreements: Comparative Evidence from Three Cases

“…More generally, our findings contribute to the emerging research agenda on perceptions of peace agreements (e.g., Tellez 2019;Matanock and Garbiras-Díaz 2018;Kreiman and Masullo 2020), adding a long-term perspective. In so doing, this study draws on and adds support to studies that have shown that wartime cleavages may have long-term implications for political preferences in the post-war era (e.g., Balcells 2012).…”

“…As we suggest above, when the memory of the armed conflict becomes more distant and the fear of renewed violence diminishes, people’s assessments of the peace agreement may be more based on principles and moral judgements, and less based on fear and safety-seeking (c.f. Tellez 2019; Kreiman and Masullo 2020).…”

“…In contrast, Tellez (2019) finds that people in conflict-affected areas in the country were more likely to support both the peace process and the granting of concessions to the FARC. Tellez (2019), like Kreiman and Masullo (2020), argues that people are 'safety-seekers' who support peace initiatives and provisions they consider to be most suited to ensure their current and future security. 7 While these studies from Colombia examine people's perceptions either when the armed conflict was still ongoing or immediately after the 2016 peace agreement, we do not know if people weigh these issues in the same way when the armed conflict has turned into a more distant memory.…”

“…Nonetheless, because peace agreements typically address only the 'master cleavage', it is reasonable to assume that both victims and participants do care about concessions given to the 'other side'. 7 Kreiman and Masullo (2020) argue that civilians' support for peace agreements may be conditioned by whether the agreement was negotiated by those who perpetrated violence against them: they are more likely to support the agreement if the faction that victimized them is at the negotiation table.…”

“…7.Kreiman and Masullo (2020) argue that civilians’ support for peace agreements may be conditioned by whether the agreement was negotiated by those who perpetrated violence against them: they are more likely to support the agreement if the faction that victimized them is at the negotiation table.…”