Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

13th July 2015

DLP hosted a day-long high level introductory workshop on political settlements in June. This post is the first of a series inspired by the workshop and written by researchers, policymakers and practitioners. Here Alina Rocha Menocal discusses current research and thinking on the usefulness of a political settlements approach.

Over the past decade, there has been growing recognition that the challenge of development is not so much what needs to be done, but, crucially, how. The processes that facilitate or obstruct change are what really matter. This places the need to understand politics and institutional dynamics at the centre of thinking and practice in international development – and with it the concept of the 'political settlement'.

In particular, the promotion of more inclusive political settlements and political processes is increasingly the focus, especially in efforts to foster more resilient, effective and legitimate states, and more fruitful interactions between state and society. But while the emphasis on inclusive political settlements is certainly right, many questions about what inclusion actually means remain unanswered.

Who, for instance, is to be included? An analysis of existing comparative literature suggests that elites play a crucial role in driving and shaping political settlements. Inclusive elite bargains, especially in terms of the incorporation of former combatants and the distribution of access to positions of state power across different elite groups, are crucial to secure the peace, especially in the short term.

'How can the boundaries of a political settlement that starts out by focusing on elite inclusion be expanded to create a more broadly inclusive political order?'

More sweeping conceptual historical research, including, for example, Acemoglu and Robinson’s Why Nations Fail, suggests that, over the long term, more inclusive states also tend to be more peaceful and resilient. And this kind of inclusion encompasses the broader population, not just the elites among competing factions that might otherwise resort to violence. 

However, this does not say anything about how institutional change happens over time, and how, in fact, the boundaries of a political settlement that starts out by focusing on elite inclusion can be expanded to create a more broadly inclusive political order.

Or what about identity and nation-building? These are issues that donors have tended to overlook. But as the pioneering work of Frances Stewart shows, horizontal inequalities, or inequalities based on group identities such as ethnicity, class, or territory, are a leading driver of fragility and conflict. When state elites use group-based identities as a rallying mechanism for exclusionary nation-building, then exclusionary political settlements provide the foundation for biased processes of state formation. This generates resentment among excluded groups and does much to foment violent conflict. Examples abound: apartheid in South Africa; the north-south conflict in Sudan; exclusion based on class and race in Guatemala; ethnic tensions in Burundi, Rwanda and Kosovo; the separatist movement in Aceh, Indonesia; and sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and Iraq.

By contrast, available evidence seems to suggest that political settlements that are grounded on inclusive nation-building projects tend to be more stable and resilient over time. These kinds of political settlements may well be quite narrow in terms of the actors/elites included at the top. But they incorporate the population at large in a shared sense of national destiny – or, as Benedict Anderson would put it, an imagined community that can transcend more narrowly defined identities. A good example of this is Ghana, a remarkably peaceful and stable multi-ethnic country where state formation processes based on a unified 'Ghanaian identity' emerged early on as a crucial nation-building strategy.

Then there’s a distinction between inclusion in terms of process (how decisions are made) and inclusion based on outcomes (how wealth and resources are distributed). As with the issue of identity, political settlements that may be considered narrow at the top can in fact produce distributional outcomes that are broadly inclusive. The so-called Asian tigers such as South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, and more recently, countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia, are all good examples of this. Yet in other countries across the global South, many reforms intended to promote process-based inclusion – such as new constitutions, elections, and anti-corruption and transparency policies – have not been able to deliver sustained growth and shared prosperity.

This leaves us with a set of difficult questions that have less than straightforward answers:

  • To what extent can various forms of inclusion compensate for other ongoing weaknesses within the state and in the links between state and society?
  • Are there any tensions, dilemmas or trade-offs between process-based inclusion and outcome-based inclusion?
  • What persuades elites to pursue more or less inclusion, whether in process, outcomes, or both?
  • How can bottom-up pressures for change affect or shape political settlements?
'The widespread assumption … is that broadly inclusive political processes will be able to reshape a political settlement, [but] history shows this should not be taken for granted.'

 

The widespread assumption in international development circles is that broadly inclusive political processes will be able to reshape a political settlement and lead to substantial transformation. However, as history shows, this should not be taken for granted.

Take the contrasting transitions from conflict and authoritarianism to peace and democracy in Chile and Guatemala. The pact that ended authoritarian rule in Chile was a top-down process, heavily controlled by the military, with severe restrictions on the actors involved and the issues it addressed. From a process inclusion perspective, it offered little promise for transforming the underlying political settlement. By contrast, the peace process that ended Guatemala’s armed conflict and ushered democracy was highly participatory and comprehensive. Yet, more than two decades on, it is in Chile where a more inclusive political settlement has evolved, while in Guatemala, the underlying power relations and elite privileges remain untouched.

So while broadly inclusive political settlements do matter, the process of reaching them is complicated. The path is likely to be rocky and non-linear, and to entail tensions and trade-offs between equally worthy but competing priorities.

 

For more from Alina, see her paper commissioned by DFID, Inclusive Political Settlements: Evidence, Gaps, and Challenges of Institutional Transformation (June 2015), and her DLP paper building on this: Political Settlements and the Politics of Inclusion (October 2015).

See more Opinions posts on political settlements.

Image: Mostar's rebuilt 'old bridge' (BiH), considered a symbol of reconciliation (Kevin Botto, Flickr).

 

0 Comments

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Author

Alina Rocha Menocal

Alina Rocha Menocal

Alina Rocha Menocal joined DLP as a Senior Research Fellow in October 2014 on secondment from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Alina will be leading DLP’s workstream on Political Settlements and the Politics of Inclusion until March 2016. Alina has particular expertise in the challenges of democratisation, links between democracy and development, state-society relations, and institutions and state-building. Her research interests focus on bridging the gap between research and policy, particularly when using political economy analysis to inform governance issues.

Read more

Related items

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016
Opinion by Suda Perera19th December 2016

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

The inclusiveness test: making change work

Guest post for openDemocracy

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal4th November 2015

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

Being 'there': Bermuda Triangulation

Fieldwork in fragile places part 2: data difficulties

Opinion by Suda Perera6th November 2014
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

Welcome to DLP's blog

Welcome to DLP's new blog on politics, power, policy and developmental leadership

Opinion by Heather Marquette10th December 2013

Shuffling the decks: quick fixes versus long-term stability

Guest post for Development Progress on 'post-conflict' DRC

Opinion by Suda Perera22nd January 2015

Pacific power: new femininities and women's leadership in the Pacific

The educated, internationally connected women who are changing the way 'development' is done

Opinion by Ceridwen Spark24th June 2014

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

Why rethink the international consensus on 'quality basic education for development'?

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016

‘Crows who come in search of dollars’: NGO legitimacy in conflict zones

Do political dynamics affect NGO legitimacy more than performance?

Opinion by Oliver Walton19th August 2014

Being 'there': reflections on fieldwork in the DRC

Fieldwork in fragile places part 1: the security dilemma

Opinion by Suda Perera5th November 2014

Somaliland's route to peace

What can we learn from Somaliland's approach to peacebuilding? 

Opinion by Sarah Phillips12th December 2013
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Overcoming premature evaluation

Guest post in From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th November 2016

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

What is transformative leadership?

Guest post in University World News

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2016

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014

The seeds and roots of change

Guest post on leadership networks for Governance for Development

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver1st December 2014

Developmental leadership: putting inclusiveness first

Inclusiveness should be the first step towards building more robust states.

Opinion by Seth D. Kaplan24th September 2015

Politics - the problem and solution to poor services?

Why - and how - does politics trump everything else in service delivery?

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin13th March 2014

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Indonesia and the political settlements trap

The challenges of 'resettling the settlement'

Opinion by Graham Teskey17th July 2015

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

What's in a name? Leadership as more than the 'big men' and 'big women' of history

Looking beyond 'The Leader' for a deeper understanding of how change happens

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver11th February 2014

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

How can Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens?

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016

Forgotten South Sudan tangled in factionalism and failed politics

A toxic blend of complex historical identity politics and short-term elite politicking

Opinion by Jonathan Fisher4th September 2014