Citizen Inclusion in Power-Sharing Settlements

谈判达成的和平解决方案是国际关系、缔造和平和民主治理的基石。在世界各地的冲突地区和严重分裂的社会中，从波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那和布隆迪到塞浦路斯和叙利亚，国际第三方冲突调解人经常建议敌对种族之间分享权力，作为结束战争和建设和平的手段。然而，我们仍然对过去和现在的提议（例如，从公民的角度来看，或关于如何准确地谈判，实施和调整冲突各方之间最有利的权衡，这些都被视为可以接受的。解决这些问题对于确保和平进程的持久性、巩固民主以及可能恢复多族裔社会至关重要。在INCLUSIVEPEACE中，我们提出了一个比较和多方法的研究计划，调查权力共享解决方案如何出现，执行和演变。我们的具体目标是解决两个共同的批评，在权力分享解决方案的研究，重点是可采用性和适应性。首先，权力分享解决办法不容易谈判和通过，往往是在政治精英之间谈判达成的，将更广泛的社会排除在外。第二，在通过这些条款时，各政党都在努力重新谈判、调整甚至找出最有问题的条款，而公民几乎没有机会在新的政治安排中实现变革。我们将通过使用定性方法，包括档案研究和精英访谈，以及定量方法，包括实验和纵向民意调查，重点是公民，社区领导人和政府政策在世界各地的六个代表性案例来解决这些批评。

Negotiated peace settlements are at the cornerstone of international relations, peace-making, and democratic governance. In conflict zones and deeply divided societies around the world, from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Burundi to Cyprus and Syria, international third-party conflict mediators frequently recommend power-sharing between rival ethnic groups as a means of ending wars and building peace. Yet we still know very little about whether past and current proposals (e.g., by the UN) are seen as acceptable from a citizens' perspective or about how precisely to negotiate, implement, and adapt the most advantageous trade-offs among parties in conflict. Answering these questions is critical to ensure the durability of peace processes, the consolidation of democracy, and potentially the restoration of multi-ethnic societies. In INCLUSIVEPEACE, we propose a comparative and multi-methods research program that investigates how power-sharing settlements emerge, perform, and evolve. We specifically aim to address two common critiques in the study of power-sharing settlements focusing on adoptability and adaptability. First, power-sharing settlements cannot be easily negotiated and adopted and are often negotiated between political elites, excluding the wider society. Secondly, when they are adopted, parties struggle to renegotiate, adapt, or even identify their most problematic provisions, while citizens are given little opportunity to effect change in the new political arrangement. We will address these critiques by using qualitative approaches, including archival research and elite interviews as well as quantitative methods, including experiments and longitudinal public opinion surveys focusing on citizens, community leaders, and government policies in six representative cases around the world.