Suchergebnisse

Der Verfasser untersucht die Kriegsziele der RENAMO, betont als Hauptschwierigkeit für Friedensverhandlungen mit der mosambikanischen Regierung das Fehlen nationalstaatlichen Einheitsbewußtseins. Nach Erörterung der militärischen und wirtschaftlichen Lage in Mosambik werden die Verhandlungspositionen der Regierung und der RENAMO und die innenpolitischen Reformen seit dem 5. FRELIMO-Kongreß 1989 analysiert. Im Anhang: Papiere der Regierung (September 1990) und von der RENAMO (Dezember 1989). (APAF-Ans)

In a dramatic few years, South Africa shifted from being trapped in an apparently intractable conflict between a dominant white minority and an oppressed black majority to being a democratic state with an outstanding progressive liberal constitution. It moved from being the epitome of racial conflict to a model of peaceful transition. And yet, twenty years later, the cracks in the settlement are all too clear and the risks of internal conflict are growing. The transition is truncated. ; The paper was prepared under the umbrella of the DFID-funded and University of Manchester-led global comparative Effective States and Inclusive Development (ESID) research program – South Africa is one of the countries targeted for comparative ESID research -- as an analytical platform for more in-depth, targeted research. The ESID program has provided funding for in-depth research on the politics and governance of basic education in South Africa, and for research on business-state relations in South Africa (both part of a broader multi-country comparative study); and for some initial case studies on the politics and governance of infrastructural state-owned enterprises. We thank Anthony Black, Dave Kaplan and Nicoli Nattrass for their helpful comments.

(...) Siniora, Hanna: The Siniora-Amirav model. - S. 30-31.(...)

Few concepts have captured the imagination of the conflict and development communities in recent years as powerfully as the idea of a 'political settlement'. At its most ambitious, 'political settlements analysis' (PSA) promises to explain why conflicts occur and states collapse, the conditions for their successful rehabilitation, different developmental pathways from peace, and how to better fit development policy to country context. Yet despite the meteoric rise of the term and its tremendous promise, not all is well in the world of PSA. Rival definitions of the concept abound; there are disagreements about its scope and the way it should be used; a growing schism between conflict specialists and economists; basic concepts are ambiguous; and little progress has been made on measurement. This book consequently has three main aims. The first is to argue for a revised definition of a political settlement, capable of unifying its diverse strands. The second is to put the concept on a more solid theoretical and scientific footing, providing a method for measuring and categorizing political settlements, using both qualitative case studies and a large-n statistical analysis to illustrate its potential. And the third is to examine the implications of the findings for mainstream social science analysis and for policymakers.

Few concepts have captured the imagination of the conflict and development communities in recent years as powerfully as the idea of a 'political settlement'. At its most ambitious, 'political settlements analysis' (PSA) promises to explain why conflicts occur and states collapse, the conditions for their successful rehabilitation, different developmental pathways from peace, and how to better fit development policy to country context. Yet despite the meteoric rise of the term and its tremendous promise, not all is well in the world of PSA. Rival definitions of the concept abound; there are disagreements about its scope and the way it should be used; a growing schism between conflict specialists and economists; basic concepts are ambiguous; and little progress has been made on measurement. This book consequently has three main aims. The first is to argue for a revised definition of a political settlement, capable of unifying its diverse strands. The second is to put the concept on a more solid theoretical and scientific footing, providing a method for measuring and categorizing political settlements, using both qualitative case studies and a large-n statistical analysis to illustrate its potential. And the third is to examine the implications of the findings for mainstream social science analysis and for policymakers.

"Understanding and Deploying the Political Settlement Framework in Africa" published on by Oxford University Press.

This paper looks at practice-research methods used by Conciliation Resources (CR), an international peacebuilding organisation, as part of the Political Settlements Research Project. Between 2015 and 2017, Conciliation Resources and its partners convened three learning workshops in Nepal, Colombia, and Bougainville. The workshops 'tested' understandings of political settlements in conflict-affected contexts, with a specific focus on gender, through participatory practice-based research. The paper explores how co-learning approaches were developed and designed between CR and its partners: including how questions of inclusion, gender and political settlements were adapted to specific contexts; the approaches and methods developed; and the challenges and potential for research to influence peacebuilding practice. It also provides a critical reflection on the processes and outcomes of co-learning between international and local partners.

Technical approaches to institutional reform and development following liberal-democratic and market economy blueprints have generally had disappointing outcomes. Recent years have seen a growing acknowledgement among development actors of the need for a much better understanding of how power, structure and agency combine to shape, constrain and compromise the workings of (formal and informal) institutions, with a view to facilitating more successful development outcomes in recipient countries. The new catch-cry of "thinking and working politically" has been accompanied by growing investment in political economy analyses and other analytical tools. As a concept, "political settlements" provides a potentially valuable instrument for enhancing understanding of the organisation and exercise of power in particular local contexts and for enabling the crafting of more appropriate and effective development interventions. In this session, we will examine the concept in the specific contexts of Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands with a view to considering its broader value to development theory and practice.

Modification of the system of apartheid which started in the late 1970s initially in "pure economic" fields gradually led to the necessity of revising the very foundations of the political structure in the RSA. The reforms provided fresh impetus for the democratic movement in the country and, in the final analysis, it did not slow down, but, on the contrary, stepped up the decay of the system of apartheid. Demarcation of the interests of social groups of the white population and the government's attempts to reform apartheid brought about the irreversible phenomena of crisis in the camp of supporters of the regime. Many white leaders are facing a dilemma: either bend further efforts to preserve the material well-being of their community at the price of the policy which has no future either socially or politically, or try to reach a peaceful settlement of the conflict at the price of their privileged position.

The article examines comparisons between Northern Ireland's recent peace process and agreement and similar developments in South Africa. On the one hand, the analogy has been used to explain Northern Ireland's conflict and the type of prescription it requires. On the other, it has been employed to suggest ways in which agreement might be achieved in Northern Ireland, or, more recently, why agreement has been reached. These uses of the analogy ignore or downplay crucial contextual differences between the two cases. The most important of these is that while South Africa's conflict took place largely within a single state, Northern Ireland's occurs within a wider British–Irish space. This contextual difference is crucial for understanding the Northern Ireland conflict, the type of institutions required there, and why agreement was reached.