GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Political Engineering and Party Politics in Conflict-Prone Societies

Political Engineering and Party Politics in Conflict-Prone Societies

Library
B Reilly
2006

Summary

It is widely accepted that broad-based, multi-ethnic parties are good for democracy in ethnically diverse societies. There has been surprisingly little attention to how such parties can be sustained and fragmentation avoided. This paper from the journal Democratization draws on examples from new democracies in the developing world to identify four strategies of party engineering used to promote multi-ethnic political parties.

In ethnically divided and multi-ethnic societies, political parties tend to form around ethnic allegiances. Almost all recent civil wars have featured mono-ethnic political parties with ethnically exclusive agendas. A number of prevailing approaches to conflict prevention actually facilitate ethnic politics. UN-supported transitional elections, for example, have used relatively permissive proportional representation systems. In post-colonial Africa and Asia, there has been more effort to restrict the ability of ethnic groups to form parties. This reflects a similar divergence in approaches to building sustainable democracy in ethnically diverse societies. ‘Consociational’ approaches deliberately make ethnic groups the building blocks of politics. ‘Centripetalism’ seeks to shift focus away from ethnicity towards less volatile issues and develop centrist, aggregative and multi-ethnic political parties.

There are four distinct approaches to the challenge of building multi-ethnic political parties:

  • Constraining ethnic parties: Regulations may ban ethnic parties outright, make it difficult for small or regional parties to register, or require cross-ethnic composition. These have been implemented in Turkey, Latin America and South-east Asia.
  • Electoral systems and party systems: Measures may dictate the ethnic composition of parties, use electoral barriers, vote pooling or distribution requirements. These can be seen as harmful interferences with democracy but have seen some successes, particularly in Indonesia, South Africa and Nigeria.
  • Top-down approaches to party building: Instead of allowing parties to form organically, top-down approaches aim to stabilise politics by increasing discipline and cohesion.
  • Constitutional, electoral and party reforms in Papua New Guinea encouraged candidates to cooperate with each other and reduced electoral violence.
  • External interventions: Party organisations may receive financial or technical assistance from donors, non-governmental organisations or multilateral agencies. This has not stopped ethnicity dominating politics in the Balkans, but has brought previous fighting forces into the political fold in Mozambique.

The capacity of parties to manage conflicts depends on the nature of party systems and structure of individual parties. Despite this, the idea that parties can be engineered in the same way as other parts of the political system remains controversial.

  • It is difficult to sustain multi-ethnic parties in divided societies without explicit intervention in the party system. Most recent interventions have featured centripetal rather than consociational approaches.
  • Developing countries with new democracies are at the forefront of this movement.
  • Many new democracies in the developing world are in ethnically plural societies. They face the duel challenge of encouraging political competition while restricting the politicisation of ethnicity.
  • States such as Indonesia, trying to manage ethnic divisions and consolidate democracy, will provide important lessons for other conflict-prone societies.

Source

Reilly, B., 2006, 'Political Engineering and Party Politics in Conflict-Prone Societies', Democratization, Vol.13, No.5, pp. 811–827

Related Content

Donor Support to Electoral Cycles
Helpdesk Report
2021
Donor support for post-conflict elections
Helpdesk Report
2017
Religious leaders and the prevention of electoral violence
Helpdesk Report
2016
Voluntary voter registration
Helpdesk Report
2015

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".