Has the liberal peace-building model been successful in addressing the challenges faced by post-war societies? This paper from the German Institute for Global and Area Studies examines peace processes in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. It finds that outside of the historical example of Western Europe, the termination of war does not necessarily represent a critical juncture for pacification, democracy and market liberalisation. Central American post-war societies do not provide proof for a self-enforcing cycle of peace, democracy and development assumed by liberal peace-building, but demonstrate instead a negative cycle of social exclusion, criminality and weak governance and development.
In the 1990s, peace accords were signed in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in an effort to end various internal wars in the region. The formal end of wars was seen as a basis for recovery and transformation towards peace, stability and development. From a global perspective, Central America was one of the first laboratories for liberal peace-building. This approach assumes that the threefold transformation to peace, democracy and market economy is self-strengthening and leads to sustainable development. While none of the three countries slipped back into war, serious deficits remain.
Developments in Central American post-war societies demonstrate not a self-enforcing positive cycle of liberal peace-building, but rather a negative cycle: Social exclusion and poverty results in high levels informality and criminality, which weakens social cohesion and the legitimacy of political systems. Those seeking to undermine reform are able to thrive in such an environment, engaging in corruption and violence to impede real changes. This in turn constrains reformers in their aim to set up inclusive forms of governance and development.
Comparison between Central American case studies show differences and similarities:
- Path dependency (the extent to which change is limited by historical factors) is strongest in relation to the political system and the development model. Changes have been mostly superficial and due to international pressure for political and economic liberalisation; and globalisation.
- The establishment of a legitimate, democratically controlled public security sector was most successful in Nicaragua, with serious deficits in El Salvador and Guatemala. The success in Nicaragua can be explained by the impact of the Nicaraguan revolution and subsequent political developments.
- Dealing with the past seems to have only a small impact on the level of post-war violence. Failure to delegitimise violence and the destruction of social and family networks are central causes of different forms of violence. High levels of violence in Central American societies renew trauma, fear and distrust.
This analysis leads to suggestions for peace-building strategies:
- Fundamental changes are only possible if they have a solid base in society. External actors and the international community may strengthen internal actors without being able to overcome structural or historical barriers. Peace-building can only be partly influenced by external actors.
- Peace-building strategies are only one set of policies that influence developments in post-war counties. The impact of economic or financial globalisation often supersedes the aims of peace-building programmes. A ‘whole of government’ approach is necessary to promote transformation and stabilisation.
- Stabilisation does not need to rely on the repressive capacity of the state and should instead be based on inclusion and participation. Opting for stabilisation before democratisation is not viable.
- Researchers and those working in and with peace-building missions should show more creativity in overcoming obstacles for peace-building transformation.
