Do any post-conflict elections serve as an effective tool for conflict resolution? The existing literature suggests that they usually do not, yet much of the international community actively endorses and supports elections in this role. In contrast to other studies, I show that post-conflict elections can help terminate conflict and promote lasting peace. Post-conflict elections are useful in resolving conflict when militant groups and governments both participate as political parties.

So, why do both sides engage in certain post-conflict elections? I argue that the end of the Cold War has allowed these inclusive elections to become a mechanism for resolving conflict by facilitating international involvement in guaranteeing a peace deal above and beyond military intervention. Specifically, governments and militant groups often contest elections to commit themselves to a negotiated settlement in order to end the fighting through the engagement of an international actor that can then more easily monitor and sanction violations of the deal.

A new paper by Aila Matanock.