Whilst the term ‘political settlement’ has gained prominence recently amongst academics, practitioners and policymakers, there is still a considerable lack of clarity of what a political settlement actually is.
We used our first internal learning session as an opportunity to explore the various interpretations of political settlements and build a broad baseline understanding for staff to further engage in a project on the topic.
Testing our definitions
It was perhaps unsurprising, given the ambiguity surrounding political settlements, that definitions from staff varied considerably!
Some saw a political settlement as an outcome of political negotiation, a high-level agreement that paves the way for some new legal structure.
Others felt that political settlements were not static but were continually evolving processes, through which the allocation of power in a society was continually revised, as different configurations of stakeholders vied for visibility or influence in the political marketplace.
There were also diverging opinions on whether a political settlement was simply a reflection of existing conditions and power dynamics or whether it should reflect broader aspirations.
Should a political settlement aim to foster a fairer and more peaceful means of governing societies?
The pragmatists amongst us characterised political settlements as ‘coercive and patriarchal’, and the result of ‘horse-trading’ whereby ‘exclusionary’ deals were made ‘under the table’.
It was agreed that participation was often limited to ‘economic and political elites’, with little effort to foster broader inclusion of diverse groups from across society. Such characteristics were highlighted as challenges that undoubtedly reflected the state of governance in many conflict-affected states.
Yet those with a more optimistic outlook preferred to focus on the possibilities that well-crafted political settlements could offer societies.
One person noted that they should ‘ideally promote more stability and social justice’, whilst another argued that:
a political settlement should be ‘a legitimate process of negotiation between power holders…leading to power sharing, forgiveness, reconciliation, security and peace’.
Interestingly, whilst some felt a positive political settlement would herald a ‘change of political system’ there was an acknowledgement that even more accountable and representative political settlements would ‘not always be inclusive’.
Relevance to peacebuilding
Whilst there were differences in opinion on the scope of political settlements, there was general agreement that getting to grips with political settlements would bring substantial benefit to our on-going peacebuilding work.
A political settlements lens is viewed as a useful context analysis tool for understanding how structures and institutions actually work, as well as the agency of different actors.
Analysis of political settlements was also identified as an important vehicle to enable more legitimate peace processes, to address localised insecurities and to encourage accountability.
One area of interest is to better understand the gendered aspects of settlements and how this could help promote more inclusive political processes.
Whilst our first learning session perhaps yielded more questions than answers, many of these matched the questions the project will explore over the next four years:
- What is the agenda of external actors in a political settlement process, in particular what is their role in legitimising particular types of political settlement? Who might be ideal legitimate external actors to facilitate a positive role for the political settlement?
- What constitutes a 'good' political settlement and how do we measure this?
- What are the mechanisms to engage legitimacy in political settlements – how can we ensure that local people are considered in political settlements?
- Should political settlements be seen as incentives for governments/elite groups?
The Political Settlements Research Programme is a four-year research programme, undertaken by a North-South Consortium, led by the University of Edinburgh. This article reflects insights gained from our first yearly internal learning session. These will share and test emerging findings and their practical application in Conciliation Resources programme contexts.