WHOSE PEACE? ”A content of ideas analysis of the underlying norms of democratic involvement in peacemaking – as improvers of circumstances for legitimate peace processes, or as complicating idealist norms.”

Abstract

In peacemaking, methods of inclusion are extensively pushed for with the main motivation that it gives the peace process a greater legitimacy. But exclusion is also deemed necessary as it is required to reach an agreement without getting it spoiled by extremists. In the fall of 2016 the Colombian people rejected the agreement reached between the Colombian Government and the guerrilla group FARC in a referendum. This is an example of the tension that exists between the inclusive, idealist approaches to peacemaking, and the more exclusive, pragmatic approaches. Identifying and investigating this tension in the official documentation from the Colombian, and the similar Northern Ireland, peace processes constitutes the aim of this thesis. The official documentation is analysed using a content idea analysis (Swe. Innehållslig idéanalys) to identify expressions of inclusion and exclusion in the agreements. The expressions, formulated as either statements or arguments, are then assessed in their validity against both previous research and experiences. This way the idealism, or pragmatism, of the arguments can be more easily demonstrated. The ideas of democratic inclusion, and the tension between the two approaches are then discussed using a theoretical framework on legitimate statehood, opposition, and deliberate democracy. The study finds that both peace processes are using a much more inclusive, than exclusive language but considering the need for exclusion, and the socially constructed nature of democratic legitimacy, the practice of exclusion needs to be accommodated within our understanding of legitimate democracy.