Re-Evaluating the Transition Paradigm

  • Chavanne L. Peercy
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (RCS)


As described in Chapter 1, the transition paradigm currently utilized by the international community is built upon a belief in the correctness of institutionalism, which proposes that decision-making and power can be controlled through the establishment of democratic institutions. Thus current methods employed by the UN focus on security, institution-building and processes as the inputs to a political system while treating leadership as an output. The findings from the preceding case studies allow for broader conclusions to be drawn about the transition paradigm and its outcomes, and raise serious questions concerning the role of the local leadership. The most important factor to note is that not one of the three internationally led transitions studies resulted in a democratic government based on the liberal definition explicit in the UN framework and therefore utilized for this study. While they may correspond to a hybrid peace in that there was an overlying liberal framework created that was then infused with illiberal institution, they did not result in a political system with strong democratic institutions. Although the idea of hybridity is important and extremely relevant in peacebuilding today, hybridity itself is not an indication of success — especially when the hybrid governance is weighted toward autocracy. One may argue that true democratic transitions require time, perhaps decades, but the three cases also seem to be moving closer to the authoritative end of the spectrum.


Political Party Civil Liberty Local Leadership Electoral Process Democratic Institution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Merritt, R.L. (1976) “American Influences in the Occupation of Germany”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 428, pp. 91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Scalapino, R. (1976) “The American Occupation of Japan, Perspectives After Three Decades”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 428, pp. 104–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    These were the Popular Liberation Forces, the Popular Revolutionary Army, the Communist Party’s Armed Forces of Liberation, the National Resistance and the Workers’ Revolutionary Party; Call, Charles T. (2002) “Assessing El Salvador’s Transition from Civil War to Peace” in Stedman, S.J. et al. (eds), Ending Civil Wars, The Implementation of Peace Agreements (London: Lynne Reiner Publishers).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    LeoGrande, W.M. (1981) “A Splendid Little War, Drawing the Line in El Salvador”, International Security, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stedman et al. (2002) Ending Civil Wars, The Implementation of Peace Agreements (London: Lynne Reiner Publishers).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stahler-Scholk, R. (1994) “El Salvador’s Negotiated Transition; From Low-Intensity Conflict to Low-Intensity Democracy”, Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 16.
    Peceny, M. and Stanley, W. (2001) “Liberal Social Reconstruction and the Resolution of Civil Wars in Central America”, International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 17.
    Call, C.T (2002) “Democratization, War and State-Building; Constructing the Rule of Law in El Salvador”, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 827–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 22.
    Perez, O.J. (2003) “Democratic Legitimacy and Public Insecurity; Crime and Democracy in El Salvador and Guatemala”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 118, No. 4, pp. 627–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 23.
    Schneidman, W.J. (1978) “FRELIMO’s Foreign Policy and the Process of Liberation”, Africa Today, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 57–67.Google Scholar
  11. 24.
    Simpson, M. (1993) “Foreign and Domestic Factors in the Transformation of FRELIMO”, The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 309–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 25.
    Fauvet, P. (1984) “Roots of the Counter-Revolution: The “Mozambique National Resistance”, Review of African Political Economy, No. 29, pp 108–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 26.
    Fauvet, “Roots of the Counter-Revolution: The “Mozambique National Resistance”; Manning, C. L. (2002) The Politics of Peace in Mozambique: Post Conflict Democratization (Westport: Praeger Publishers).Google Scholar
  14. 28.
    Morgan, G. (1990) “Violence in Mozambique: Towards and Understand of RENAMO”, The journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 603–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 33.
    Alden, C. and Simpson, M. (1993) “Mozambique a Delicate Peace”, The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 55.
    Goodson, L. (1998) “The Fragmentation of Culture in Afghanistan”, Journal of Comparative Poetics, No. 18, pp. 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 56.
    Goodson, L. (2001) Afghanistan’s Endless War (Seattle: University of Washington Press).Google Scholar
  18. 66.
    Rubin, B. (2003) “Transitional Justice and Human Rights in Afghanistan”, Internatinnal Affairs (Rovol Institute of Internatinnal Affairs), Vol. 79. No. 3, pp. 567–581.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chavanne L. Peercy 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chavanne L. Peercy
    • 1
  1. 1.Humphrey School of Public AffairsUniversity of MinnesotaUSA

Personalised recommendations