Power, pacts and political settlements: A reply to Tim Kelsall

Abstract

Tim kelsall raises important questions about the meaning of political settlements and methods of analysis.1 I entirely agree with Kelsall on many issues, but I also think there are gaps in the analysis he puts forward, which I address in this response. He argues that to be consistent with everyday meaning, as well as to ensure analytical usefulness, a political settlement has to be defined as an ‘agreement among powerful social groups that ends a conflict and sustains a set of institutions and a distribution of power that delivers an acceptable distribution of benefits’ (presumably for the powerful social groups in question). This means that for a political settlement to exist there have to be agreements to end conflicts; that these agreements have to be sustainable for some time (he suggests at least five years); and the agreements have to include an understanding among the powerful that critical institutions have to be protected to prevent an outbreak of conflict. Institutions that are not relevant for the distribution of benefits to the powerful and therefore outside the conflict-ending agreement are not part of the political settlement according to this definition and should be studied at a lower level. I am sympathetic to Kelsall’s objectives because we both want to capture what is ‘settled’ about a settlement, but to my mind his approach faces significant empirical as well as analytical problems. This debate emerged, in part, through studies that have sought to apply the political settlement approach to Africa cases, and thus the implications of this debate are particularly important for African studies.