Abstract

ABSTRACT After decades of scholarship, there is still little agreement about the usefulness of territorial self-governance in managing territory-centred conflicts. We argue that the effectiveness of territorial self-governance as a tool of territory-centred conflict management increases when combined with a proportional representation (PR) electoral system for the national legislature in basically open political regimes, but not when combined with a parliamentary form of government at the centre. We propose that the combination of territorial self-governance and PR in at least minimally democratic regimes has most conflict-reducing potential, as both institutions follow a logic of widening the input side of representative politics. We find empirical support for this proposition using binary time-series cross-section analysis. Our findings highlight the need to consider not just the number but, more importantly, the type of power-sharing institutions that are combined with each other when looking for ways to reduce the risk of territory-centred intrastate violence.

Highlights

  • Iraq, Myanmar, Ukraine, Yemen – these are just some examples of ongoing civil wars where territorial rule has featured prominently in discussions about their arguable causes and potential solutions

  • We argue that the effectiveness of territorial self-governance as a tool of territory-centred conflict management increases when combined with a proportional representation (PR) electoral system for the national legislature in basically open political regimes, but not when combined with a parliamentary form of government at the centre

  • In line with our theoretical expectation that potential grievances about a lack of political inclusiveness may be best addressed by formal political institutions that emphasize the input side of at least minimally democratic regimes, we find robust empirical evidence that the double interaction of territorial self-governance with a PR electoral system in basically open regimes is most effective at reducing the risk of territory-centred intrastate violence

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Myanmar, Ukraine, Yemen – these are just some examples of ongoing civil wars where territorial rule has featured prominently in discussions about their arguable causes and potential solutions.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call