Government ideology and the implementation of civil war peace agreements

ABSTRACT

How does government ideology, measured by the ideology of the chief executive and the ideology of the largest government party, influence the implementation of civil war peace agreements? In this study, I address this research question by analysing the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM) dataset that covers 34 comprehensive peace agreements of 31 countries from 1989 to 2015. The results of feasible generalised least squares (FGLS) regressions demonstrate that the likelihood of implementing peace agreements increases when chief executives and the largest government parties of the left-wing are in office. In contrast, the likelihood of implementing peace agreements decreases when chief executives and the largest government parties of the right-wing stay in power. Consistent with the party-policy literature and the hawkish-dovish assumptions, I find that left-wing governments positively impact the implementation of peace agreements more than right-wing governments, indicating the statistically significant relationship between the government ideology and the implementation of peace agreements.

KEYWORDS:

• Civil war
• peace agreement
• government ideology
• left-right spectrum
• hawks versus doves

Acknowledgement

This research article is partially connected to my doctoral project, overseen by the School of Politics and International Relations (SPIR) at the Australian National University (ANU). I sincerely appreciate Distinguished Professor of Political Science Ian McAllister, Professor Benjamin Goldsmith, and Dr Svitlana Chernykh for their invaluable guidance and unwavering support during my PhD program. Additionally, I would like to express gratitude to Dr Dylan Hendrickson and the two anonymous reviewers whose insightful feedback significantly enhanced the quality of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Badran, ‘Intrastate Peace Agreements’; Joshi et al., ‘Built-in Safeguards’.

2. Bell and Wise, ‘Peace Processes’.

3. Joshi and Quinn, ‘Implementing the Peace’; Braniff, ‘After Agreement’.

4. Hartzell et al., ‘Stabilizing the Peace after Civil War’.

5. Jarland et al., ‘How Should We Understand Patterns of Recurring Conflict?’

6. Collier and Sambanis, ‘Understanding Civil War’.

7. Stedman and Rothchild, ‘Peace Operations’.

8. Joshi et al., ‘Built-in Safeguards’.

9. Maekawa et al., ‘UN Involvement’.

10. Imbeau et al., ‘Left-Right Party Ideology’.

11. Koch and Cranmer, ‘Testing the “Dick Cheney” Hypothesis’.

12. Ryckman and Braithwaite, ‘Changing Horses in Midstream’.

13. Palmer et al., ‘What’s Stopping You?’

14. Clare, ‘Ideological Fractionalization’.

15. Bertoli et al., ‘Is There a War Party?’

16. Ahmadov and Hughes, ‘Ideology and Civilian Victimization’.

17. For example, Beck et al., ‘New Tools in Comparative Political Economy’.

18. For instance, Bertoli et al., ‘Is There a War Party?’

19. Thaler, ‘Ideology and Violence in Civil Wars’; Sanín and Wood, ‘Ideology in Civil War’.

20. Maynard, ‘Ideology and Armed Conflict’.

21. Ugarriza and Craig, ‘The Relevance of Ideology’.

22. Sanín and Wood, ‘Ideology in Civil War’.

23. Maynard, ‘Ideology and Armed Conflict’.

24. For instance, Wood and Thomas, ‘Women on the Frontline’.

25. Thaler, ‘Ideology and Violence in Civil Wars’.

26. Gurses et al., ‘Women and War’.

27. Koch and Cranmer, ‘Testing the “Dick Cheney” Hypothesis’.

28. Bueno de Mesquita et al., The Logic of Political Survival.

29. Greene and Licht, ‘Domestic Politics’.

30. For example, Koch and Sullivan, ‘Should I Stay or Should I Go Now?’; Clare, ‘Ideological Fractionalization’.

31. Böller, ‘Fuelling Politicisation’.

32. Sandal and Loizides, ‘Center – Right Parties’.

33. For instance, Mason, ‘International Relations Theory’; Regan, ‘Conditions of Successful Third-Party Intervention’.

34. Regan, ‘Conditions of Successful Third-Party Intervention’.

35. Mason, ‘International Relations Theory’.

36. Mattes and Savun, ‘Fostering Peace after Civil War’.

37. Budge et al., ‘Ideology, Party Factionalism and Policy Change’; Stravers, ‘Pork, Parties, and Priorities’.

38. Graham et al., ‘Liberals and Conservatives’.

39. For instance, Imbeau et al., ‘Left-Right Party Ideology’; Tavits and Letki, ‘When Left is Right’; Blum and Potrafke, ‘Does a Change of Government Influence Compliance’; Mattes and Weeks, ‘Hawks, Doves, and Peace’.

40. Kim, ‘Issue Ownership’.

41. Koch and Cranmer, ‘Testing the “Dick Cheney” Hypothesis’; Grieco et al., ‘When Preferences and Commitments Collide’.

42. Donder and Hindriks, ‘Equilibrium Social Insurance’.

43. Potrafke, ‘The Growth of Public Health Expenditures in OECD Countries’; Brender, ‘Government Ideology and Arm Exports’.

44. Danzell, ‘Political Parties’; Whitten and Williams, ‘Buttery Guns and Welfare Hawks’; Koch and Cranmer, ‘Testing the “Dick Cheney” Hypothesis’; Stravers, ‘Pork, Parties and Priorities’.

45. Koch and Cranmer, ‘Testing the “Dick Cheney” Hypothesis’.

46. Brender, ‘Government Ideology and Arm Exports’.

47. Blum and Potrafke, ‘Does a Change of Government Influence Compliance with International Agreements?’

48. Palmer et al., ‘What’s Stopping You?’

49. Clare, ‘Ideological Fractionalization’.

50. Bertoli et al., ‘Is There a War Party?’

51. Ibid.

52. Arena and Palmer, ‘Politics or the Economy?’

53. Rathbun, ‘Partisan Interventions’.

54. Ibid.

55. Liendo and Braithwaite, ‘Determinants of Colombian Attitudes’.

56. Maoz, ‘Peace-building with the Hawks’.

57. Ibid.

58. Liendo and Braithwaite, ‘Determinants of Colombian Attitudes’.

59. Joshi et al., ‘Annualized Implementation Data’.

60. Beck et al., ‘New Tools in Comparative Political Economy’.

61. The World Bank, ‘World Development Indicators’.

62. Pettersson et al., ‘Organized Violence’.

63. Joshi et al., ‘Annualized Implementation Data’.

64. Ibid.

65. For instance, Hauenstein and Joshi, ‘Remaining Seized of the Matter’; Maekawa et al., ‘UN Involvement’.

66. Kerreth et al., ‘International Third Parties’; Hauenstein and Joshi, ‘Remaining Seized of the Matter’; Maekawa et al., ‘UN Involvement’.

67. Ibid.

68. Gul et al., ‘Performance of Microfinance Institutions’.

69. Ibid.

70. Beck et al., ‘New Tools in Comparative Political Economy’.

71. Joshi et al., ‘Built-in Safeguards’.

72. Walter, ‘Does Conflict Beget Conflict?’.

73. Duffy Toft, ‘Indivisible Territory’; Walter, ‘Bargaining Failures’; Joshi et al., ‘Built-in Safeguards’.

74. Mason and Grieg, ‘State Capacity’; Krause et al., ‘Women’s Participation’.

75. Badran, ‘Intrastate Peace Agreements’.

76. Mac Ginty, ‘Time, Sequencing and Peace Processes’.

77. Duursma and Fliervoet, ‘Fuelling Factionalism?’.

78. Maekawa et al., ‘UN Involvement’; Stedman and Rothchild, ‘Peace Operations’.

79. Joshi and Quinn, ‘Implementing the Peace’.

80. Bartusevičius and Skaaning, ‘Revisiting Democratic Civil Peace’; Francois et al., ‘Revolutionary Attitudes’.

81. Fjelde et al., ‘Which Institutions Matter?’.

82. For instance, Mattes et al., ‘Measuring Change in Source of Leader Support’.

83. Fearon and Laitin, ‘Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War’; DeRouen Jr et al., ‘Civil War Peace Agreement Implementation’.

84. Maekawa et al., ‘UN Involvement’.

85. Joshi et al., ‘Built-in Safeguards’.

86. Chakma, ‘Leadership Changes’.

87. For instance, Vreeland, ‘The Effects of Political Regime on Civil War’.

88. Sela, ‘Difficult Dialogue’.

89. Torgovnik, ‘Strategies under a New Electoral System’.

90. Getmansky and Zeitzoff, ‘Terrorism and Voting’.

91. Berribi and Klor, ‘Are Voters Sensitive to Terrorism?’

92. Sela, ‘Difficult Dialogue’.

93. Joshi et al., ‘Built-in Safeguards’.

94. Walter, ‘Does Conflict Beget Conflict?’

95. Duffy Toft, ‘Indivisible Territory’.

96. Maekawa et al., ‘UN Involvement’.

97. Ibid.

98. Bartusevičius and Skaaning, ‘Revisiting Democratic Civil Peace’; Francois et al., ‘Revolutionary Attitudes’.

99. Maekawa et al., ‘UN Involvement’.

100. For instance, Palmer et al., ‘What’s Stopping You?’; Beck et al., ‘New Tools in Comparative Political Economy’.

101. For instance, Bertoli et al., ‘Is There a War Party?’; Clare, ‘Ideological Fractionalization’.

102. Maoz, ‘Peace-building with the Hawks’.

103. Liendo and Braithwaite, ‘Determinants of Colombian Attitudes’.

104. Ibid.

105. Mac Ginty, ‘Time, Sequencing and Peace Processes’.

106. Hauenstein and Joshi, ‘Remaining Seized of the Matter’.

107. Lundgren, ‘Conflict Management Capabilities’.

108. Ibid.

109. Paris, ‘Saving Liberal Peacebuilding’.

110. Paris, ‘Saving Liberal Peacebuilding’; Mac Ginty, ‘No War, No Peace’.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarships.

Notes on contributors

Anurug Chakma

Dr Anurug Chakma is a Research Fellow within the Migration Hub at the School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet) at the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia. His diverse research portfolio spans from civil war, terrorism, and peacebuilding to indigenous rights, diaspora affairs, and the innovative application of text-as-data methods. For inquiries or further communication, Dr Chakma can be reached at [email protected].