Socializing Warlord Democrats: Analyzing Violent Discursive Practices in Post-Civil War Politics

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Studies Review Pub Date : 2024-02-19 DOI:10.1093/isr/viae005
Roxanna Sjöstedt, Mimmi Söderberg Kovacs, Anders Themnér, Henrik Persson
{"title":"Socializing Warlord Democrats: Analyzing Violent Discursive Practices in Post-Civil War Politics","authors":"Roxanna Sjöstedt, Mimmi Söderberg Kovacs, Anders Themnér, Henrik Persson","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Across the world, so-called warlord democrats (WDs) – former military or political leaders of armed groups who subsequently enter formal electoral politics – strongly influence the dynamics and trajectory of post-civil war politics. However, scholarship on war-to-peace transitions and post-conflict politics have often failed to pay attention to the agency of these important actors. This article rectifies this oversight, and thereby adds to the overarching scholarly debate on what enhances or hampers democratic processes after violent conflict. It makes two main contributions. First, by putting an explicit focus on the individual level of analysis and on the agency of WDs, the article opens up an avenue of research that previously has been black-boxed. Second, it demonstrates that the assumptions of socialization theory are particular suitable for enhancing our understanding of variations in the agency of WDs and their impact on post-conflict electoral politics. A novel analytical framework that refines the concept guides the empirical examination of the socialization processes of two WDs over time: Julius Maada Bio, the ex-junta leader who became President of Sierra Leone and Prince Johnson, the ex-warlord in Liberia who became Senator and presidential candidate. The findings suggest that the socialization theory holds promise as a new perspective on the study of WDs, but the theory may also need additional conceptual development and adjustment when applied outside its traditional empirical context and at the individual levels of analysis. Specifically, we find that the democratic socialization of our selected WDs display the characteristics of hybrid socialization, where conflicting normative frameworks result in lopsided socialization processes. But more research is needed on how to empirically distinguish between cost-benefit calculations and a logic of appropriateness, the long-term implications of hybrid socialization, and how to theoretically reconcile individual level socialization processes with that of states or groups.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae005","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Across the world, so-called warlord democrats (WDs) – former military or political leaders of armed groups who subsequently enter formal electoral politics – strongly influence the dynamics and trajectory of post-civil war politics. However, scholarship on war-to-peace transitions and post-conflict politics have often failed to pay attention to the agency of these important actors. This article rectifies this oversight, and thereby adds to the overarching scholarly debate on what enhances or hampers democratic processes after violent conflict. It makes two main contributions. First, by putting an explicit focus on the individual level of analysis and on the agency of WDs, the article opens up an avenue of research that previously has been black-boxed. Second, it demonstrates that the assumptions of socialization theory are particular suitable for enhancing our understanding of variations in the agency of WDs and their impact on post-conflict electoral politics. A novel analytical framework that refines the concept guides the empirical examination of the socialization processes of two WDs over time: Julius Maada Bio, the ex-junta leader who became President of Sierra Leone and Prince Johnson, the ex-warlord in Liberia who became Senator and presidential candidate. The findings suggest that the socialization theory holds promise as a new perspective on the study of WDs, but the theory may also need additional conceptual development and adjustment when applied outside its traditional empirical context and at the individual levels of analysis. Specifically, we find that the democratic socialization of our selected WDs display the characteristics of hybrid socialization, where conflicting normative frameworks result in lopsided socialization processes. But more research is needed on how to empirically distinguish between cost-benefit calculations and a logic of appropriateness, the long-term implications of hybrid socialization, and how to theoretically reconcile individual level socialization processes with that of states or groups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
军阀民主社会化:分析内战后政治中的暴力话语实践
在世界各地,所谓的军阀民主人士(WDs)--武装组织的前军事或政治领导人,后来进入正式的选举政治--强烈地影响着内战后政治的动态和轨迹。然而,有关战争向和平过渡和冲突后政治的学术研究往往未能关注这些重要角色的作用。本文纠正了这一疏忽,从而为学术界关于暴力冲突后什么会加强或阻碍民主进程的争论添砖加瓦。本文有两大贡献。首先,通过明确将重点放在个人层面的分析和妇女发展机构上,文章开辟了一条以前被束之高阁的研究途径。其次,文章证明了社会化理论的假设特别适合于加深我们对妇女发展机构的变化及其对冲突后选举政治的影响的理解。一个新颖的分析框架对这一概念进行了完善,并指导我们对两个西部民主国家随着时间推移的社会化进程进行了实证研究:朱利叶斯-马达-比奥(Julius Maada Bio),前军政府领导人,后成为塞拉利昂总统;约翰逊王子(Prince Johnson),前利比里亚军阀,后成为参议员和总统候选人。研究结果表明,社会化理论有望成为研究可持续发展问题的一个新视角,但当该理论应用于传统的经验背景之外和个人分析层面时,可能还需要进一步的概念发展和调整。具体地说,我们发现,我们所选择的福利机构的民主社会化表现出混合社会化的特征,即相互冲突的规范框架导致社会化过程的片面性。但是,对于如何从经验上区分成本效益计算和适当性逻辑、混合社会化的长期影响,以及如何从理论上协调个人层面的社会化进程与国家或团体层面的社会化进程,我们还需要更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The International Studies Review (ISR) provides a window on current trends and research in international studies worldwide. Published four times a year, ISR is intended to help: (a) scholars engage in the kind of dialogue and debate that will shape the field of international studies in the future, (b) graduate and undergraduate students understand major issues in international studies and identify promising opportunities for research, and (c) educators keep up with new ideas and research. To achieve these objectives, ISR includes analytical essays, reviews of new books, and a forum in each issue. Essays integrate scholarship, clarify debates, provide new perspectives on research, identify new directions for the field, and present insights into scholarship in various parts of the world.
期刊最新文献
More Women, Fewer Nukes? Why States Arm and Why, Sometimes, They Do So Together Introduction to the Presidential Special Issue Correction to: Review of Transnational Lawmaking Coalitions for Human Rights Toward IR’s “Fifth Debate”: Racial Justice and the National Interest in Classical Realism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1