Transition of Rebels in Politics: Necessity or Impediment for Peace Building?

Most of contemporary conflicts, labeled as civil wars or ethnic conflicts, have been intra-state conflicts where an opposition armed group challenges government. To ensure sustainable peace and democracy, in post-conflict settings, major policy proposals argue for inclusion of warring parties in peace processes and make a case for an inclusive, participatory and holistic security transitions. This then validates former combatants and opens avenues for their participation in the post-conflict democratization. Part of the academic literature welcomes such developments because potential “peace spoilers” become integrated; however, others consider that involvement of rebels in politics can set impediments to democracy and even create a “war lord democracy”. Notwithstanding the moral dilemmas, I argue that a pragmatic approach is needed to assess what are the effects for peace building if rebels transit to politics? In the paper I compare the outcomes of rebels' transition to politics in Croatia and Macedonia; two countries from former Yugoslavia. Both countries had inter-ethnic conflicts; however, the duration, the gravity of the conflict, as well as the conflict resolution were different and so was the involvement of the international community. Based on extensive field work, primary on 78 interviews covering different conflict municipalities, I trace the transition of rebel groups and their war time networks to politics in the post-conflict period. My findings show that the transition of rebels to politics was beneficial for sustaining peace and security; however, more in Croatia than in Macedonia. On the other hand, there are some negative consequences for the development of democracy. Plurality of minority representation is impeded because parties from rebels became dominant minority parties in both countries.