In post-conflict processes renewed instability threatens to jeopardize previous achievements. Since Mansfield/ Snyder called attention to the fact that democratization might run counter to the desired stability, many scholars recommend prioritizing stability and establishing strong state institutions first. This paper argues to the contrary that delaying democratization until stability might suffice at some magic moment in the future is dangerous. Supporting the peace processes in Burundi and Nepal, international actors applied democratic standards such as fair contestation in a less stringent manner for the sake of stability. This way they failed to take advantage of the potential for strengthening peace entailed in democratization. Furthermore, it stalled the democratization process by undermining nascent democratic institutions and allowing monopolization of power, which created path dependencies difficult to reverse. Contrary to the intended preservation of stability, this prioritization even threatens to evoke a return to violent means of political contestation in both countries.
