‘Power sharing’ is often prescribed as a remedy for conflict-affected societies to achieve sustainable peace after armed conflict. The assumption being that broad-based inclusion in decision-making processes will address people’s concerns about exclusion and not having their voices heard. Implicitly, inclusion through power sharing in post-conflict societies should be very desirable among civilians and former conflict actors alike. We do not know, however, if ordinary people in post-conflict societies support power sharing. We also do not know what type of power sharing they support. Power sharing can take many forms, from permanent ethnic quotas in parliament to temporary inclusion of former combatants in government. This paper investigates people’s opinions about power sharing in post-conflict societies, using survey data collected in Guatemala, Nepal, and Northern Ireland. Due to the unique set-up of the survey questionnaire the paper is able to analyze a variety of power sharing conceptions; examining people’s views on minority inclusion, coalition government, inclusion of former rebels, and specific power sharing provisions in peace agreements. Are there any patterns in who supports which type of power sharing? Do conflict experiences and participation matter for whether people (dis)like power sharing? Is the assumption that ordinary people desire inclusive power sharing sound? Preliminary findings suggest that people in countries with a power sharing history (Nepal and Northern Ireland) are more in favor of inclusive government than people without such experiences (in Guatemala).
