Winner, Best Dissertation Award, Western Political Science Association, 2020
Forthcoming with Cambridge University Press
Across the globe, promoting democracy after civil war is viewed as a strategy for guiding war-torn societies toward peace and development. However, building democracy requires active participation of informed citizens, a challenging task when violence has torn apart the social fabric, leading to distrust and polarization. Local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are pivotal in this effort, supported by international donors for the arduous task of societal reconstruction and instilling democratic values post-conflict.
NGO programs aim to inform citizens on the processes and values essential for democratic participation. Activities like voter education are intended to be nonpartisan and inclusive, reaching all citizens regardless of identity. However, in the polarized aftermath of violence, the presumed impartiality of these democracy promotion efforts—and the actors implementing them—often lacks empirical evidence. No Neutral Ground scrutinizes these assumptions, exploring why some populations may reject NGO-led democracy promotion due to perceptions of bias, distrust, and favoritism.
The book examines the interactions among three key actors in democracy promotion: citizens, NGO leaders, and the government. Each actor is shaped by the destabilizing effects of war, resulting in unintended consequences for democracy promotion success.
The experiences of war influence how citizens relate to the state, impacting their attitudes toward NGOs. Democracy promotion is often associated with "winners," both in electoral terms—such as the incumbent party and its supporters—and in the civil war context—those perceived as benefiting most from peace settlements. "Winners" are more likely to view democracy positively and trust democracy-promoting NGOs. Conversely, "losers" may feel disconnected from democracy promotion efforts, leading to rejection of the content and implementing organizations. Robust participation from both government supporters and opposition in NGO initiatives is crucial for strengthening democracy, but widespread disengagement can hinder democratic goals.
During wartime, NGO leaders might adopt self-serving or discriminatory strategies to navigate contested territories and authorities. While these strategies may have been necessary for their survival during the war, they can result in NGOs appearing corrupt or exclusionary to citizens.
The political legacies of war also shape government preferences and relationships with NGOs. While states may support peace and democracy, they might also view an oppositional civil society with suspicion. Consequently, state actors might thus favor NGOs seen as allies. This dynamic often pressures NGOs to align with certain political sides—intentionally or perceptively—resulting in the politicization of these organizations and their leaders. Moreover, the state can exert control over NGOs through registration processes and leadership appointments, affecting their access to resources. If perceived as biased, NGOs may alienate citizens, further hardening opposition to their activities.
No Neutral Ground theorizes significant, yet understudied, variations in subnational war experiences, NGO leader behavior, citizen perceptions, and government preferences—all of which shape NGO-led democracy promotion after civil war. The book uses Côte d'Ivoire, a country that experienced a civil war from 2002 to 2011, as a case study to test its arguments. Drawing on extensive fieldwork, the book reassesses post-conflict democratization theories and practices, offering insights into whether and how wartime legacies might be overcome to achieve democracy.