Research

Can the provision of minority rights effectively resolve conflicts? This paper challenges the prevailing literature on ethnic conflict, which predominantly focuses on large ethnic groups that can afford their own army. Instead, I investigate the consequences of collective rights granted to small indigenous peoples in the Philippines. I argue that privileges bestowed upon minorities without sufficient self- or state-enforcement mechanisms can trigger aggression from local majority elites who have economic interests in the ethnic territory. This, in turn, can lead to the militarization of both development-oriented local elites and indigenous communities striving to protect their tribal lands. Using a Difference-in-Differences framework, I provide evidence that the introduction of a progressive law aimed at safeguarding indigenous peoples’ rights actually attracted insurgencies into indigenous areas, particularly those with mining operations. Moreover, even among indigenous peoples, those who applied for these privileges were more likely to experience conflict.

Where does the counterinsurgency successfully suppress rebel activities? The literature in conflict emphasizes the role of civilians as the source of intelligence. However, the relationship between the local civilians and the military is often mediated by a local agent: local governments and police. Formulating the role and incentives of local executives who supervise local police, this study argues that the party alignment between the center and local executives constitutes an important condition for the suppression of rebel activities in the context of conflict in democratic countries. Capitalizing on the case of nation-wide communist insurgency and the closely run mayoral elections in the Philippines, I provide causal evidence demonstrating that electing a mayor who has the same party affiliation with the President decreases the violent clashes between the military and rebels.

How does a peace agreement influence public attitudes in the post-conflict society? In spite of the important role of public opinion as a domestic enforcer of peace deals, their micro-foundations have never been examined. This study uses an endorsement survey experiment fielded in post-conflict Mindanao in the Philippines, to measure the effect of elite consensus on public support for post-conflict policies. The sheer fact that conflict parties agree to the policies does not increase the support. However, when informed that the agreement is a formal peace treaty, civilians give an additional support to it.

Recognizing the importance of grassroots and public opinions in peace implementations, peacemakers are increasingly engaging with non-elites. Joint mediation efforts by domestic and international actors are gaining attention as potential guarantors of enduring peace, encouraging popular participation and support for peace processes. However, the premise that mediators positively influence public opinions is yet to be tested. To explore this, a survey experiment was conducted in Muslim Mindanao, Philippines, where a noble hybrid mediation system is in place. Contrary to expectations, the survey found that elite-outsider mediation negatively affects public attitudes toward the peace process, while insider and hybrid mediation showed no strong effects. These findings push future work to interrogate more deeply the extent to which the public perceives insider mediators in civil wars and how they affect mediation effectiveness.