Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy

The development of political parties play a key role in the stabilization and democratization of post-conflict societies. However in international aid programmes, political party assistance is often limited. 

At NIMD's office in the Hague, various international academic experts, practitioners and policy makers discussed ideas and practical suggestions that can help an organization like NIMD to provide assistance to political parties in post-conflict societies. The cases of Afghanistan and Burundi were closely considered because of the possible start of NIMD programmes in these countries.

The outcome of the expert meeting will be included in NIMD’s policy paper on democracy assistance in post-conflict societies. (to be presented in the autumn of 2007)

The main findings of the expert meeting included:

• Post-conflict parties and party systems vary substantially. Dominant-authoritarian systems require a different approach than fragmented systems  Post-conflict societies should not be considered ‘tabula rasa’ situations where institutions can be developed from scratch.
• The main differences between today’s post-conflict democracies (as Afghanistan) and other young democracies include the existence of a peace settlement, the prevalence of a relatively high level of violence and insecurity, the international (military) presence, and the deep social cleavages, tensions and mistrust that resonate in the political system.
• If we assume that, in the long run, no trade-off exists between stability and democracy – that is, that they are mutually reinforcing long-term objectives – it is never too early for a party aid organization like NIMD to engage in a democratization process. 


General guidelines

Notwithstanding the differences between post-conflict countries a number of general guidelines for political party assistance were given:

1. Long-term engagements are needed. Long-term strategic planning needs to be reconciled with flexibility and adaptability in the execution and implementation of programmes on the ground.

2. Donor coordination. A long-term political party programme should be integrated in the broader democratization, reconstruction and peace building agendas.

3. Goals should be moderate and determined by the circumstances on the ground. We should always be aware that societal, economic, institutional and historical factors have a stronger impact on the development of post-conflict parties and party systems than international support.
4. Organizations that provide political party assistance always have to focus on all relevant political actors and parties. However, in a highly fragmented political party landscape it is extremely difficult to identify the relevant players. If the most powerful political actors do not respect the rule of law and if they continue to resort to violence, organizations put at stake their own integrity when providing theses groups with direct assistance.

5. An inclusive inter-party dialogue can help parties to overcome mistrust, to moderate positions, and to build consensus on issues that have not been dealt with in the peace agreement.

6. Special efforts should be made to help broaden the political debate. Too often this remains one-dimensional with an exclusive focus on ethnicity for example. It is important to assist parties to get organized around tangible policy issues that can have a direct positive impact on people’s lives, and to build coalitions on the basis of political goals and ideas.

7. A post-conflict programme should be based on a good understanding of the conflict, the nature and background of the political parties and the power balance. Continuous analysis is needed.