Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT: The 2019 Sudanese revolution, which ushered in the ongoing transitional process, was driven by deep-seated governance deficits and unrelenting popular demands for meaningful democratic change and socioeconomic development. In general, elections are crucial for sustaining peace and stability in post-conflict/revolution settings. As such, political transitions regularly culminate in the holding of elections to address crises of institutional legitimacy. Thus, peace agreements often include provisions related to democratic electoral processes. This article examines the safeguards for electoral democracy enshrined in the Juba Peace Agreement (JPA). It offers an overview of the electoral landscape prior to the JPA, critically analyzes the provisions related to the question of elections set out in the JPA, and assesses the prospects for peaceful and participatory elections from the prism of the currentpre-electoral context.
KEYWORDS: elections, transition, peace process, democracy, Juba Peace Agreement
INTRODUCTION
Several scholars have discussed the intricate nexus between democratization and postwar reconstruction (Bah 2020; Barnes 2001; Haass 2021; Hartzell and Hoddie 2020; Kinsella and Rousseau 2008; Ottaway 2003; Pereira Watts 2016). With specific regard to the role of elections in conflict transition, scientific discourse reveals four leading schools of thought. The first hinges on the theory of democratic peace, which broadly establishes a correlation between democracy and peacefulness (Imai and Lo 2021; Kant 1795). According to Aila M. Matanock (2017) post-conflict elections promote multiple goals, including war termination and democratization. Thus, they have become the main entry point for the (re)establishment of democratic order and consolidation of peace in countries transitioning from conflicts, coups d'état, or repressive regimes (Fischer 2002; Sisk 2009) and are frequently viewed not just as an endgame of political transition, but as the vehicle to bestow legitimacy on a democratically elected government and foster peacebuilding (Alihodžić et al. 2019; Matanock 2017).
The second school holds that elections, which are inherently contentious and historically violent across Africa, have a destabilizing effect in post-conflict settings. Thomas Edward Flores and Irfan Nooruddin (2012) submit that elections will inflame preexisting tensions due to the inability of post-conflict politicians to credibly commit to peace terms. Similarly, Eric Keels (2017) posits that elections dramatically diminish the durability of postwar peace, especially in oil-rich economies. Proponents of the third school of thought do not disagree with the centrality of...