Page 38 - EVOLUTION OF THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT(SPLM),

has become eroded both from “above” (international organisations, transnational actors) and from “below”
(non-state actors).

In this context, various scholars have published studies on contemporary insurgency movements in the

context of US foreign policy in its “war on terror” (Shultz et al 2004), or with regards to changing patterns
of conflicts in the post-cold war era (Reno 1998, Rotberg 2004, Mehler 2004), and war economies (Berdal
and Malone 2000, Francois and Rufin 2003). These studies mainly focus on issues related to the formation,
mobilisation and internal working of insurgency movements, either from a micro-level perspective (e.g.

Weinstein 2007), or in relation to the broader geopolitical environment in which they operate (cross-border
linkages, diasporas, “failing states”, the “privatisation of violence”, etc.). The dynamics of peacemaking
and negotiation are not really scrutinised in this strand of literature, and post-war processes are mostly
approached from the angle of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) or security sector

reform (SSR), most often analysed in isolation from the other areas of peacebuilding. The purpose of
most studies in the field of international relations and security is to inform policy engagement with RLMs
(i.e. control and/or dialogue), both by states and international actors. For instance, Heiberg et al (2007)
undertook a comprehensive and comparative review of eleven violent insurgency groups by examining the

impact of various governmental policies on their behavioural patterns and evolution over time. Based on
their findings, they suggest a set of national and international policy guidelines to help generate conditions
required to move militants towards non-violent strategies.

For their part, scholars in political science and democratisation studies relate conflict transformation to
the process of emergence of multi-party democracy, which leads them to focus on the organisational
transformation of insurgencies, from underground guerrilla movements to conventional political parties
(Zahar 1999, Manning 2004, Garibay 2005, Nissen and Schlichte 2006, Deonandan et al 2007, Söderberg
Kovacs 2007). Through comparative studies of successful and failed transitions, or illustrative single case

studies, they analyse the challenges of institutionalisation and operational adjustment “from bullets to
ballots” (e.g. from clandestinity to openness, coercion to persuasion, ideological rigidity to pragmatism,
vertical to horizontal structures).

They also seek to identify the factors which affect their democratic performance in post-war politics, and

try to explain why some movements manage to take power following power-sharing agreements or in a
system of majoritarian democracy (e.g. ZANU in Zimbabwe, ANC in South Africa), while others remain in
marginal positions, or worse, fail to transform into viable political parties (e.g. RUF in Sierra Leone, Khmer

Rouge in Cambodia). Söderberg Kovacs (2007) provides the most comprehensive explanatory framework
organised along three levels of analysis: inter-party (degree of internal cohesion during the peace process);
party-population (level of popular support among the population at large); and party-international (degree
of international legitimacy throughout the transition period). Finally, the field of conflict transformation
acknowledges the central role played by RLMs in peace processes, but it places more emphasis on the

processes of external (third-party) engagement with such groups rather than their internal dynamics and
direct contribution to social and political change. Traditionally, researchers and practitioners also primarily
tend to focus their attention on the “moderates” within a conflict system – those seen as having the capacity

to generate and implement peaceful change.

Berghof is one of few institutions in this field acknowledging the need to engage with a broader range of

32