Description
Self-determination referendums have been used to resolve protracted self-determination conflicts. However, existing peacebuilding literature on them is limited and divided between those who claim they are dangerous because of their zero-sum nature and those who argue they contribute to peace without substantiating relevant causal mechanisms. Aiming at resolving this debate, this paper conducts comparative case studies of three self-determination referendums held based on peace agreements: Eritrea, East Timor, and South Sudan. Relying on more than 60 elite interviews, it analyzes 1) whether referendums help resolve the original self-determination conflicts and 2) what kind of impact referendums have on democracy and the amelioration of tensions inside the newborn states.
My argument is threefold. First, the referendums have helped resolve the original conflicts decisively even though they do not seem to have any effect on the long-term relationship between the newborn state and the rump state. Second, there is no evidence to suggest that the referendums helped accommodate differences inside the newborn states, but they could help consolidate democracy if other conditions permit it to sustain. Third, the unity of the pro-independence groups shown during the referendums contributed to excessive optimism within the international community regarding the future of the newborn state. They wrongly assumed that this unity would continue after independence, that this unity meant democratization would be easy, and that this unity indicated that there were no tensions within the pro-independence groups.
