The Civil War Roots of Military Domination in Zimbabwe: The Integration Process Following the Rhodesian War and the Road to ZANLA Dominance

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{5ef9f8c74baf41999097c6354334d170,
title = "The Civil War Roots of Military Domination in Zimbabwe: The Integration Process Following the Rhodesian War and the Road to ZANLA Dominance",
abstract = "This paper addresses the issue of what happens after a civil war ends. In particular it traces the development of political authoritarianism from an initial multi-party democracy and military integration following a civil war through to one-party control and the breakdown of civil security following the rise of an alternative opposition. The question of what happens to former combatants has become increasingly pertinent as decisive military victory has become rarer within African conflicts (Licklider, 2008). At the same time, it is also clear that the nature of contemporary peace settlements at the end of wars may leave a risk to further violence as there are always losers in these processes (Licklider, 1995; Stedman, 1993). This creates a danger that loser groups may return to violence, but also that the coalition of the winners may be unable to create benefits that will eventually placate rejectionists of any peace agreements. At the same time, Licklider and Atlas (1999) put forward the view that whilst post-settlement tensions are often present, these frequently arise between former allies who disagree on the shares of the spoils following victory rather than between former protagonists. In particular, where one faction within the former allies believes that they have not received their due this is likely to lead to rising tensions and then violence.",
author = "Paul Jackson",
year = "2011",
month = dec
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/13698249.2011.629865",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "371--395",
journal = "Civil Wars",
issn = "1369-8249",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Civil War Roots of Military Domination in Zimbabwe: The Integration Process Following the Rhodesian War and the Road to ZANLA Dominance

AU - Jackson, Paul

PY - 2011/12/1

Y1 - 2011/12/1

N2 - This paper addresses the issue of what happens after a civil war ends. In particular it traces the development of political authoritarianism from an initial multi-party democracy and military integration following a civil war through to one-party control and the breakdown of civil security following the rise of an alternative opposition. The question of what happens to former combatants has become increasingly pertinent as decisive military victory has become rarer within African conflicts (Licklider, 2008). At the same time, it is also clear that the nature of contemporary peace settlements at the end of wars may leave a risk to further violence as there are always losers in these processes (Licklider, 1995; Stedman, 1993). This creates a danger that loser groups may return to violence, but also that the coalition of the winners may be unable to create benefits that will eventually placate rejectionists of any peace agreements. At the same time, Licklider and Atlas (1999) put forward the view that whilst post-settlement tensions are often present, these frequently arise between former allies who disagree on the shares of the spoils following victory rather than between former protagonists. In particular, where one faction within the former allies believes that they have not received their due this is likely to lead to rising tensions and then violence.

AB - This paper addresses the issue of what happens after a civil war ends. In particular it traces the development of political authoritarianism from an initial multi-party democracy and military integration following a civil war through to one-party control and the breakdown of civil security following the rise of an alternative opposition. The question of what happens to former combatants has become increasingly pertinent as decisive military victory has become rarer within African conflicts (Licklider, 2008). At the same time, it is also clear that the nature of contemporary peace settlements at the end of wars may leave a risk to further violence as there are always losers in these processes (Licklider, 1995; Stedman, 1993). This creates a danger that loser groups may return to violence, but also that the coalition of the winners may be unable to create benefits that will eventually placate rejectionists of any peace agreements. At the same time, Licklider and Atlas (1999) put forward the view that whilst post-settlement tensions are often present, these frequently arise between former allies who disagree on the shares of the spoils following victory rather than between former protagonists. In particular, where one faction within the former allies believes that they have not received their due this is likely to lead to rising tensions and then violence.

U2 - 10.1080/13698249.2011.629865

DO - 10.1080/13698249.2011.629865

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 371

EP - 395

JO - Civil Wars

JF - Civil Wars

SN - 1369-8249

IS - 4

ER -