Referendums come in all forms and shapes and their design matters in managing conflicts, especially the one in Ukraine, where the key challenge is managing public expectations after a long and devastating war, write Neophytos Loizides and Quintin Oliver.
Neophytos Loizides is a professor of international conflict analysis at the University of Kent. Quintin Oliver is a conflict resolution and referendum specialist with Stratagem International.
Wars of mass resistance often invoke wider participation by citizens in decision-making. As the Ukrainian people fight an existential threat to repel the Russian invasion, it is expected that they should be the ones deciding on the terms of any inevitable future peace treaty.
A public referendum to ratify a negotiated settlement was first suggested by President Volodymyr Zelensky back in March. More recently, the Russian leadership has also employed the language of plebiscites in its ill-conceived attempt to legitimize illegal annexation plans as early as this autumn.
A new wave of injudicious referendums could turn Ukraine into a frozen conflict with unprecedented costs.
We describe three types of referendums that could make a difference in high-level mediation.
Unilateral secessionist referendums can freeze conflicts
A starting point to understand how referendums can help a future peace deal is to draw a distinction between unilateral (secessionist) referendums (e.g. Catalonia and Kurdistan, both 2017) and remedial ones as part of an agreed peace process where parties seek democratic mandates to resolve an otherwise intractable issue (e.g. N. Ireland 1998, Colombia 2016, North Macedonia 2018).
While the latter can be seen as an opportunity to reduce conflict and engage citizens in legitimating peace, the former are the most problematic in terms of international law and practice.
In the recent cases of Catalonia and Kurdistan, some legal and political arguments have been made in defence of the referendum outcome (demanding new independent states); nonetheless, the international community saw more problems than benefits in endorsing the idea of unilateral secession, in contrast to South Sudan’s widely anticipated secession endorsed by referendum in 2011.
More so in Ukraine, where Vladimir Putin’s invasion relied on a series of legally-flawed arguments, massive use of force against a weaker neighbour (and one that had earlier surrendered its nuclear weapons as part of a binding international treaty) and horrific crimes against civilians on the ground.
International media have warned of the dangers of holding ‘rigged’ referendums in Ukraine’s eastern territories next autumn following the 2014 precedent of Crimea.
While there will be zero international support for such referendums, the danger is that Russia will use those as an opportunity to freeze the conflict. Once people vote for annexation, partition becomes irreversible from a Russian point of view, while western governments will abandon any efforts for a peace settlement.
Ukraine itself might still resist Russia’s occupation but with an unprecedented human and financial cost.
A Peace Treaty referendum also risky?
Another type of referendum might appear in the context of a peace agreement. In this example of ‘remedial referendums’, the public is asked to endorse or reject a peace plan, not a unilateral secession but a mutually agreed settlement.
In such referendums, the procedures, themes and wording are generally compatible with international legal or normative standards; in fact the international community actively supports a positive referendum vote.
In Ukraine, this might involve the ratification of any future peace agreement, as suggested in the first weeks of the invasion by President Zelensky; however, such a proposal is not without risks.
For one thing, Russia might propose a parallel procedure in occupied territories further complicating the process; for another, it will not be a surprise if Russia provokes incidents in Ukraine that will flip voters against peace.
Voters often answer the wrong question – referendums are susceptible to ‘capture’ by spoilers (external or internal), and citizens often find themselves registering a protest against their governments or third countries.
Referendums have admittedly been employed in positive ways as part of negotiated settlements, for instance, to promote peace following protracted conflicts.
Successful referendums in South Africa in 1992 and Northern Ireland in 1998 have been viewed as facilitating the respective peace settlements by engaging broader segments of society in the peace process and limiting the role of violent opposition groups.
Yet peace referendums are only rarely successful, suggesting that the chances of success in Ukraine are also slim. Referendums, especially on big national issues, against a background of conflict, usually become more emotional than rational.
The key challenge in Ukraine is managing public expectations after a long and devastating conflict, while at the higher level of negotiations leaders will be unwilling to make concessions fearing a public backlash. In other words, by relying on referendums Ukraine might find itself entrapped in a process that is hard to manage.
‘Arbitration referendums’: A third option?
Rather than avoid referendums altogether, an alternative is to deploy them as part of a future peace process, arbitrating on an issue that will be otherwise impossible for leaders to resolve today.
Think of Crimea – arguably the most controversial, due to its history, territorial aspect of this conflict.
Assuming the Ukrainian and Russian leaderships are ready to accept a deal involving dual citizenship with accompanying free travel and trade, the principle of consent could be the catalyst — that is Crimeans being given the option to rejoin Ukraine in a future referendum.
Likewise, territorial autonomy might benefit different parts of Ukraine and citizens might determine the extent of decentralization including the shape of constituent units as in Spain.
There are three advantages in such referendums: Peace is secured in the short-term without the risk of a public backlash; governments are incentivised to engage constructively with local communities to win their future support; political institutions adapt to new conditions arbitrated by public consent.
Understanding the challenge of public participation is essential to manage Europe’s deepening continental divisions.
Referendums come in all forms and shapes. Attention to design matters in managing conflicts, especially in Ukraine, currently the litmus test of international mediation and diplomacy. Admittedly, drawing the line between various types of referendums can be tricky, but knowing what worked or failed in the past is essential.
As we type, stakeholders might be unwittingly endorsing the most problematic model of referendums in their thinking, thereby shaping an inescapable future for Ukraine and the rest of the continent.
Source: euractiv.com
