Violence around elections in the Philippines, Gambia, Haiti or the Democratic Republic of Congo in recent years highlighted the risks of that most fundamental element of democracy—elections—and the connection with efforts to achieve sustainable peace. On March 23, the U.S. Institute of Peace held a half-day event to discuss past and upcoming elections that illustrate the risk of violence, with the aim of identifying promising ways to realize peace at the polls. Panelists included ambassadors to the U.S., leading election scholars, and the contributing authors of Electing Peace, a new USIP book that examines the effectiveness of common practices to prevent election violence.

Properly managed elections allow opposing groups to press their claim to power through a peaceful process. But in fragile democracies, elections too often are undermined by intimidation, violent protest or worse. International organizations and civil society can try to keep the peace in various ways: working with the police, supporting election commissioners or pressuring lead candidates to refrain from inciting violence. But what works in a given context, what does not, and how can these mechanisms be more effective?

Speakers discussed their own experience on the ground and presented research from Electing Peace, edited by USIP Senior Program Officer Jonas Claes. The volume can be ordered at the USIP bookstore. 

The event was webcast, and you can follow the discussion on social media with the Twitter hashtag #ElectingPeace


Ambassador Fareed Yasseen
Ambassador of Iraq to the United States

Jessica Huber
Senior Gender Specialist, International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) 

Geoffrey Macdonald
Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University 

Duncan McCargo
Professor of Political Science, University of Leeds

Elizabeth Murray
Senior Program Officer, Center for the Middle East and Africa, U.S. Institute of Peace

Bhojraj Pokharel
Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow on Preventing Election Violence, U.S. Institute of Peace

Manuela Travaglianti
Lecturer, Peace and Conflict Studies, University of California, Berkeley

Inken von Borzyskowski
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Florida State University

Ndung'u Gethenji
Chairman of the Defense and Foreign Relations Committee, Parliament of Kenya


Jonas Claes
Senior Program Officer for Preventing Election Violence, U.S. Institute of Peace

Pat Merloe
Senior Associate and Director, Election Programs, National Democratic Institute

Ambassador George Moose 
Vice Chairman, USIP Board of Directors

Related Publications

North Korea and China: The Endgame Behind the Headlines

North Korea and China: The Endgame Behind the Headlines

Friday, April 20, 2018

By: Fred Strasser

In the fast-moving diplomacy over North Korea’s nuclear program, the long-term interests of the country’s powerful neighbor China don’t make headlines. Yet behind China’s tactical moves such as President Xi Jinping’s meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un last month lie strategic questions about what China—vital to any resolution of the North Korea nuclear issue—envisions as a satisfactory end state for the Korean Peninsula.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Global Policy

What is Next for U.S.-Turkey Relations?

What is Next for U.S.-Turkey Relations?

Friday, April 20, 2018

By: Eric S. Edelman

Relations between the United States and Turkey have come under increasing strain in the past two years over the U.S. role in Syria and Ankara’s strengthening ties with Russia. American support for Kurdish forces battling ISIS has angered Turkey, which sees the cooperation as bolstering Kurdish nationalist elements inside its borders. USIP Board member Eric Edelman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey during the George W. Bush administration, and USIP International Advisory Council member Jake Sullivan, who served as Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, provide some insight on the state of Turkish-American relations.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Osama Gharizi on U.S. Objectives in Syria

Osama Gharizi on U.S. Objectives in Syria

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

By: Osama Gharizi

From Lebanon, Osama Gharizi shares his analysis about the clarity of U.S. objectives after retaliatory missile strikes targeting the Assad regime’s suspected chemical weapons facilities. Gharizi says these strikes sent a signal to Assad and his allies that there are limits to U.S. and coalition intervention in Syria. In turn, these limits strengthen Russia, Turkey, and Iran’s roles as the diplomatic arbiters to negotiate a peace deal. Separately, Gharizi addresses the risks associated with the suggestion of setting up an Arab force in Syria that could create further obscurity in terms of U.S. intent and objectives versus those of Arab countries forming such a force.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Civilian-Military Relations

Could Pakistan’s Protests Undercut Taliban and Extremism?

Could Pakistan’s Protests Undercut Taliban and Extremism?

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

By: James Rupert

Tens of thousands of ethnic Pashtuns have held mass protests in Pakistan in the past three months, demanding justice and better governance for their communities. The largely youth-led protests forged an organization, the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (“tahafuz” means “protection”), that has broadened its goals to include democracy and decentralization of power in Pakistan. The movement reflects demands for change among the roughly 30 million Pashtuns who form about 15 percent of Pakistan’s population, the country’s second-largest ethnic community.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Nonviolent Action; Violent Extremism

View All Publications