Dilemmas: horizontal, vertical, systemic and temporal

Four types of dilemmas may arise when the processes of democratization and peace building have adverse effects on each other. Firstly, the horizontal dilemma concerns the issue of groups should be represented in the processes of peace and democratization . This decision regards the horizontal relation between the elites of warring parties and of democratic political parties.

A selected group of elites may more easily commit to difficult compromises, while comprehensive peace negotiations may results in more lasting agreements by involving all parties with a stake in post-war developments.
Some groups also have legitimate reasons to demand political power after years of oppression and discrimination.     
The horizontal dilemma involves a trade-off between inclusion this dilemma also affects the prospects for peace. A rebel group that expects to be excluded from future governments and control over part of the territory may find peace too costly. For this reason, a peace deal often stipulates inclusion of the main warring parties in the political process.

Secondly, the vertical dilemma entails the difficult choice between efficacy and legitimacy. It pertains to the relation between elite and mass politics. On the one hand, legitimacy is expected to increase when the people are involved in all phases of the peace process. On the other hand, the elites often have an interest in a non-public process. They want to signal resolve – that they are not prepared to make concessions – in order to get the best deal they can at the negotiation table. After a peace agreement.

Thirdly, the systemic dilemma refers to the issue of ownership, that is of international versus local control of the processes of democratization and peace building.
Third-party engagement in peace building might generate a dilemma of peace versus democracy. On the one hand, international involvement may be necessary to end violence and to facilitate negotiations. Support for democratic developments aims to promote stability and institutions for conflict management. But on the other hand, both sustainable peace building and democratization depend on the commitment of local people and elites. Contemporary peace building sometimes includes temporary external control over political process. These structures are not formally accountable to the citizens in these states. In such cases local ownership is weak, thus risking to halt or reverse the process and even to alienate people from democracy as an ideal.

Fourthly the temporal dilemma regards trade-offs concerning short-term versus long-term effects on democratization and peace building. Efforts to support democratization may in the short run increase the risk of violence, and thereby in the long run undermine the chances for democracy to take root. Likewise, peace building may involve restrictions on democratic freedom such as freedom of press and mass demonstrations. In the long run, such constrains may cause unrest and turn into obstacle for the implementation of the peace agreement.
The timing of elections also activates the temporal dilemma.
Democracy means rule by people, and it is difficult to think of another way to ensure democratic legitimacy than through elections.

After a war, a democratic election also serves the purpose of bringing a decisive end to the war and of sealing the peace deal. Consequently, elections have come to be seen as the crowing event of the peace building phase and an “exit strategy” for organizations engaged in international peace missions. The lessons learned from missions aiming for democratization and peace- building in, for example, Liberia and Haiti demonstrate that when there is a choice between promoting democracy and peace, securing the peace is pivotal. To understand why dilemmas of war-to-democracy transitions occur, and why they can have such devastating effects, it is suggested that theoretical explanations can be found in three areas of research: the efforts to promote peace building, and the legacy of war.