Chair:
Narrelle Gilchrist (Princeton University)
Presenters:
Raed Aldulaimi (Al-Imam Al-Adham University College): Possible Reconciliation, Challenging Reintegration: Post-IS Iraq
Post-conflict states face many domestic challenges, one of which is having people live peacefully together again. To do so, reconciliation—i.e., apology, forgiveness, and transitional justice—is applied first, then reintegration takes place—i.e., ex-combatants and their families reengage in their original communities. Even after defeating the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq officially in 2017, families and relatives of ex-combatants still carry the burden of that affiliation. This study seeks to examine variations in attitudes in four Iraqi communities towards these families regarding economic and social reintegration. I argue that factors—such as ethnic and sect identities, and levels of physical harm and destruction of property caused by IS or the conflict—can explain these variations. This study utilized a survey (N=1882) conducted in 2022, and the findings show that ethnic and sect identities negatively affect the process of reintegrating—i.e., Arab-Sunnis tend more to make contacts with those families than Turkmen-Shias. Also, community members who experienced physical harm and/or lost relatives because of the war against IS show significantly less support for reintegration. However, those whose properties were damaged (fully or partially) show a high level of empathy with the families and relatives with ties to IS. These findings can help in understanding why some communities can accept returnees while others reject them, which is extremely important for sustainable peace-building in Iraq and, potentially, other countries.
Ana Paula Pellegrino (Georgetown University): The Persistent Electoral Power of Criminal Groups
Does cracking down on criminal rulers undermine their electoral power? As criminal governance expands, so does criminal groups' influence over elections in contemporary democracies. Previous work highlights how criminals exert power over the ballot box by corralling the electorate under their control and gatekeeping voters from candidates, mostly during the campaign period. Prosecution and imprisonment, alongside informational campaigns that delegitimize the group and affiliated candidates, are prominent tools that democratic states have to address such threats to democracy in the short term. In this paper, I evaluate one such effort in Rio de Janeiro, where a parliamentary commission investigated armed criminal groups with direct involvement in politics immediately before a local electoral cycle. Using a quasi-experimental design and granular voting data, I find that leadership imprisonment and strong public signals that the group was involved in illicit activities did not dismantle their hold over ballot boxes they previously controlled. Even if previous candidates saw lower support, post-crackdown, voter concentration in criminally-held ballot boxes increased. I use qualitative data to show how the new front-runner candidates were later found to be connected to the same armed criminal groups and that the groups' electoral resilience results from their coercive power, which makes them different from other, non-armed political machines. These findings have theoretical and policy implications, contributing to the literature on authoritarian enclaves in contemporary democracies and showing that imprisoning leaders is not enough to control these groups and dismantle their control over entire populations.
