Politically integrating Islamist rebels entails both risks and opportunities

The transformation of armed groups into legitimate political parties has long been identified as a potential avenue towards peace. Against the backdrop of a growing spread of armed conflicts with Islamist groups, Dino Krause and Mimmi Söderberg Kovacs (Folke Bernadotte Academy) examine, how such ‘rebel-to-party transformations’ have played out when undertaken by groups with an Islamist ideology. The study has recently been published by Routledge in “The Effects of Rebel Parties on Governance, Democracy and Stability after Civil Wars: From Guns to Governing”, edited by John Ishiyama and Gyda M. Sindre.

Concretely, Krause and Söderberg Kovacs examine, how fourteen Islamist political parties that were the result of rebel-to-party transformations have behaved along four key dimensions of democracy: 1) their commitment to non-violence, 2) their interpretation of Sharia-based law vis-à-vis existing legal frameworks, 3) their cooperation with non-Islamist political parties and institutions, and 4) their commitment to protecting human rights. As regards the first of these dimensions, while the parties largely adhered to principles of non-violence, some of them maintained armed wings alongside their political organizations. However, the authors also note that the latter is sometimes the result of a general climate of insecurity and ongoing wars, which require party leaders to maintain armed wings in order to carry out political tasks such as election campaigns. The authors further observe large variation in regard to the second factor – the parties’ interpretation of Sharia-based law. Here, some parties moderated their more radical wartime demands, whereas others developed more strict positions after entering the political stage. Third, a striking finding emerging from the study is that the examined parties behaved highly pragmatic towards other, non-Islamist parties, entering various coalitions and tactical alliances with liberal, social democratic, or conservative Christian parties. Yet, such alliances often appear to be driven by opportunism rather than a real commitment to multiparty politics. Fourth, with respect to the parties’ commitment to human rights protection, there is a substantial overlap with their views on Sharia-based law. Those parties that endorse democracy and secular rule of law more generally, also appear more tolerant with respect to the rights of women, or religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities. In turn, where the parties seek to establish Sharia-based law, exclusionary attitudes towards vulnerable societal groups can be observed.