Abstract

The article analyses the notion of societal inclusion in peace negotiations, a subject that has gained increasing importance in politics, policy, norm, and scholarship over the last few decades. It argues that inclusion has gone from being considered an unnecessary disturbance to a necessary one in peace processes, especially due to its growing association with the fostering of political legitimacy and peace sustainability. Reducing inclusion to its usefulness, however, obscures its fundamentally political nature and implications. The article thus tracks and unpacks the discussion on societal inclusion, drawing in particular from Chantal Mouffe’s reading of political agonism and the more recent literature about agonistic peace. Ultimately, it argues that instrumentalizing and depoliticizing political inclusion is hurtful for the democratic safeguarding of previously denied rights and counter-productive even for minimal legitimizing ends. Peacebuilding benefits from agonistic standpoints of analysis by introducing, from the negotiation stage, a political model of engagement that allows in conflict by peacefully tackling it instead of sweeping it under the rug.

Keywords
political inclusion; agonistic peace; peace negotiations; peace process; Peace and Conflict Studies