IFES Conflict Analysis Currently, conflict analysis receives less program emphasis than conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution. However, a conflict cycle perspective demands proportional emphasis on analysis. This means that at each phase of the electoral cycle, different types of analysis can be employed to help understand conflict dynamics in a given country and how they affect the electoral process. Well before tensions and triggers of electoral violence appear, stakeholders can better position themselves by studying the causes and historic patterns of electoral violence in their country. In any transitional country, a variety of assessments are often undertaken by various implementers to meet various objectives. These are often well-tested and trusted methods for accomplishing those objectives. For example, election assistance providers routinely use pre-election technical assessments (PETAs) to evaluate strengths and weaknesses in electoral procedures, administration, logistics, legal frameworks and other electoral processes. Generally PETAs discuss the risk of violence if it is present, but usually in a very direct relationship to electoral processes and procedures. Other organizations may undertake conflict mapping or conflict analysis exercises as part of their ongoing work. Security agencies and EMBs may also produce assessments of the risk of electoral violence in pre- or post-election periods, and on Election Day. These separate assessments generally focus on physical threats and harm to political stakeholders or processes, but do not generally include analyses of voter intimidation, economic pressures, land disputes or ethnic/religious divisions and how these might affect the electoral environment other than in clashes at political rallies or voting booths. Given that the assessments are conducted separately, they are likely to prioritize different types of issues and develop different solutions and action plans. This results in multiple risk assessments that include vital, but incomplete, analysis and recommendations. In other words, it is neither common practice to conduct joint analysis, nor to share findings from conflict analysis or electoral security risk assessments across sectors. This means that while each individual assessment can be very useful, there will be missed opportunities to better assess and program for the risks of electoral conflict. In recognition of this, IFES has incorporated a wider conflict assessment lens to our PETAs, as was done in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. It is important to keep in mind that conflict analysis is not an activity done only during the pre-election period. It can and should be done in longer or shorter iterations to inform choices between elections and in the post-election period as well. Many programs are also beginning to emphasize coordination in information gathering, analysis and planning throughout the electoral cycle. Without such coordination, gaps in analysis and information sharing can allow openings for conflict or increase its likelihood. For example, such gaps can foster conflict in the design or reform of the electoral system or legal framework. Reforms are often an important part of the between-elections period in countries, and system design happens well in advance of many post-conflict elections. Conflict analysis should complement legal, political, cultural and other considerations in electoral system design. Many analysts pointed out that the system designed in Afghanistan, in the 2000s, was not sensitive to the long-term goal of conflict management, and did not take into account all possible conflict triggers that the chosen system could create. Conflict analysis and electoral and political assessments contributed to positive changes in the electoral system in Iraq, when it changed from the system chosen in 2005.6 6 See Reilly, Ben “Understanding Elections in Conflict Situations” and Lemieux, Marc “Iraq’s Conflicted Transition to Democracy: Analyzing Elections in a Violent Society” in Elections in Dangerous Places: Democracy and the Paradoxes of Peacebuilding. David Gillies (ed). McQueen University Press, October 2011. 6