An Integrated Approach to Elections and Conflict violence in many countries is rooted in existing cleavages which may be escalated by procedural or political triggers, the divide between conflict-related programming and election-related programming is still wide.5 However, through the addition of this relatively simple framework of common conflict response programming (Figure 3), it is possible to create a phased approach to understanding and dealing with election conflict through analysis, prevention, mitigation/management and resolution. The resulting approach, known as integrated conflict and elections programming (ICEP), could help improve country analysis and cross-sector cooperation. ICEP explicitly maps the electoral cycle to conflict-response programming, resulting in a holistic perspective that addresses the country context and conflict dynamics (Figure 4). This approach helps to clearly delineate responsibilities across sectors and accentuate the importance of an effective and joint strategy for reducing the risk of electoral violence. Aided by this approach to addressing electoral conflict, practitioners can readily identify opportunities to analyze, prevent, manage or resolve conflict in each phase of the electoral cycle. Next, these can be used to identify steps each stakeholder group should take, with a view toward cooperating across sectors to meet identified conflict and electoral management goals. As seen in Figure 4, if one maps election assistance activities to conflict-cycle program objectives, every stage of the electoral cycle could support various conflict responses (analysis, prevention, mitigation and/or resolution) through elections-based programming. If we look at each conflict response area, we can identify election assistance activities that already exist and new approaches that could further integrate conflict and elections programming. 5 On causes of election violence, relevant publications include Sharma, R. and Kammerud, L., “Election Violence: Causes, Trends, and Mitigation,” conference paper the April 22, 2010 Electoral Symposium, IFES and Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies (ACPSS), April 22, 2010; Fischer, J., “Electoral Conflict and Violence: A Strategy for Study and Prevention,” Chaturvedi, A., “Rigging Elections with Violence”, Public Choice, 125: 1/2, 189-202, 2005; Collier, P. and Vicente, P.C., ‘Violence, Bribery, and Fraud: The Political Economy of Elections in Africa’, Oxford University, Working Paper, 2009. Regarding the gap between conflict and election work, it should be noted that several initiatives focusing on election violence are underway, such as those programs at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University, Switzerland (http://www2.pcr.uu.se/index.htm) and the United States Institute for Peace (USIP). USIP also has a programming side and launched workshops on elections and violence in Sudan in 2009 to generate dialogue (see http://www.usip.org/programs/projects/preventing-electoral-violence-sudan).Though we are in communication with these and similar initiatives, more can be done to increase their interaction with election practitioners 4