Paper short abstract:

Political Settlements in fragile states require accommodation of interests of powerful interest groups, which will be challenged when pursuing pathways out of fragility. This paper examines lessons from experience on navigating risks and enhancing conflict sensitivity during such transition processes.

Paper long abstract:

Political Settlements in fragile states require accommodation of interests of powerful interest groups, at least some of which will be challenged when pursuing pathways out of fragility. This paper critically examines the tensions between efforts to identify and pursue pathways out of fragility and sustaining political settlements in conflict-affected or conflict-prone countries, and the politics of how assessments of such dilemmas influence or legitimate decisions about priorities for tackling drivers of fragility - by governing elites and by aid donors and other international actors. The risks are real: most fragile states are vulnerable to (re-) emergence of substantial armed violence facilitated by at least some participants in the existing political settlement. Drawing from experience in a range of contexts, including Liberia, Kenya, Myanmar and Cambodia, we demonstrate that local political-economic elites have proved to be skilled in instrumentalising such concerns for their own interests in their engagements with aid donors. We argue that better use of conflict sensitivity approaches can help to inform strategy and phasing of measures to tackle fragility in order to mitigate risks of violent challenges to political settlements.