Endorsing and Revising Peace Accords: The Outlet for Ontological Tensions in Peace Endorsement

This essay elucidates peace accord revisions as a theorized mechanism for reducing ontological tensions in the peace endorsement phase. It begins by addressing a critical gap in peace scholarship: the ontological underpinnings of "peace endorsement," or the moment when a peace accord is subjected to democratic validation. While liberal peacebuilding approaches typically design democracy into a vehicle for minimizing conflict and securing popular consensus, these often diminish legitimate opposition to peace accords as "spoiling." Drawing on Mouffe's theory of agonistic pluralism, the discussion shines a light on the tension between liberal peacebuilding's emphasis on consensus-building and alternative democratic political ontologies that embrace the conflictual nature of democratic processes. Through examples from the Philippines and Colombia, the article demonstrates how efforts to depoliticize democratic endorsement dismiss valid dissent, creating the conditions for more forceful and potentially violent expressions of politics. Fostering the politicized nature of democratic procedures can serve as a "safe outlet" for disagreement, especially by allowing for substantive revisions to peace accords and cultivating broader ownership of the peace project. This article calls for increased reflexivity in peace studies about the ontological assumptions underpinning democratic peace endorsements. It argues that recognizing and accommodating confrontational and contestatory elements within endorsement processes can not only mitigate the risk of violent escalation but also contribute to genuinely inclusive peace settlements.