points lower than a similar country that receives no
peacekeeping and this holds for two decades. Wars
that end in decisive victories fair no better, on average. Although rebel victories are slightly more democratic, the difference between these values is neither
substantively or statistically significant.
What is the best means to ensure political reform
in a country recovering from war—is it through
peacekeepers or by waiting for a decisive military
outcome? Scholarly analyses suggest that neither has
a significant effect on democratization. Yet political
reform is much more involved than policing a ceasefire line, registering voters, or defeating an enemy. A
temporary presence by a foreign organization should
not be expected to sustain a long-lasting democratic
transition. Additionally, the locals who participate in
the politics of post-war societies may not be too concerned about the democratic process, but just with the
political outcomes.53
Other Consequences
Our juxtaposition of peacekeeping versus nonintervention was analyzed above on four key dimensions. Yet there are other consequences that flow from
these choices. A full consideration of these additional
consequences is beyond the scope of this piece. The
exact effects allowing fighting to continue will vary
tremendously according to how intense and how
long the fighting is prior to a cease-fire of, as well as
a series of contextual factors. Nevertheless, in making an assessment of the relative utility of the two options, these other consequences need to be part of the
calculation.
19