The Contentious Peace Theory: Fostering Regional Stability Through Cross-Border Electoral Participation

The Contentious Peace Theory proposes that durable peace between neighboring states—particularly in regions affected by border disputes, territorial tensions, and recurring bilateral crises—cannot be secured through diplomacy and economic integration alone. Instead, it argues for an innovative political mechanism that directly aligns the electoral incentives of governments with the lived interests of cross-border populations. While this approach challenges conventional understandings of national sovereignty, it targets one of the central drivers of interstate conflict: political leadership that benefits domestically from nationalism, even when such policies impose severe costs on ordinary people.

Rather than treating peace as a fragile outcome maintained by elite agreements, the theory reframes peace as a participatory system in which citizens affected by cross-border policies gain meaningful influence over the governments shaping those policies.

CORE PROPOSITION

In regions such as Southeast Asia—where ASEAN member states share extensive land and maritime borders—neighboring governments with stable diplomatic relations could establish reciprocal agreements allowing limited cross-border electoral participation. This could apply to border provinces, long-term residents, migrant workers, or citizens living in neighboring countries.

Key components include:

1. Cross-Border Voting Rights 
Citizens of one country residing in or near a neighboring state would be permitted to vote in that neighboring country’s national general elections. This participation would supplement, not replace, voting rights in their home country. The objective is to create overlapping political accountability focused specifically on bilateral relations.

2. Transnational Political Campaigning 
Political parties and candidates would be allowed—and encouraged—to campaign across borders. Campaign messaging would necessarily address issues of bilateral cooperation, border management, labor mobility, trade facilitation, environmental protection, and conflict prevention.

RATIONALE AND PEACE-BUILDING MECHANISMS

The Contentious Peace Theory argues that persistent interstate tensions thrive because political leaders face few direct domestic penalties for policies that harm neighboring populations. Cross-border electoral participation alters this dynamic in several critical ways:

1. Alignment of Political Incentives 
Leaders seeking re-election would need to appeal not only to domestic voters but also to affected voters across the border. Aggressive policies such as border closures, military escalation, or resource weaponization would carry immediate electoral risks.

2. Shared Stake in Governance 
Communities most affected by bilateral decisions—border residents, migrant workers, cross-border traders, and divided families—gain direct influence over political outcomes. This shifts power away from abstract nationalist narratives toward practical, people-centered governance.

3. Deterrence of Suffering-Inducing Policies 
Because conflict disproportionately harms civilians through economic disruption, displacement, and insecurity, electoral accountability to neighboring populations creates a built-in restraint against escalation. Peace is maintained not through goodwill alone, but through political cost.

4. Incremental Trust-Building 
The framework allows for gradual implementation. Pilot programs limited to border regions or specific bilateral relationships can build confidence over time, aligning with ASEAN’s preference for consensus-based and evolutionary integration.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

- Reduction in Bilateral Tensions 
Governments internalize the human and political costs of conflict, similar to how limited transnational voting within the European Union has reinforced regional cohesion.

- Strengthened People-Centered Regionalism 
The theory complements ASEAN’s Political-Security, Economic, and Socio-Cultural pillars by shifting the focus from elite diplomacy to citizen-driven stability.

- Democratic Reinforcement 
Political competition expands beyond domestic identity politics to include cross-border issues such as labor rights, environmental protection, and sustainable development.

CHALLENGES AND PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS

The proposal is intentionally contentious. There are no existing examples of reciprocal national-level voting between sovereign states outside deeply integrated political blocs. Significant challenges would include:

- Sovereignty concerns and fears of foreign political interference 
- Legal and logistical complexities surrounding voter registration and campaign regulation 
- Risks of manipulation by populist or nationalist actors

However, many institutions once considered unrealistic—such as supranational voting rights in Europe—became viable through phased implementation and confidence-building. Carefully designed pilot arrangements between low-tension neighbors could provide empirical grounding.

CONCLUSION

The Contentious Peace Theory reconceptualizes peace as an active political structure rather than a passive absence of war. By intertwining electoral accountability across borders, it seeks to prevent conflict at its source: political incentives that reward confrontation over cooperation. While ambitious and unconventional, the framework offers a provocative and human-centered approach to reducing the avoidable suffering caused by neighborly conflicts.

Comparative Analysis: The European Union and the Contentious Peace Theory

The European Union (EU) is often cited as the most successful modern example of regional peacebuilding, transforming a historically war-prone continent into a zone of sustained stability. However, while the EU and the Contentious Peace Theory share the objective of preventing interstate conflict, they diverge fundamentally in their mechanisms, assumptions about sovereignty, and applicability to regions such as Southeast Asia.

Peace Through Integration vs. Peace Through Electoral Accountability

The EU secures peace primarily through economic, legal, and institutional integration. By pooling sovereignty across supranational bodies—such as the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice—the EU reduces the likelihood of conflict by making war economically irrational and legally constrained. Member states are embedded in dense networks of trade, regulation, and shared governance that raise the cost of unilateral aggression.

In contrast, the Contentious Peace Theory does not rely on supranational authority or deep institutional integration. Instead, it focuses on electoral accountability as the core peace mechanism. The theory argues that conflict persists not because institutions are weak, but because political leaders can gain or retain power through nationalist or antagonistic policies without bearing direct political costs from the populations they harm across borders. By allowing limited cross-border participation in national elections, the theory directly reshapes political incentives at the source.

Sovereignty: Pooled vs. Entangled

A central distinction lies in how each model treats sovereignty. The EU explicitly pools sovereignty, transferring key decision-making powers to shared institutions. While this has proven effective in Europe, it requires high levels of trust, legal harmonization, and public acceptance—conditions largely absent in many other regions.

The Contentious Peace Theory, by contrast, formally preserves national sovereignty. States retain full control over their institutions, laws, and borders. What changes is not who governs, but who governments must answer to electorally. Sovereignty remains intact, but electorates become partially entangled, creating mutual political exposure that discourages policies likely to provoke cross-border harm.

Political Participation Across Borders

The EU permits limited cross-border political participation. EU citizens may vote in local and European Parliament elections in their country of residence, but national elections remain strictly national. This reflects the EU’s cautious approach to protecting core symbols of statehood.

The Contentious Peace Theory deliberately crosses this boundary. It proposes carefully regulated participation by neighboring populations in national elections, particularly in border regions or among long-term residents. This represents a more direct and contentious intervention, but one designed to address the precise political arena where decisions about war, borders, and security are made.

Applicability Beyond Europe

The EU model is difficult to replicate outside Europe due to its reliance on strong institutions, legal enforcement, and a shared post-war consensus. In regions such as ASEAN—where non-interference, sovereignty, and elite-driven governance dominate—supranational integration faces structural resistance.

The Contentious Peace Theory is more adaptable to such contexts. It does not require a central authority, uniform legal systems, or deep economic integration. Instead, it operates within existing political frameworks, targeting elite incentives that perpetuate conflict. As such, it may offer a more realistic pathway toward peace in regions where institutional integration is politically unviable but cross-border social and economic interdependence already exists.

Conceptual Distinction

In essence, the EU prevents conflict by diluting national power upward, while the Contentious Peace Theory prevents conflict by pressuring national power horizontally through shared electoral accountability. Both seek to internalize the costs of conflict, but they do so at different levels of governance and through different logics of political restraint.

Conclusion

While the European Union represents a historically successful model of post-conflict regional integration, its mechanisms are not universally transferable. The Contentious Peace Theory builds upon the EU’s underlying insight—that peace depends on making conflict politically and materially costly—while offering an alternative pathway suited to regions where sovereignty remains non-negotiable. Rather than replacing existing peace frameworks, the theory complements them by addressing a critical blind spot: the electoral incentives that reward confrontation over cooperation.

​