Research on electoral authoritarianism is arguing that institutions like legislatures and parties play an important role for regime survival. While several studies have found that autocracies which hold elections are more stable than those who do not, other authors claim that the more successive elections take place, the more democratic a regime becomes. The relationship between actors and institutions is, however, always two-sided: while institutions place constraints on actors, they are at the same time shaped by actors' behavior and decision-making. It is therefore necessary to look more closely at the underlying micro-logic of institutions in electoral autocracies.

The paper which is proposed here seeks to make a contribution in this area. On the basis of newly collected survey data from the National Assembly of Togo (response rate 79%), it sheds light on political discussion networks between government and opposition. One major question will be answered: Is the legislature an arena that helps to bridge the antagonism between government and opposition and thereby contribute to more democracy in the long run? Using Social Network Analysis, especially Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs), the paper shows three things: firstly, although MPs seek political discussion partners often within their own political party, there is also a considerable number of communication links that cut across the rival camps. Secondly, a longer tenure in the parliament increases the likelihood of ties to deputies from the other political camp. Thirdly, certain actors - especially politicians from co-opted parties - may play an important role in brokering links between government and opposition.

Constitutional devolution, introduced in 2013, created 47 new political and administrative sub-national governments. As the most significant institutional change in Kenya's history, it raises important questions about the role of strengthened sub-national elites in the evolution of the local state.

While the security docket has not been devolved, priorities around internal stability have long sat at the heart of Kenyan statecraft. Therefore, in exploring the evolution of the local state and the role of new elites, it is crucial to ask how - without control over the coercive apparatus - they seek to build legitimacy as a new tier of the state.

The first term of devolution (2013-17) is arguably a time of political rupture and when relationships between the two tiers of government matter. Using the case study of Mombasa, this paper will explore how ongoing power struggles between county commissioners (national government appointees) and county governors (executive heads of the new counties) are shaping the emerging contest over the local state in Kenya.

Exploring the interplay between the two tiers of government shifts away from debates that tend to analyse the role and efficacy of devolved institutions in isolation. The interplay between 'local' and 'national' is especially important in Kenya given that political devolution has come into being at a time of expanding national security and economic priorities in the country's peripheries, where hopes for devolution were highest.

Hitherto under-researched in state-building literature on Somalia is the effect of diasporic elite return on divergent political trajectories across the Somali territories. Drawing on recent scholarship on returning diaspora in contemporary political systems (Ansoms 2009; Chalk 2008; Horwitz 2001; Wise 2006 among others) - and strongly rooted in recent academic research on elite change in Africa and the Arab world (Perthes 2004), political order construction in weak states, and political settlement theory (Khan 2005, 2008, 2010; Whitfield 2015) - this within-case comparative project examines the dominance (Ismail 2011) of returning diasporic elites in homeland politics and their independent impact (Pearlman 2014) on systems of elite bargaining and politics of distribution across the pre-federal Somali territories (Somaliland, Puntland and South Central). It proposes that lower degrees of internal sovereignty and moderate to higher degrees of external sovereignty in South Central and Puntland correlate to greater returning diasporic elite dominance and independent impact (as compared with Somaliland where internal sovereignty is higher and external sovereignty is lower); and that greater independent impact corresponds to more centralised decision-making, elite capture, and an alienation of rural agendas. This proposition is investigated empirically through document-based research, elite interviews, and a careful tracing of processes around diasporic elite return, towards building a middle-range theory on the individual and institutional practices of returning diasporic elites in conflict-affected or weak states more broadly.

La mobilisation récente en vue de la prise en compte de la spécificité de l'identité anglophone au Cameroun peut être saisie au travers de la dynamique élitaire. Elle pose la question du statut, du rôle et de la légitimité des élites issues de cette partie du pays dans la construction et la consolidation de l'unité nationale. Minorité à l'identité complexe et plurielle dont la singularité est l'insertion dans l'appareil d'Etat, l'élite anglophone s'est ces dernières années positionnées dans le cadre de transactions diverses entre le pouvoir central et les populations à la base. Régulièrement dénoncées tant par les gouvernants que par les populations comme se livrant à un double jeu, ces élites sont confrontées à une crise de représentation et de légitimité sans précédant. Cette communication entend suivre ces élites en situation, en les caractérisant, et permet de réactualiser les analyses sur le clientélisme politique au Cameroun

The concept of political settlements has risen to prominence among researchers and policymakers working on state fragility and peace-building. In light of a long-lasting focus on structural explanations, this paper welcomes the renewed attention granted to agency, and explores avenues and benefits of such approaches. At the same time, it takes issue with the analytical ambiguity of the concept of 'political settlements' and scrutinizes its focus on a handful of elite actors. Aiming at enhancing the analytical purchase of this concept, this paper argues for the need to put elite networks and coalitions center-stage when aiming to better understand the role and effects of political settlements on trajectories of peace and stability. Consequently, this paper proposes that the interdisciplinary method of social network analysis can contribute much to providing more nuanced answers to the question under what conditions and what kinds of political settlements are constitutive of peace-building and state-making.