Theory of Change
Freeze–Vote–Rebuild is built on a simple causal hypothesis:
If large-scale violence is reduced under verifiable conditions (Freeze), then a credible legitimacy process becomes possible (Vote), which in turn unlocks durable, scalable reconstruction (Rebuild)—with compliance enforced through transparent measurement and conditional incentives.
This chapter explains the logic and the assumptions that must hold for the framework to work.
[Image of theory of change diagram]
Core Mechanism
1. Reduce Violence Without Requiring Trust
- A monitored Freeze lowers the cost of initiating a political process.
- Verification and incident classification reduce ambiguity and propaganda-driven escalation.
- Deconfliction channels reduce accidental clashes.
Assumption: Monitoring is sufficiently independent and sufficiently resourced to detect meaningful violations.
2. Convert a Frozen Battlefield Into a Legitimacy Process
- A Vote phase creates a structured route to political legitimacy.
- Including displaced persons reduces the “war decides the electorate” problem.
- Pre-committed rules (e.g., version-locked procedures and published simulations) reduce midstream manipulation.
Assumption: Participants can vote without coercion at a level that meets agreed legitimacy thresholds.
3. Turn Legitimacy + Compliance Into Rebuild at Scale
- Reconstruction becomes feasible when violence is low and governance rules are credible.
- Transparency mechanisms reduce capture risk and improve donor confidence.
- Competitive delivery models increase throughput and reduce waste.
Assumption: Reconstruction institutions can resist corruption/capture and can execute procurement at speed.
Incentives and Conditionality
The framework relies on conditional incentives:
- benefits are unlocked in steps (funding tranches, sanctions adjustments, access arrangements),
- each step is tied to verification gates,
- failure triggers rollbacks and predefined responses.
Assumption: External stakeholders can credibly commit to conditional incentives and enforce reversals.
Why Sequencing Matters
The framework rejects “everything at once” settlement designs because:
- the most contentious issues (final status, borders, justice) are hard to resolve while combat continues,
- bundling all issues increases veto points and spoiler leverage,
- verification-first gates are more feasible in smaller, staged commitments.
Sequencing is intended to increase tractability by:
- building compliance capacity first,
- building legitimacy second,
- scaling reconstruction third.
What Changes Compared to Common Approaches
- From trust-based to audit-based: Progress depends on observable compliance.
- From maximal bargains to modular commitments: Use gates and annexes.
- From battlefield-driven legitimacy to inclusive legitimacy: Include displaced persons.
- From vague reconstruction promises to performance governance: Transparent delivery and metrics.
Failure Conditions (Preview)
The mechanism is not assumed to be robust by default. Known failure modes include:
- spoilers escalating violence to collapse the Freeze,
- coercion or manipulation that delegitimizes the Vote,
- capture/corruption that delegitimizes Rebuild,
- inability to enforce conditionality.
These are treated explicitly in:
Open Questions to Track (Placeholders)
- [OPEN QUESTION] What minimum monitoring mandate and footprint is sufficient?
- [OPEN QUESTION] What legitimacy thresholds (turnout, observation criteria) are required?
- [OPEN QUESTION] What enforcement mechanisms are credible to each party?
- [OPEN QUESTION] What anti-capture package is strong enough for reconstruction governance?
Record answers and design choices in the Decision Log.
