6 MANUAL DE POLÍTICAS Y PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA EL ÁREA DE RECURSOS HUMANOS
A. POLÍTICAS GENERALES DEL PERSONAL DE LA FUNDACIÓN
MODULE 3
STRATEGIES OF PEACE BUILDING
though they were physical objects. In addition, the notion of management suggests that the goal is the reduction or control of volatility more than dealing with the real source of the problem.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, you should be able to:
i. Identify positive and forward aspects of conflict management;
ii. Explain these concepts, and describe their usage in conflict management; and
iii. Apply aspects of it in day to day interaction with peers and within conflict prone situations.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT 3.1 Conflict Transformation
Conflict transformation, as described by Lederach, does not suggest that we simply eliminate or control conflict, but rather recognize and work with its "dialectic nature." By this he means that social conflict is naturally created by humans who are involved in relationships, yet once it occurs, it changes (i.e., transforms) the events, people, and relationships that created the initial conflict. Thus, the cause-and-effect relationship goes both ways--from the people and the relationships to the conflict and back to the people and relationships. In this sense, "conflict transformation" is a term that describes a natural occurrence. Conflicts change relationships in predictable ways, altering communication patters and patterns of social organization, altering images of the self and of the other.
Conflict transformation is also a prescriptive concept. It suggests that left alone, conflict can have destructive consequences. However, the consequences can be modified or transformed so that self-images, relationships, and social structures improve as a result of conflict instead of being harmed by it. Usually this involves transforming perceptions of issues, actions, and other people or groups. Since conflict usually transforms perceptions by accentuating the differences between people and positions, effective conflict transformation can work to improve mutual understanding. Even when people's interests, values, and needs are different, even non-reconcilable, progress has been made so that each group gains a relatively accurate understanding of each other.
Transformation also involves transforming the way conflict is expressed. It may be expressed competitively, aggressively, or violently, or it may be expressed through nonviolent advocacy, conciliation, or attempted cooperation. Unlike many conflict theorists and activists, who perceive mediation and advocacy as being in opposition to each other, Lederach sees advocacy and mediation as being different stages of the conflict transformation process. Activism is important in early stages of a conflict to raise people's awareness of an issue. Thus activism uses nonviolent advocacy to escalate and confront the conflict. Once awareness and concern is generated, then mediation can be used to transform the expression of conflict from "mutually destructive modes toward dialogue and interdependence." (Lederach, 1989 p. 14)
Such transformation, Lederach suggests, must take place at both the personal and the systemic level. At the personal level, conflict transformation involves the pursuit of awareness, growth, and commitment to change which may occur through the recognition of fear, anger, grief, and bitterness. These emotions must be outwardly acknowledged and dealt with in order for effective conflict transformation to occur.
Peacemaking also involves systemic transformation--the process of increasing justice and equality in the social system as a whole. This may involve the elimination of oppression, improved sharing of resources, and the non-violent resolution of conflict between groups of people.
Each of these actions reinforces the other. In other words, transformation of personal relationships facilitates the transformation of social systems and systemic changes facilitate personal transformation.
Key to both kinds of transformation are truth, justice, and mercy, as well as empowerment and interdependence. These concepts are frequently seen as being in opposition to each other; however, they must come together for reconciliation or "peace" to occur, Lederach asserts.
3.2 Forms of Conflict Transformation
According to Institute for Democracy in South Africa’s (IDASA)
“Toolkit on Peace Practice in Nigeria” (2004:2-26), transforming conflict requires a concerted effort at removing all the root causes of conflict, and moving the process to social change. It is a healing process that helps conflicting parties to put the past behind them and forge new relationships of harmony and cooperation. Conflict transformation addresses the wider social and political sources of a conflict and seeks to transform the negative energy of war into positive social and political change. Conflict transformation, therefore, is the most thorough and far- reaching strategies for bringing about sustainable positive peace in a conflict situation, to avoid a relapse into conflict or what experts call
“return wars”.
Conflict transformation theory assumes that conflict is caused by real problems of inequality and injustice expressed by competing social, cultural and economic frameworks. The goals of work based on conflict formation theory are:
i. To change structure and frameworks that cause inequality and injustice, including economic redistribution;
ii. To improve longer-term relationships and attitudes among the conflicting parties;
iii. To develop processes and systems that promotes empowerment, justice, peace, forgiveness, reconciliation, recognition etc.
Spencer and Spencer, l(1995:163-164) recommend that conflict transformation can take the following forms;
3.2.1 Actor transformation:
International changes in major conflict parties, or the emergence and recognition of new actors;
3.2.2 Issue transformation:
A change in the political agenda of the conflict, downplaying the importance of original conflict issues and emphasizing shared concern for new issues;
3.2.3 Rule transformation:
A re-definition of the norms, actors are expected to observed when dealing with each other;
3.2.4 Structural transformation:
This refers to profound changes relating to the entire structure of inter- actor relations. Conflict transformation is therefore an integrative approach to conflict resolution, it involves a re-definition of the relationship between the conflict parties through which opportunities are opened and new compensation arrangements are introduced. This can create a framework based on a positive-Sum, rather than a Zero –sum agreement. New cooperative arrangements are initiated in which the previously disputed issues become less or no longer relevant, and other issues or values become more relevant to all parties to the conflict, Schmid, (2000:30).
4.0 CONCLUSION
The issues that fall under the heading of peace processes and conflict transformation could also be labelled peace-building. To some extent, conflict transformation – like the issue that it seeks to replace, namely, deep-rooted conflict – assumes a commitment to a process of building and sustaining peace over an extensive period of time. To that extent, there is a sense that peace-building, per se, is regarded from a shorter- term perspective that is perhaps, a bit more mechanistic.
Peace processes and conflict transformation normally are viewed in the context of confidence-building measures, reconstruction of civil society and re-building of communities. How this actually is to be done is an issue that has triggered considerable debate.
After reviewing means of dealing with conflict in multi-ethnic societies (e.g., partition, succession, power-sharing), Lijphart, for example, opts totally for power-sharing as the only choice for creating enduring peace.
Lembarch argues, however, that the reason power sharing works is because of certain cultural differences, including acculturated attitudes towards compromise, and McRae concludes that power-sharing does not work in situations of intractable conflict.
The conclusion that one should draw from such debates is not their own intractability, but rather the fact that an array of practical variables are being drawn into the debate which could result in very useful typologies of appropriate peace processes and preferred outcomes.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit we have examined the various types of conflict transformation, and their classification according to the concepts of conflict transformation, peace building, and early warning systems.
6.0 TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT (TMAS)
i) What is conflict transformation?ii) Sketch the debate on conflict management vs transformation
conflict
iii) What forms can transform take in conflict situations
7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READINGS
Adam Curle, (1995) Another Way: Positive response to contemporary violence, (Oxford: Jon Carpenter Publishing.
Diamond, L. and J. Macdonald, (1996). Multi-track Diplomacy: A
Systems Approach to Peace. (3rd Ed.) Connecticut: Kumarian Press Inc.
Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA) (2004). Peace
Practice in Nigeria: A Toolkit (Books 1, 2&3). Abuja: Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA).
Rapaport, A., (1989).The Origins of Violence: Approaches to the Study of Conflict, New York: Paragon House.
Schmid, A.P, (2000) Thesaurus and Glossary of Early Warning and Conflict Prevention Terms. London: Forum on Early Warning and Early Response.
Vayrynen, R., (1991) New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict
Resolution and Conflict Transformation. London: Sage Publications.