See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312146655

Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation: Some Reflections

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

8 40,798

1 author:

Hilal Wani
Govt Degree College Womens Baramulla
33 PUBLICATIONS 215 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hilal Wani on 08 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ATIKAN:
Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan, 3(1) Juni 2013

HILAL AHMAD WANI, ANDI SUWIRTA & JOSEPH PAYEYE

Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation:

Some Reflections

ABSTRACT: Human beings engage in conflict, aggression, warfare, and violence seemingly equate with
the human condition. Equally, humans have sought, as long as there has been conflict, to handle conflict
effectively by containing or reducing its negative consequences. This paper is an effort to understand
some of the major theoretical perspectives of conflict resolution and conflict transformation. Since both
the concepts are very important for giving us kind of understanding that how can we minimize the level
and structures of conflicts and to create new avenues of cooperation and compatibility. This study tried to
highlight the basic dichotomy between the two concepts. Any conflict can be resolved and transformed if
the structure and relationship of the two conflicting parties are fully taken into consideration. Both theories
diagnoses causes and sources of conflict and both can be used as methods for resolving and transforming
different conflicts. Finally, this paper is the scholarly work for understanding the major differences as well as
similarities between conflict resolution and conflict transformation.
KEY WORD: Conflict resolution, conflict transformation, causes of conflict, and conditions for peaceful
resolution of conflict.

IKHTISAR: Makalah ini berjudul “Resolusi Konflik dan Transformasi Konflik: Beberapa Refleksi”. Manusia
terlibat dalam konflik, agresi, perang, dan kekerasan yang nampaknya berjalan seiring dengan kondisi
manusia. Pada saat yang sama, manusia juga telah berusaha, sepanjang konflik itu ada, untuk menangani
konflik secara efektif dengan mengisi atau mengurangi konsekuensi negatifnya. Makalah ini merupakan
upaya untuk memahami beberapa perspektif teoritis utama tentang resolusi konflik dan transformasi
konflik. Kedua konsep itu sangat penting untuk memberikan kita semacam pemahaman tentang bagaimana
kita bisa meminimalkan tingkat dan struktur konflik serta menciptakan jalan baru bagi kerjasama dan
kesesuaian. Penelitian ini mencoba untuk menyoroti dikotomi dasar antara dua konsep tersebut. Setiap
konflik dapat diselesaikan dan diubah jika struktur dan hubungan kedua pihak yang berkonflik sepenuhnya
dipertimbangkan. Kedua teori mendiagnosa penyebab dan sumber konflik dan keduanya dapat digunakan
sebagai metode untuk menyelesaikan dan mengubah konflik yang berbeda. Akhirnya, makalah ini adalah
karya ilmiah untuk memahami perbedaan dan kesamaan utama antara resolusi konflik dan transformasi
konflik.
KATA KUNCI: Resolusi konflik, transformasi konflik, penyebab konflik, dan kondisi untuk penyelesaian konflik
secara damai.

INTRODUCTION of justice. Do not follow any leaders who train you

in the ways of inflicting death. Those who resort
“Friends, comrades, and fellow South Africans. I to violence always claim that only violence brings
greet you all, in the name of peace, democracy, and change. You must know that there is a political
freedom for all” (Nelson Mandela on his release peaceful way to justice” (The Pope, Drogheda,
from prison, 11 February 1990, as cited in Hugh Ireland, 29 September1979, as cited in Hugh Miall,
Miall, Oliver Ramsbotham & Tom Woodhouse, Oliver Ramsbotham & Tom Woodhouse, 1999:152).
1999:152).
Conflict resolution refers to all process
“On my knees, I beg you to turn away from the oriented activities that aim to address the
paths of violence and return to the ways of peace.
You may claim to seek justice. But violence only
underlying causes of direct, cultural, and
delays the day of justice. Violence destroys the work structural violence. Structural violence defines

Dr. Hilal Ahmad Wani is a Post Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Peace & Strategic Studies UOI (University of Ilorin) in Nigeria; Andi
Suwitra, M.Hum. is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of History Education UPI (Indonesia University of Education) in Bandung; and
Dr. Joseph Fayeye is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Peace & Strategic Studies UOI in Ilorin, Nigeria. They can be reached at:
[email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]

35
HILAL AHMAD WANI, ANDI SUWIRTA & JOSEPH PAYEYE,
Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation

the social, political, and economic structure and positions (Burton & Dukes, 1990; and
of a conflict situation when unequal power, Wallensteen, 2002).
domination, and dependency are perpetuated; While John Burton and Frank Dukes (1990)
while cultural violence refers to the social and do not spell out under what conditions all
cultural legitimisation of direct and structural needs might be satisfied at the same time,
violence. they do urge practitioners to deepen and
As John Burton and Frank Dukes (1990:10- broaden the analysis of conflict to better clarify
51) have very much left their mark in the both needs and relations. Two consequences
area conflict resolution approach, both as an emerge from this kind of analysis.
academic and practitioner, their work will be First, a broadened analysis of the conflict,
taken as an illustrative example. Other scholar- with its emphasis on needs, will call for
practitioners working in the field of conflict strategies that go far beyond the outcome
resolution are Herb Kelman, Ron Fisher, oriented conflict settlement strategies with their
and Louis Kriesberg (cited in Wallensteen, focus on negotiable interests. Facilitation and
2002:1-54). Conflict resolution attempts to use consultation, pursued in this way, constitutes an
game theory in order to overcome the self- effective third party attempt to facilitate creative
defeating dynamics of the zero-sum conflict problem solving through direct communication
management approaches and, thus, to reframe and in depth conflict analysis.
the conflict as a shared problem with mutually Second, the deepening of conflict analysis
acceptable solutions. and the widening of strategies will also
John Burton and Frank Dukes (1990) have require that a greater number of actors
used models of game theory, cybernetics, and become involved in the process. This can
system theory, for instance, in Systems, States, be drawn from the civil society groups,
Diplomacy, and Rules, in order to make it clear from academic institutions, and from all
that most inter-state conflicts are the result forms of civil mediation or citizen diplomacy
of dysfunctional decision making. In contrast groups, including local and international
to the conflict settlement approach, conflict conflict resolution NGOs (Non-Governmental
resolution begins by defining protracted Organizations) operating at track II level
conflict as a natural result of unmet needs. (Tidwell, 1998:1-16).
Consequently, the origin of protracted conflict Whereas conflict transformation refers
can be found in the underlying needs of its to outcome, process, and structure oriented
participants. towards long-term peace-building efforts,
This interpretation of conflict has been which aim to truly overcome revealed forms
greatly influenced by John Burton and Frank of direct, cultural, and structural violence.
Dukes’s world society approach and their work The most significant scholar/practitioners
on human needs theory. The later points to the working in this field are John Paul Lederach
universal drive to satisfy basic and ontological (1998) and the conflict/peace researcher,
needs, such as security, identity, recognition, Johan Galtung (1965). Conflict transformation
food, shelter, safety, participation, distributive moves beyond the aims of both the previous
justice, and development. Conflict resolution approaches, while at the same time taking
then aims not to eliminate conflict as such; up many of the ideas of conflict resolution,
rather, it is held that conflict expressed in a and particularly of John Burton and Frank
non-violent manner is an essential catalyst Dukes’s notion of conflict prevention means
for social change. The aim then becomes deducing from an adequate explanation of
to eliminate the violent and destructive phenomenon of conflict, including its human
manifestations of conflict that can be traced dimensions, not merely the conditions that
back to the unmet needs and fears of the create an environment of conflict and the
parties in conflict. The key is to make the structural changes required to remove it, but
parties aware of these underlying needs more importantly, the promotion of conditions
for identity, security, and participation; and that create cooperative relationships (Burton &
then to use them to redefine both interests Dukes, 1990; and Wallensteen, 2002).

36
 ATIKAN:
Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan, 3(1) Juni 2013

There is very real need for the field of conflict resolution seeks to come to grips
of conflict management and conflict with explaining why people engage in conflict,
transformation to open itself up to wider and identify ways in which conflict may be
debates on social and political theory, seeking resolved?
especially to integrate approaches which Conflict resolution, as a defined specialist
attempt to bridge the dichotomous thinking field, has come of age in the post Cold War era.
and theorising by the use of insights drawn It has also come face to face with fundamental
from feminism, critical theory, and social new challenges. It started in 1950s and 1960s,
constructivism for a discussion of the likely at the height of the Cold War, when the
success of a more gender-sensitive approach development of nuclear weapons and the
to conflict management. conflict between the superpowers seemed to
Conflict transformation usually involves a threaten human survival (Hill, 1981:109-138).
broad range of actors, who make use of a wide Conflict resolution is now recognised
repertoire of practices. These can, however, as a legitimate, indeed important topic of
be categorised into four main groups of actors, academic study. Justifications for the study of
who shape the development of contemporary conflict resolution appears daily rising levels
practice: (1) States and inter-governmental of domestic violence in the post war era, the
organisation; (2) Development and birth and growth of nuclear stockpiles, and
humanitarian organisations; (3) International the increasing level of dissatisfaction with the
NGOs concerned with conflict prevention and status quo at the national and international
transformation; and (4) Parties to the conflict level. Because of the bad ramifications and
and other relevant groups within the affected repercussions of these nuclear weapons which
societies. had been used against humanity many times
Conflict transformation is a comprehensive be it, First World War (1914-1918) or Second
approach, addressing a range of dimensions World War (1939-1945). These concerns serve
(micro-to macro-issues, local to global levels, to galvanize attention on resolving conflict
grassroots to elite actors, short term to long by peaceful means without going to war.
term timescales). It aims to develop capacity Even before these modern daily ills, however,
and to support structural change, rather than humanity has been locked into patterned
to facilitate outcomes or deliver settlements. ways of dealing with conflict. The real world
It seeks to engage with conflict at the pre- has constraints imposed by human nature, by
violence and post-violence phases, and with history, and by deeply ingrained patterns of
the causes and consequences of violent thought.
conflict which usually extend beyond the site Conflict resolution, for some, appears to
of fighting. offer alternative to what seems an otherwise
dangerous and threatening world. Much of
CONFLICT RESOLUTION its focus has been on techniques or methods
Human beings engage in conflict, by which conflict may be handled. The focus
aggression, warfare, violence seemingly equate has been largely upon individual actors, or a
with the human condition. Equally, humans small collection of actors, working to resolve
have sought, as long as there has been conflict, interpersonal, organisational or community
to handle conflict effectively, by containing or conflict. International conflict resolution has
reducing its negative consequences. Treaties, also been an area of keen focus, but has been
ceasefires, agreements, and handshakes are left largely to the diplomats and practitioners
all symbols of human endeavours to reduce of United Nations conflict does not occur
the negative consequences work better than within vacuum.
others. Conflict resolution texts emphasise
Why is it that in one instance a handshake the imaginative, creative generation of
and an apology may end weeks of enmity, alternatives, empowerment of the weak,
whereas in another instance a handshake or and the search for non-violent change.
apologies do absolutely nothing? The study Conflict resolution has been defined as a

37
HILAL AHMAD WANI, ANDI SUWIRTA & JOSEPH PAYEYE,
Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation

situation: “Where the conflicting parties enter refer to situations in which the fighting parties
into an agreement that solves their central accept each other also as parties in future
incompatibilities, accept each others continued dealings with one another. It means that
existence as parties, and cease all violent action nobody wins all that is there to win, but no
against each other” (Wallensteen, 2002:8). one loses all that there is to lose either. Such
This means, of course, that conflict resolution arrangements are difficult to maintain, no
is something that necessarily comes after doubt, but they are more frequent than may
conflict. It also means that we first need to perhaps be imagined. Of course, the word
have concepts and tools for the analysis of “accept” in the definition does not imply that
conflict. This is what conflict theory is all about. the parties agree to everything or that they like
Let us now scrutinize key elements in this each other. It only means that they accept the
definition. The agreement is normally a formal other as much as they need for the agreement
understanding, a document signed under more to be implemented by the opposing sides.
or less solemn conditions. However, there The formulation that the parties “cease
can be more informal, implicit understandings all violent action against each other” is the
worked out between parties. Such agreements most important. Many times, it is part of the
may exist in secret documents, such as a main treaty, but it can be treated as a separate
crucial promise made as a precondition for understanding. Often cessation of violence
the formal arrangements, or as deals about is made public at about the same time as
which the parties have been more or less the peace agreement is concluded. To the
explicit. Many cases are likely to see as much public at large, it means that the war ends
dispute around such informal understandings and the dangers of being killed are reduced.
over the formalized documents. Furthermore, Sometimes, however, cease-fire agreements
such informal pacts require considerable trust can precede the actual conclusion of the
arrangement. Thus, the formal document is agreement regulating the incompatibilities
important for any peace process. between the parties. Thus, the agreements
The definition talk about the parties included as conflict resolution measures are
accepting each other’s continued existence those that solve incompatibilities and end
as parties. This is an important element as fighting (Burton & Dukes, 1990:10-51).
it distinguishes a peace agreement from an It can be said that conflict resolution has a
agreement of capitulation. An agreement role to play, even in war zones, since building
of capitulation is the strongest agreed peace constituencies and understandings
expression of victory and defeat. It means across divided communities is an essential
that one side lays down its struggle, dissolves element of humanitarian engagement. It can
its organisation, departs from the disputed be argued that conflict resolution is an integral
territory and, in short, ceases to be an actor of part of the work towards development, social
influence and significance. justice, and social transformation, which aims
An example is a withdrawal agreement. to tackle the problems of which mercenaries
This is an arrangement where one side agrees and child soldiers are symptoms. It can be
to remove its troops from an area of dispute said that for a broad understanding of conflict
and this is the only matter the agreement resolution, to include not only mediation
regulates. The withdrawing party is not likely, between the parties but efforts to address the
however, to see it as a matter of capitulation, wider context in which international actors,
although the essence of the agreement is to domestic constituencies, and intra party
end that party’s participation in the conflict. relationships sustain violent conflicts.
An example is the Soviet withdrawal from Conflict resolution or conflictology is the
Afghanistan that was agreed in 1988 and process of attempting to resolve a dispute or
implemented in 1989. a conflict. Successful conflict resolution occurs
However, the conflict resolution by listening to and providing opportunities
agreements of interest here are more complex to meet each side’s needs, and adequately
than such arrangements. Peace agreements address their interests so that they are each

38
 ATIKAN:
Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan, 3(1) Juni 2013

satisfied with the outcome. Conflict resolution to other terms such as conflict resolution
aims to end conflicts before they start or lead is shaping our field. However, the idea of
to verbal, physical, or legal fighting. More transforming conflict in order to mitigate or
common but not popular with practitioners even end protracted social conflicts has now
in conflict resolution is conflict management, become an integral part of the lexicon used
where conflict is a deliberate personal, social, in the peace and conflict studies field (http://
and organizational tool, especially used by www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol8_2/
capable politicians and other social engineers. botes.htm, 11/3/2013).
Conflict resolution appears to offer a It can be said that, perhaps unintentionally,
refreshing new politics. In a world fraught this term carries the connotation of a bias
with conflict, competition, and violence, the toward “ending” a given crisis, or at least its
field orients itself toward cooperation and outward expression, without being sufficiently
consensus. Difference animates key conflicts concerned with the deeper structural,
of our time. Claims about difference breathe cultural, and long-term relational aspects of
life into cultural, ethnic, religious, and values conflict. In terms of its meaning and use a
conflict. Difference is also often internal to term does not really exist until it has a name,
dispute dynamics, including patterns of conflict nor can it be utilized as a tool for meaningful
escalation. The range and depth of difference communication within a discipline until the
challenges, then, are significant. Yet perhaps name, and its accompanying definitions, are
the key challenge for conflict resolution derives broadly recognized and acknowledged as
from difficulties in relating to and engaging having efficacy.
difference. While conflict resolution has taken The term conflict transformation has
on transnational character and drawn from become relatively widely used – in other
a number of traditions, it predominantly words, it has been named – but it would not be
operates through Western knowledge true to say that its attendant definitions have
frameworks, values, and problem-solving been universally accepted. However, while
practices (Brigg, 2008:1-22). there is a definite movement afoot to make
clear distinctions between the terms “conflict
CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION resolution” and “conflict transformation”, they
The term “conflict transformation” is a are still often used interchangeably both in
relatively new invention within the broader common language usage and in the academic
field of peace and conflict studies. As a literature. The abundance of different
relatively new field, it is still in a process of definitions and interpretations of conflict
defining, shaping, and creating terminology. transformation creates semantic difficulties. It
During the 1990s, a number of theorists have underscores the need for clarity regarding this
assisted in solidifying what John Paul Lederach term that is now used as a way to describe,
(1998:201) called “a shift” toward conflict explain, and put into operation the work of
transformation in the language used in the field practitioners and theorists.
and practice of peace research and conflict The classical doctrine of casual pacifism
resolution. During the early 1990s, the term was intended as formulated explicitly by
conflict transformation was not in common Alfred Fried in 1918 to establish “a new world
use among peace and conflict theorists. In fact, order”, a new form of global governance.
one can argue that the term has not been a Casual pacifism was key the key term: “If
core construct of the field for even a decade. we wish to eliminate an effect, we must first
Meanwhile, it has accrued a number remove its cause with another which is capable
of meanings, including transformation of of creating the desired effect’’. This intention
individuals, transformation of relationships, was not rooted in an eschatological goal but in
and transformation of social systems large and manageable approaches which were “inspired
small. We will analyze conflict transformation by a purposeful spirit of peace” (cited in Austin,
as a newly minted core construct in the field Fischer & Ropers, 2004:1-39).
and outline how this term and its relationship This new world order was defined as the

39
HILAL AHMAD WANI, ANDI SUWIRTA & JOSEPH PAYEYE,
Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation

outcome of the “situation of states’’, a process Sharp, that all stressed the need for respect
which was already under way and which for the adversary and the search for mutually
would culminate in a contract social, or social beneficial outcomes. Mutually beneficial
contract, between states. This would lead outcomes in turn, one of the core concepts
not to the abolition of conflict but to what, of and aims of most game theory approaches
in current terminology, is known as conflict (Lederach, 1998:10-17).
transformation: “the reshaping of international However, the transformational approach
relations in a way which will imbue conflicts with addresses this situation somewhat differently.
a character which frees them from violence and This is because conflict transformation is more
makes them entirely suitable for management than a set of specific techniques. It is about a
by legal means’’. This conflict transformation way of looking and seeing, and it provides a
– “transforming the nature of conflict” – is set of lenses through which we make sense of
precisely what is meant by “civilizing conflict” social conflict. These lenses draw our attention
in the current peace theory debate (Austin, to certain aspects of conflict and help us to
Fischer & Ropers, 2004). bring the overall meaning of the conflict into
Conflict transformation is an open-ended, sharper focus.
long-term, multi-track, and dynamic process, John Paul Lederach (1998) answers the
which significantly widens the scope of actors “what” question of conflict transformation
involved. As far as outcomes are concerned, slightly differently and links it in a sense
conflict transformation aims to achieve a to “how” and “where” it gets done. He
settlement of substantive issues raised by the echoes some of the points in Väyrynen’s
needs and fears of the conflict parties. This list, albeit with new terminology. The four
has two elements: first, a process orientation dimensions that should be taken into
approach emphasising the need to change consideration in order to transform systems
mutually negative conflict attitudes and can be summarized as follows: (1) Personal,
values among parties in order to increase or individual changes in the emotional,
cooperation and communication between perceptual, and spiritual aspects of conflict;
them; and second, a change oriented approach (2) Relational, or changes in communication,
stressing the political imperative to create interaction, and interdependence of parties
a new infrastructure for empowerment and in conflict; (3) Structural, or changes in the
recognition of underprivileged, disadvantaged, underlying structural patterns and decision
and subaltern groups, thus fostering and making in conflict; and (4) Cultural, or group/
enabling social justice. societal changes in the cultural patterns in
In short, the satisfaction of basic needs understanding and responding to conflict
on the personal and relational levels will not (Lederach, 1998:10-17).
be sufficient. Rather practitioners must work The lenses of conflict transformation focus
to achieve equal access to resources and on the potential for constructive change
assemble the infrastructure that will make emergent from and catalyzed by the rise
possible to address structural inequalities with of social conflict. Because the potential for
the aim of longer-term social reconstruction broader change is inherent in any episode of
and reconciliation. conflict, from personal to structural levels, the
If one is to consider conflict transformation lenses can easily be applied to a wide range of
as a conceptual and practical extension and a conflicts.
useful combination of the pre-existing models, The main question is, then, how can
it would make good sense to have some types conflicts be transformed? There are four
of synthesis of game theory, rational choice, basic steps to transforming conflict. Within
human needs theory, and non-violence action. each step, different methods can be used
An illustrative example can be found in the move the process toward a positive outcome.
problem-solving workshops, which were Remember, transforming conflict is a process,
inspired by different sources of non-violent not a single event or activity.
action, such as those of Gandhi, King, and

40
 ATIKAN:
Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan, 3(1) Juni 2013

In practice, it is not always clear as to which step cornerstones can be identified in the light of
you and your group may be in. You may spend a European experience:
lot of time working on one step before moving
to the next step. You and several others may be
Firstly, it is a legitimate monopoly
ready to move to the next step, but the rest of force by the state, i.e. safeguarding the
the group may not. When this happens, don’t try community based on the rule of law, which
and move ahead without everyone. Try and work is of paramount importance for any modern
together to figure out what is holding some of
peace order. Disarming citizens is the only
the groups back and what it would take to move
forward together. The most important function way to force them to conduct their conflicts
of these steps is to provide you with a general over identity and interests through argument
framework and direction for your effort and to rather than violence. Only when these
remind you of certain components that have to be conditions are in place can potential conflict
considered during the process (http://ctb.ku.edu/
en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1845.aspx,
parties be compelled to deal with their
11/3/2013). conflicts through arguments and thus through
deliberative politics in the public arena. The
The four basic steps to transforming conflict crucial importance of this condition becomes
are as follows: (1) All groups that are affected apparent wherever the monopoly of force
by the conflict should acknowledge that there breaks down and citizens re-arm again, with
is a problem and commit to working together the re-emergence of feuds and warlords
to deal with the conflict; (2) The root causes of – presently a common feature of military
the conflict should be identified, made explicit, conflicts all over the world.
and reconciled collectively by the groups; (3) Secondly, such a monopoly of force also
The groups involved should develop a common creates a need for control under the rule of law
vision for what they can do together and how that can only be guaranteed by, and indeed,
they can do it; and (4) The groups should epitomises, the modern constitutional state
determine what they need in order to sustain without this control, the monopoly of force
their ability to continue to work together to is simply a euphemistic way of describing the
manage or eliminate the causes of the conflict arbitrary behaviour of dictatorial rule. The rule
and to promote peace. of law provides “the rules of the game” for
the shaping of opinion and the political will, as
CAUSES OF CONFLICT AND CONDITIONS well as for the decision-making process, and
FOR THE PEACEFUL REGULATION the enforcement of law. Alongside the general
OF CONFLICT principles that are set forth in catalogues
Some of the causes which generally create of basic rights, these rules of the game are
armed conflicts and incompatible situations essential, precisely because in politicised
in our society can be categorised as follows. societies serious disagreement on substantive
First, poor economic conditions are the most issues prevail.
important long-term causes of intra-state Thirdly, third major condition for internal
armed conflicts today. Second, repressive peace is affect control, which arises from the
political systems are also war-prone, especially range and wealth of many inter-dependence
in the periods of transition. Third, degradation characterising modern societies. Such societies
of renewable resources (specifically soil are highly ramified, and people within them
erosion, deforestation, and water scarcity) can play out a variety of roles that reflect their
also contribute significantly to the likelihood wide span of loyalties. Conflict theory and real
of violent conflict, but are in general not life experience show that highly diverse social
as central to the problem as political and roles lead to a fragmentation of conflict and
economic determinants. Forth, ethnic diversity thus to the moderation of conflict behaviour
alone is not a cause of armed conflict, but and affect control: without affect control, in
parties to a conflict are often defined by their complex environments such as modernising
ethnic identities (Bercovitch, 1992:10-21). and modern societies, peaceful social relations
Meanwhile, some of the essential would be inconceivable.
conditions for resolving conflict peacefully, six Fourthly, on the other hand democratic

41
HILAL AHMAD WANI, ANDI SUWIRTA & JOSEPH PAYEYE,
Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation

participation is essential, precisely due to CAN DEMOCRACY REDUCE THE CONFLICT?

indispensability of affect control. “Legal Democracy is the better form of the
unrest” – Rechtsunruhe in the Sigmund Freud governance, but it cannot be applied
– will result from situations where people throughout the world due to difference of
are unable to become involved in public culture and values. For instance, Western life
affairs, either for ethnic or other forms of style is different from the other countries life
discrimination, and at worst a conflict will style in terms of culture of values and culture.
escalate and, in development, is not a luxury So, saying this that Western liberal democracy
but a necessary precondition for the peaceful is the only solution to the all political systems
resolution of conflict (cited in Kataria, 2007:1-29). of the world would be somehow wrong and
Fifthly, however, in politicized societies, this it would be considered cultural imperialism in
approach to conflict management will only international politics.
have permanence if there are continual efforts Today, we find democratic systems are in
to ensure social justice. The great majority of war with other systems of the governance.
modern capitalist societies are run on market Every country has its own history and
lines, and social inequality is ever present. value system which hardly can be changed.
Unless efforts continually made to counter Multiculturalism is only the way-out to
this dynamic of inequality, such societies multicultural world. One has to respect the
will develop social fissures. Therefore, if the values and ethos of others political systems.
credibility of the constitutional state is not For this purpose, Western model of the
to be called into question by disadvantaged democracy has to respect others systems of
individuals or groups, on the grounds that the governance. This could be achieved once, we
rules of the game are no longer fair, there must will show our accommodative and tolerant
be an ongoing effort to ensure distributive attitude towards others.
justice. By contrast, genuine efforts to achieve America and her allies always consider
social justice and fairness give substance to Islamic world as a challenge and they always
constructive conflict management, and also pretend fear and terrorism which is not true.
provide legitimacy to public institutions. Its best example can be cited when George
Sixthly, if there are fair opportunities in W. Bush administration thought that Iraq
the public arena to articulate identities and and Afghanistan is problem for American
achieve a balance between diverse interests, it foreign policy. Some scholars criticize the
may be assumed that this approach to conflict vision of George W. Bush administration in
management has been reliably internalized and the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. The
that conflict management competence based Iraq was not having chemical weapons as it
on compromise – including the necessary was described and discussed by the American
tolerance – has thus become an integral foreign policy makers and it was highlighted
element of political action. The legitimate by American media which was not based on
monopoly of force, the rule of law and truth. The American public opinion was against
democracy – in short, the modern democratic the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, whereas this
constitutional state – become anchored in mission had been carried out by George W.
political culture. The culture of constructive Bush administration by pretending Iraq and
conflict management, thus, becomes the Afghanistan as challenge to American foreign
emotional basis of the community. Material policy.
measures (social justice) emerge as an They are considering other Islamic countries
important bridge between the institutional their enemies. West needs tolerant approaches
structure and its positive resonance in people’s towards Islamic world and other political
emotions (public sentiment). What develops systems of the world which are different than
finally – to use Ralf Dahendorf’s phrase – are Western political systems. We can call it also
“Ligatures’’, in other words, deeply rooted inflation threat theory. Which is not actually
political and cultural bonds and socio-cultural threat but it is pretended by policy makers
allegiances (cited in Galtung, 1965:348-397). of Western world. Identity is the major issue

42
 ATIKAN:
Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan, 3(1) Juni 2013

today’s international and national politics, one conflict and then try to solve those causes
cannot suppress any identity and culture; it which give birth to conflict. No conflict is
may be Western identity or Muslim identity or unavoidable rather all conflicts can be changed
any other identity and culture. Every culture and mitigated once the stakeholders of the
has an equal right of survival and growth conflict will be ready to adopt democratic
(Thrall & Cramer, 2009:1-13). principles of conflict resolution and without
The proposition that democracies should be going to war just use the deliberation,
less war prone than non-democracies is part tolerance, accommodation, good governance,
of the liberal perspective. According to liberal and peaceful negotiation as a mechanism to
thought, in democracies, where opposition is reach on the consensus.
legal and allowed and citizens can hold their War and force should not be considered
leaders accountable for their actions through as the primary instrument for peace-building
competitive elections, the multiple channels process. It must be acknowledged that after
across societies are more likely to constrain war, we have to be prepared to see the bad
leaders from conflict. Futhermore, based on consequences and bad ramifications. This will
the values of political tolerance, democracies take hundreds of years for any nation to be a
supposedly reinforce preferences for stable and prosperous after going though war.
nonviolent resolution of conflict. The best thing is policy of compromise and
The idea that democratic republics are accommodation which will lead towards win-
peace loving has, in fact, a very long history, win solution for both the conflicting parties.
going back at least to the philosopher
Immanuel Kant in 1795. The proposition that CONCLUSION
democracies are more peaceful has significant Conflict resolution refers to a range of
implications for global politics. Democratic process aimed at alleviating or eliminating
states were among the most important and sources of conflict. Conflict resolution is an
powerful nations in the world in the twentieth umbrella term for whole range of methods
century and the number of democratic states and approaches for dealing with conflict: from
in the world has grown significantly in recent negotiation to diplomacy, from mediation to
years (cited in Wallensteen, 2002). arbitration, from facilitation to adjudication,
The consensus from scholarly research on from conciliation to conflict prevention,
the question of whether democratic states are from conflict management to conflict
less likely than autocratic states to become transformation, and from restorative justice to
involved in international wars is that this is not peace keeping.
the case: democracies are not peaceful than Conflict resolution, as a mechanism, is
non-democracies. Juliet Kaarbo and James Lee applicable over whole spectrum of societal
Ray in their book, Global Politics (2011), stated relations usually referred to as the three levels
that: of the personal, local or the community, and
global. Conflict resolution are those activities
Democratics constraints, for example, did not undertaken over the short term and medium
prevent British involvement in the Falklands war,
term dealing with, and aiming at overcoming,
French military interventions in Africa, India’s
conflicts with China and Pakistan, and Israel’s the deep-rooted causes of conflict, including
participation in numerous Middle East conflicts. the structural, behavioural, or attitudinal
The United States, one of the world’s long- aspects of the conflict. The process focuses
standing democracies, was involved in many more on the relationships between the
military conflicts during Cold War and after Post
Cold War (Kaarbo & Ray, 2011:151-156).
parties than the content of specific outcome.
The aim of conflict resolution is not the
Conflict resolution and conflict elimination of conflict, which is both impossible
transformation process can be used for and undesirable, rather the aim of conflict
changing and transforming the nature of resolution is to transform actual or potentially
conflict. The urgent need of the time is to violent situation into peaceful process of social
understand the causes and sources of the and political change.

43
 HILAL AHMAD WANI, ANDI SUWIRTA & JOSEPH PAYEYE,
Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation

The lenses of conflict transformation focus Bibliography

on the potential for constructive change
emergent from and catalyzed by the rise Austin, Alex, Martina Fischer & Norbert Ropers. (2004).
of social conflict. Because the potential for Transforming Ethnopolitical Conflict. Germany: Vs
broader change is inherent in any episode of Veralag.
Bercovitch, Jacob. (1992). The Structure and Diversity
conflict, from personal to structural levels, the of Mediation in International Relations. Bolder, CO:
lenses can easily be applied to a wide range of Westview.
conflicts. Conflict transformation places before Brigg, Morgan. (2008). The New Politics of Conflict
us some big questions: “Where are we headed? Resolution: Responding to Difference. UK [United
Kingdom]: Palgrave Macmillan.
Why do we do this work? What are we hoping Burton, John & Frank Dukes. (1990). Conflict: Practices in
to contribute and build?” Management, Settlement, and Resolution. New York:
Increasingly, we are convinced that those St. Martin’s Press, pp.10-51.
in the alternative dispute-resolution field and Galtung, Johan. (1965). “Institutionalized Conflict
the vast majority of people and communities Resolution” in Journal of Peace Research, Vol.2, No.4,
pp.348-97.
who wish to find more constructive ways Hill, Barbara. (1981). “An Analysis of Conflict Resolution
to address conflict in their lives were drawn Techniques’’ in Journal of Conflict Resolution, 26(1),
to the perspectives and practices of conflict pp.109-138.
resolution because they wanted change. http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_
main_1845.aspx [accessed in Bandung, West Java,
They wanted human societies to move from Indonesia: 11 March 2013].
violent and destructive patterns toward http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol8_2/botes.htm
the potential for creative, constructive, and [accessed in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia: 11 March
nonviolent capacities to deal with human 2013].
conflict. This means replacing patterns of Kaarbo, Juliet & James Lee Ray. (2011). Global Politics.
USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
violence and coercion with respect, creative Kataria, Pooja. (2007). Conflict Resolution, Conflict: Forms,
problem-solving, increased dialogue, and Causes, and Methods of Resolution. New Delhi: Deep-
non-violent mechanisms of social change. To Deep.
accomplish this, a complex web of change Lederach, John Paul. (1998). Preparing for Peace: Conflict
Transformation Across Cultures. New York: Syracuse
processes undergirded by a transformational University Press.
understanding of life and relationship is Miall, Hugh, Oliver Ramsbotham & Tom Woodhouse.
needed. (1999). Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The
Prevention, Management, and Transformation of
Deadly Conflicts. London, UK (United Kingdom): Polity.
Thrall, A. Trevor & Jane K. Cramer. (2009). American
Foreign Policy and the Politics of Fear: Threat Inflation
since 9/11. London: Routledge.
Tidwell, Alan C. (1998). Conflict Resolved? A Critical
Assessment of Conflict Resolution. London: Continuum.
Wallensteen, Peter. (2002). Understanding Conflict
Resolution: War, Peace, and the Global System. London:
Sage.

44

View publication stats