The need for Conflict Resolution

“One of the big problems with the conflict resolution field and one of the real challenges is to move beyond its table-oriented view of itself.” Guy Burgess.

Witnessing the collapse of the opposition United National Congress has got me to thinking why “big” men cannot resolve conflicts in an amicable fashion. Are we beyond getting past our egos and arriving at a mutually beneficial conclusion?

The constant sparring between Panday and Dookeran has shown the desperate need for alternative dispute resolution. Kenneth Boulding, on the publication of the first issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution 1957 stated, “The reasons which have led us to this enterprise may be summed up in two propositions. The first is that by far the most important practical problem facing the world today is that of international relations- more specifically the prevention of global war. The second is that if intellectual progress is to be made in this area, the study of international relations must be made interdisciplinary, drawing its discourse from all the social services and even further.” Thus, we had the advent of conflict resolutions- an idea our leaders will do well to adopt.

This article is dedicated to bringing enlightenment on the issue of dispute resolution and hope that our leaders will make use of the methods outlined below. It is not an attempt to castigate any particular side or party.

One of Boulding’s most influential ideas has to do with the concept of power. In everyday usage, the term ‘power’ is ambiguous. On the one hand it means the power to command, order, enforce - coercive or hard power. On the other it means the power to induce co-operation, to legitimize, to inspire - persuasive or soft power. Hard power has always been important in violent conflict, but soft power may be more important in conflicts managed peacefully. Boulding (1989) calls the former threat power (do what I want or I will do what you don't want). Following earlier theorists of management-labour negotiations, he distinguished between two forms of soft power: exchange power, associated with bargaining and the compromising approach (do what I want and I will do what you want), and integrative power, associated with persuasion and transformative long-term problem-solving (together we can do something that is better for both of us). Conflict resolvers try to shift emphasis away from the use of threat power and towards the use of exchange and integrative power. Third parties, like politicians and governments, may use all these forms of power.
Incompatible interests are not the only things at issue in more severe conflicts. Conflicts last longer and are more deeply rooted than disputes. They tend to arise over non-negotiable issues such as fundamental human needs, intolerable moral differences, or high-stakes distributional issues regarding essential resources, such as money, water, or land. To truly resolve a conflict, the solution must go beyond just satisfying the parties' interests as in dispute settlement. To end or resolve a long-term conflict, a relatively stable solution that identifies and deals with the underlying sources of the conflict must be found. This is a more difficult task than simple dispute settlement, because resolution means going beyond negotiating interests to meet all sides' basic needs, while simultaneously finding a way to respect their underlying values and identities. However, some of the same intervention processes used in dispute settlement (i.e., mediation) are also used to achieve resolution.
True conflict resolution requires a more analytical, problem-solving approach than dispute settlement. The main difference is that resolution requires identifying the causal factors behind the conflict, and finding ways to deal with them. On the other hand, settlement is simply aimed at ending a dispute as quickly and amicably as possible. This means that it is possible to settle a dispute that exists within the context of a larger conflict, without resolving the overall conflict. This occurs when a dispute is settled, but the underlying causes of the conflict are not addressed
There are many reasons why underlying causes of conflict may not be addressed. Often, the underlying causes of conflict are embedded in the institutional structure of society. Achieving complete resolution of a conflict can require making significant socioeconomic or political changes that restructure society in a more just or inclusive way. Changing societal structures, such as the distribution of wealth in society, is a difficult thing to do and can take decades to accomplish. Thus, fully resolving conflict can be a long, laborious process. As a result there are other conceptions of ways to deal with, but not necessarily "resolve," conflicts.
Conflict management involves the control, but not resolution, of a long-term or deep-rooted conflict. This is the approach taken when complete resolution seems to be impossible, yet something needs to be done. In cases of resolution-resistant or even intractable conflict, it is possible to manage the situation in ways that make it more constructive and less destructive. The goal of conflict management is to intervene in ways that make the ongoing conflict more beneficial and less damaging to all sides.
A number of conflict theorists and practitioners, including John Paul Lederach, advocate the pursuit of conflict transformation, as opposed to "conflict resolution" or "conflict management." Conflict transformation is different from the other two, Lederach asserts, because it reflects a better understanding of the nature of conflict itself. "Conflict resolution" implies that conflict is bad, and is therefore something that should be ended. It also assumes that conflict is a short-term phenomenon that can be "resolved" permanently through mediation or other intervention processes. "Conflict management" correctly assumes that conflicts are long-term processes that often cannot be quickly resolved. The problem with the notion of "management," however, is that it suggests that people can be directed or controlled as if they were physical objects. In addition, "management" suggests that the goal is the reduction or control of volatility, rather than dealing with the real source of the problem.]
Conflict transformation, as described by Lederach, does not suggest that we simply eliminate or control conflict, but rather that we recognize and work with its "dialectic nature." First, Lederach argues that social conflict is a natural occurrence between humans who are involved in relationships. Once conflict occurs, it changes or transforms those 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 the natural process of conflict. Conflicts change relationships in predictable ways, altering communication patterns and patterns of social organization, altering images of the self and of the other.
Conflict transformation is also a prescriptive concept. It suggests that the destructive consequences of a conflict 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. Conflict usually transforms perceptions by accentuating the differences between people and positions. Lederach believes that effective conflict transformation can utilize this highlighting of differences in a constructive way, and can improve mutual understanding. From the perspective of conflict transformation, intervention has been successful if each group gains a relatively accurate understanding of the other. In the end, improving understanding is the objective of conflict transformation, in spite of parties differing or even irreconcilable interests, values, and needs.
The purpose of this article is to instruct our leaders in ways available to achieve conflict resolution. The citizenry demand that leaders, in whatever sphere adopt an approach that will be beneficial to the collective, or what is referred to as the greater good. Common sense and an open mind in what is required in times like these.
A crucial point must be made: neither Dookeran nor Panday alone can win the hearts and minds of the people, so let us hope that they are not deluded by other extraneous information. Good sense must prevail.