Conflict Management and Peace building module

For Exit Exam Preparation

Prepared by : Birku Adugna (Hawassa University, department of Governance and

Development Studies)
 Chapter One

General overview of Conflict

1.1. Introduction
Conflicts are inherent to human behavior and inevitable in the day to day interactions of human societies.
They are neither totally good nor bad; their destructiveness and constructiveness highly depends on the
approaches and mechanisms that peoples try and actually implement and use to resolve these conflicts.

1.2. The Definition of Conflict

 The term conflict has been used to describe a wide range of human activities including hostility
between people to international war. Traditionally, conflicts defined as “fight, battle or struggle of
principles. But this definition is unsatisfactory because interpersonal disputes are rarely a clash of
principles. A very similar word to conflict is dispute. Dispute is more of a disagreement, opposed
ideas and difference in interests and even in goals between and/or among individuals and groups, and
states. Hence, except some minor differences, we can interchangeably use the two terms i.e. conflict
can be represented by dispute and vice versa. Conflicts have a beginning before violence occurs.
Conflicts can go up/rise into violence or more worsen overtime, and eventually they grow
less/decrease. That’s why conflicts are mostly manifested and recognized when violence occurs.
 Conflict can broadly defined as an incompatibility of goals or values between two or more
parties in a relationship, combined with attempts to control each other and antagonistic feelings
toward each other. The incompatibility or difference may exist in reality or may only be
perceived by the parties involved. Nonetheless, the opposing actions and the hostile emotions
are very real hallmarks of human conflict. Conflict is a state of opposition between and/or
among individuals and groups to incompatible options, interests and goals over the material and
spiritual life of human beings.
 The most common issues for goal seeking incompatibility/sources of conflict

 Control over resources/human needs- such as space, money property, power, prestige
and like are one group of incompatibility if, however, the parties view them as non
sharable and/or if they seek exclusive control with rigid fixation over the particular
resource and with little desire or possibility to find a satisfactory substitute for it.
  Value difference- as a source of incompatibility revolves around on ‘what should be’.
This difference can be over isolated and relatively minor issues as between husband and
wife about certain appropriateness of home arrangement etc or it can be over larger forms
of religious or ideological values which are competitive and in opposition to one another
as for example between capitalist vs. socialist way of restructuring state-society relations.
Value differences by themselves do not necessarily cause conflict unless there is a claim
by one of the parties that one value should dominate or be applied on the other who have
different value.
 Discrepancies over beliefs or over ‘what is’- an incompatibility over facts, information
knowledge or their interpretations which are securely held as fundamental and essentially
correct by the person or the group involved. Opposition to these beliefs by another party
equals a challenge to one’s ability to grasp and understand reality and amounts to
undermining his/her ability to appear and act rationally. Like values, not every
discrepancy in belief system leads to conflict unless one of the parties decides his/her
belief should dominate or be accepted by the other.
 By summarizing the above discussion one can give the operational definition of conflict as: a
social situations in which the ability of one participant to gain his ends is dependent on the choices
or decisions that the other participant will make. Conflicts can also occur when one party is
interfering, disrupting, obstructing, or in some other way making another party’s actions less
effective.

1.3. The Nature of Conflict

It is a plain fact that conflict is a natural reality and phenomenon which is inherent in human history in
all personal and social relationships. Conflict inevitably exists, and would exist in the future, in every
aspect or dimension of human life in all walks of people’s life in general and individual in particular. No
one can eliminate or avoid conflict but can minimize the potential inevitability of conflicts. It is not a
realistic or even desirable to avoid or eliminate conflict. Conflict occurs between people in all kinds of
human relationships and in all social settings. Because of the wide range of potential differences among
people, the absence of conflict usually signals the absence of meaningful interaction. Conflict by itself is
neither good nor bad. However, the manner in which conflict is handled determines whether it is
constructive or destructive. When conflicts and violence are managed peacefully, they are productive and
may even become a source of development and prosperity within the participation of parties/groups
involved in a particular issue on particular and on all levels of community. A constructive dealing of
conflicts will bring the society towards the desired development.
1.4. Major Levels of Conflict
Conflict can occur at a number of levels of human functioning. It is ever-present/exists everywhere. One
mechanism to classify conflict is by level, it may occur in our head or at international level. Accordingly
the following five levels are widely acceptable.

 Intra-personal conflict
At this level, conflict occurs within (the mind of) an individual. Sources of conflict can include ideas,
thoughts, emotions, values, predispositions, or drives that are in conflict with each other. We all may
confront with ideas, interests, feelings… totally situations that are not compatible each other and able to
confuse us and engage us in the condition hard to make a right decision. According to Lewicki, Barry,
and Saunders, intrapersonal conflict is also called intra-psychic conflict. It occurs within you. This
conflict can develop out of your own thoughts, ideas, emotions, values and predispositions. Intrapersonal
conflict occurs when you internally argue with yourself about something, such as when you want to be a:
Musician or Dancer, Christian or Muslim, Teacher or Doctor…..etc.

 Inter-personal conflict
This second major level of conflict, which we will call interpersonal conflict, is between individual
people. A conflict that occurs between a husband and wife, bosses and subordinates,
classmates/roommates is all inter-personal conflict. In interpersonal conflict, you are in conflict with
other individuals. This is considered a major level of conflict and can occur between co-workers,
siblings, spouses, roommates and neighbors etc... E.g. a conflict between: You and your dorm mate,
brother, friend etc...

 Intra-group conflict
This third major level of conflict is a conflict with in small groups among team and committee members
and within families, fraternities, classes, and work groups. Intra-group conflict refers to a specific kind of
conflict that occurs between members of a group that shares common goals, interests or other identifying
characteristics. Intra-group conflict can be small-scale, such as within a workplace or large-scale, such as
between members of a specific population group. Though conflict is generally regarded as a problem,
intra-group conflict as the other levels of conflict can do, also serve as a valuable tool in some contexts.
Intra-group conflict occurs between members of a group or team who are theoretically united over a
common characteristic or objective. An example of intra-group conflict is a conflict between Sub-groups
( ethnic, religious, political…etc.) and Sub-families in a clan…etc.

The two main forms of intra-group conflict are relationship conflict and task conflict. In an intra-group
relationship conflict, members of the group struggle with interpersonal relationships regardless of the
task or objects of the group. For example, two members of a marketing team may experience conflict
because one member applies a diplomatic approach to communication, while another prefer
straightforward and aggressive communication. If a group is experiencing a task conflict, members of the
group disagree about the best practices for achieving an objective or struggle to agree on an appropriate
objective. For instance, a marketing team may struggle because some members support traditional direct
marketing while other members want to experiment with a viral marketing campaign.

 Inter-group conflict/Intra-state conflict

This fourth major level of conflict is a conflict between groups, union and management, warring
notations, feuding families, or communities challenging governmental authorities. At this level, conflict
is quite complicated because of a large number of people involved and the possible interactions between
them. Conflict can occur within groups and between groups simultaneously. Negotiations at this level are
also the most complex.

 Inter-state conflict
This level includes a conflict arises between and among different sovereign states in the international
arena in the run to protect and promote their national interest. Our world entertains uncountable number
of inter-state conflicts and wars in different periods of history including the two major wars; WWI
&WWII.

 E.g. a conflict between: Ethiopia and Eritrea since 1998 ; South-Korea and North-Korea since
1950- 1953...etc.

1.5. Basic Categories of Conflict

 Conflicts can be categorized by the cause of the conflict. The major categories of conflict are discussed here
under.
 Relationship conflict: This category of conflict is the conflict that emanate from a strong negative
behaviors. Resolving relationship conflict requires the safe and balanced expression of perspectives and
acknowledgement of emotions. This is usually manifested at individual and group levels.
 Data conflict: This conflict refers to the conflict that emanates from the lack of information differently or
disagrees on the importance of data. These kinds of conflict usually have a data solution.
 Interest conflict: This category of conflict is the clashes over perceived incompatible needs. Interest based
conflict can resolve around:
 Substantive issues; such as money, physical resources, time...etc.
 Procedural issues; the way the dispute is to be resolved.
 Psychological issues; such as perceptions of trust, fairness, respect...etc.
 To resolve interest conflict, the parties need to come to a point of defining and expressing their individual
interests may be jointly addressed.

 Structural conflict: Is a type of conflict that is caused by the external forces such as limited physical
resources or authority, geographical constraints (distance or proximity), time or organizational change.
 Value conflict: Is a conflict caused by perceived or actually incompact belief systems: values, beliefs,
norms…etc. this category of conflict also includes cultural and regional differences. These kinds of
differences are recognized as a core factors within the value conflict in the process of violent conflict.
1.5. Major theories of conflict

 Theories of conflict are the explanations put forward to explain causes of conflict. The causes
of conflict are numerous and complex, thus creating problem of analysis of specific conflict
situations. The theories are advanced to simplify the causes by looking at them in categories.
 The theories explaining causes of conflict include structural theory of conflict, Marxist
theory, international capitalist theory, realist theory, biological theory, and psychological
theory of conflict.

Structural Theory of conflict

 The structural theory attempts to explain conflict as a product of the tension that arises
when groups compete for scarce recourses. The central argument in this sociological
theory is that conflict is built into the particular ways societies are structured or organized.
It describes the condition of the society and how such condition or environment can create
conflict. Structural conflict theory identifies such conditions as social exclusion,
deprivation, class inequalities, injustice, political marginalization, gender imbalances,
racial segregation, economic exploitation and the likes, all of which often lead to conflict.
 Structuralists maintain that conflict occurs because of the exploitative and unjust
nature of human societies or because of domination of one class by another. The
theory is however deficient in its on-sidedness of looking at causes of conflict. It, for
instance, does not see the bright sides of racial or ethnic diversity and the strength
that a society may derive from pluralism. It only sees the flaws. The structural theory
thus makes sense only when conflicts are viewed from the broadest possible perspective,
and only if the observer opts to ignore alternate causes of the conflict.
Marxist Theory of conflict
 The Marxist theory is an offshoot of the Marxian explanation of society. Society is
divided into unequal classes: the one is strong, rich and noble and bears the tag of
bourgeoisie, who controls the instrumentality of state; while the other is deprived,
socially deflated, financially infantile and is called the proletariat. There is a constant
struggle between the two, but he that has the financial muscle controls both the state and
the poor, and that is the structure of society. Thus, the Marxist stand is that the state is
itself a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state is therefore
structured to be in a perpetual state of conflict.
 The rich controls the state as well as means of production. The rich thus grows wealthier
at the expense of the poor, who lives at his mercy and is implicitly embittered by the
development. The central argument of Marxism is thus that capitalism is at the heart of
the state, and that same capitalism is exploitative and oppressive and has been responsible
for the polarization of the society (and state) into two incompatible classes.
 The limitation of Marxism is similar to that of structuralism. It looks at every issue of
conflict from the viewpoint of dialectical materialism alone. This economic prism is
not enough to capture every aspect of conflict causation.

International Capitalism Theory of conflict

 This theory captures the historical import of colonialism and imperialism. According to
Hobson (2006; 1902), in his classic, Imperialism: A Study, the external drive of western
nations propelled by the Industrial Revolution began to create numerous platforms for
conflict. The search for raw materials, need to invest surplus capital and search for new
markets outside Europe compelled an imperialist pathway as the western countries
desperately sought such markets, raw materials and investment climates at the expense
of the peace and prosperity of the locals in what is now known as the Global South.
This led to colonization, as well as collision of cultures and civilizations and ultimately
conflict.
 Imperialism thus became the last and highest stage of capitalism. This international
capitalism theory aptly explains the collaboration of western financial markets and capital
today, as it solidified and extended their economic influences all over the world, and has
leveraged them for economic exploitation of the developing economies, which has
created imbalances between what is now the North and South.
Economic Theory of conflict
 Economic theory of conflict explicates the economic undercurrents in conflict causation.
There is considerable interface between politics (power, resources or value) and scarcity.
People seek power because it is a means to an end, more often, economic ends.
Communities feud over farmlands, grazing fields, water resource, et cetera, and groups
fight government over allocation of resources or revenue. Scarcity, wants, needs, or the
fear of scarcity is often a driving force for political power, contention for resource
control, and so forth. Conflict is thus not far-fetched in the course of such palpable fear
or threat of scarcity. Just as the fear of poverty and deprivation could lead to fraud or
corruption; so is threat of or real famine, deprivation, mismanagement of scarce
resources, could propel conflict over resource control.

Realist Theory of conflict

 Political realism explains conflict as an inherent attribute of man. As far as men live
with their ‘baggage of emotions’, so will conflict remain a part of their habitat; and as
long as man remains a ‘political animal’ with interests different from others, so shall
conflict of interests remain a feature of society. More importantly, as long as there are
scarce resources where most men are ambitiously seeking comfort or control of
resources, conflict is inevitable. Realism is a good blend of the Marxist, international
capitalist and economic theories in the explication of conflict.
 The realist theory describes conflict as a product of the innate selfish nature of man, who
continues to pursue his own best interests even if the ox of others is gored. This selfish
nature of man leads to “competitive processes” between actors who seek to have all or
most of available scarce resources. It is such attribute that is taken to the inter-state level,
which leads to erratic behavior, hegemonic propensities, imperialism, et cetera, that can
impel resistance as well as violent opposition and consequently heat up the international
system.

Biological Theory of conflict

 This theory explains that human nature is genetically transferred from generation to
generation. Just as parents can genetically transfer their godly qualities and ingenuity to
their offspring, so can the evil nature of man be genetically transferred. The argument
goes that since our ancestors were instinctively violent beings and since we evolved from
them, we must bear aggressive or destructive impulses in our genes.
  This theory explains that the irresistible outbreaks of violent impulses are ascribed to
fixed biological propensities. As such, aggression is spontaneous and could be
uncontrollable. This line of thought underlines the assumption about the greatness of
certain people, clan or family; or the pride, arrogance and aggressiveness of a particular
nation or group.

Frustration-anger-aggression
 This is a psychological hypothesis of conflict that posits that it is natural for man to react
to unpleasant situations. The hypothesis is drawn from the frustration-
aggression theory propounded by Dollard and Doob, et al (1939), and further developed
by Miller (1948) and Berkowitz (1969). The theory says that aggression is the result of
blocking, or frustrating, a person's efforts to attain a goal.
 Frustration is described as the feeling we get when we do not get what we want, or when
something interferes with our gaining a desired goal, as shown in the case of Niger
Delta, and that of the Palestinians or Hutus in Rwanda. Anger implies feeling mad in
response to frustration or injury; while aggression refers to flashes of temper
(Tucker-Lad, 2013). The frustration aggression theory states that aggression is caused
by frustration. When someone is prevented from reaching his target, he becomes
frustrated. This frustration can then turn into anger and then aggression when something
triggers it.
 When expectation fails to meet attainment, the tendency is for people to confront others
they can hold responsible for frustrating their ambitions or someone on whom they can
take out their frustrations. And when aggression cannot be expressed against the real
source of frustration, displaced hostilities can be targeted to substitute objects, that is,
aggression is transferred to alternate objects.

1.6. Functions of Conflict

Conflicts can neither be eliminated altogether nor even be suppressed for long. Conflicts can be
functional (productive) if they are carefully handled and if they are fertile to allow those parties in
conflict by effectively discussing and coming up with workable solutions to them. The main
concern is that weather the conflicts at many levels of human interactions can be resolved either
with constructive or destructive consequences. In this sense a conflict resolved constructively has a
positive function on relationships and organizations. Some of the functions are the following;

 At individual level conflict prevents stagnation by stimulating interest and curiosity and as
result it can be seen as the medium through which problems can be aired and solutions arrived
at. This kind of conflict is often the root of personal and social change and as such it is often
part of the process of testing and assessing oneself giving the experience and the pleasure of
full and active use of one’s capacities.
 On group level interactions, conflict demarcates groups from one another and thus helps
establish group and personal identities in different ways. For example, external conflict or
inter-group conflict often fosters internal cohesiveness. Similarly, internal conflicts or intra-
group conflicts also frequently help to revitalize existing norms or contribute to the
emergence of new norms.
 Discussing conflict makes those parties in conflict more aware and able to cope with
underlying problems.
 Conflict strengthens relationships and heightens morale. Those parties in conflict realize that
their healthy relationships should be strong enough to withstand the test of conflict and
beneficiary if they are free from conflict. They can release their tensions through discussion
and problem solving.
 Conflict promotes awareness of self and others. Through conflict, people learn what makes
them angry, frustrated, and frightened and what is important to them. Knowing what we are
willing to fight for tells us a lot about ourselves. Knowing what makes or colleagues unhappy
helps us to understand them.
 Conflict encourages psychological development. Persons become more accurate and realistic
in their self-appraisal. Through conflict, persons take others perspective and become less
egocentric, conflict helps persons to believe that they are powerful and capable of controlling
their own lives. They do not simply need to endure hostility and frustration but can act to
improve their own lives.
 In the above sense, conflicts in general and/or social conflicts in particular can be seen as
mechanisms for adjustment of norms to new conditions. However, these positive functions of
conflict depend on the choice of strategy by the conflicting parties involved regarding to how
to resolve the incompatibilities and whether their choices result in constructive outcomes to
both parties.
  On the contrary, destructive conflict is that which is done through excessive reliance on
coercion and heavy threat. Equally, if the conflict reduced its noble cause, such as the quest
for social justice, to a power struggle for unilateral gains and if the parties remain dissatisfied
with the outcomes where the party that achieves victory leaves the legacy of defeat and a
sense of loss on the defeated party, the conflict can be considered as destructive as all of these
inhibit the possibility of maximizing mutual communication.

1.7. Consequences and Outcomes of Conflict

Conflict is natural-neither good nor bad. It can have positive as well as negative consequences for
the parties involved and for the larger social system of which the disputing parties are members.

1. 7.1.Positive results of conflict

On the positive side, conflict can provide an opportunity for creativity, renewed energy,
development, and growth to individuals, groups, and organizations resulting in increased
cohesion/unity and trust. It can lead as well to more effective personal and organizational
performance.

 Positive consequences for individuals involved in conflict can include:

 Recognition of the interests of the disputing parties: Most conflicts can end with at least
some satisfaction of the legitimate interests of the parties involved, usually through working
out an integrative agreement of mutual benefit. Relay do conflicts have to end in clear-cut
win/lose outcomes.
 A sharpened sense of identity and solidarity: As individuals engage in conflict, their sense
of which they are as persons with unique needs tends to be sharpened. As they differentiate
themselves from one another, they uncover ways in which they are similar and different. The
similarities enhance rapport and a sense of solidarity; the differences help to sharpen a
sense of identity and unique contribution to the whole.
 Interaction: Conflict tends to promote interaction at an interpersonal level and create a new
system of which all parties are instantly a part. As one party changes, all the other parties
must then change to restore the equilibrium.
 Internal change: As disputing parties experience conflict and engage in dialogue with others
of differing needs and beliefs, they are confronted with the prospect of making adjustments
in their positions. The pressure to explore new ideas and feelings can challenge an individual
to move from rigidity to flexibility, with consequent internal change.
  Clarifying the real problem: Conflicts often emerge around different solutions to a
particular problem shared by the disputing parties. As dialogue is conducted and the parties
begin to explore the interests underlying the contrary positions, the real problem can be
identified and addressed.
 Conflicts often involve groups and occur between group members. Conflict can have positive
consequences for all group members that are parties to the dispute. Some of them include:
 Increase trust: As individuals enter into any experience with one another in group settings,
trust is low, resulting in defending behaviors on the part of groups members. In conflict
situations this tendency is exacerbated, because the disputing parties perceive the possibility
of their failing and being hurt. As individuals share their thoughts and feelings with one
another in the group, trust builds, freeing energy previously spent in defending.
 Increase productivity and results: As conflict is exposed and the parties involved express
their thoughts and feelings, the group can be healed of some of the negative feelings that
tend to prevail in conflict situations. As the group is freed of diverting of emotions and
discovers new solutions, its productivity and creativity can increases.
 Group unity: Conflict fosters a sense of group unity and identity as disputing parties
reconcile individual differences. Without differences and diversity, groups can become
stagnant and lose a sense of its creativity and uniqueness.
1.7.2. Negative Results of Conflict

Often the positive benefits of conflict are overshadowed by harmful consequences that result when
disputing parties attempt to achieve their goals at the expense of the others. Such forcing
exchanges often bring about an escalation of the conflict that is difficult to reverse. When forcing
methods are used, any of the following negative consequences can follow:

 Minor differences can escalate into major conflicts involving actions imposed by a power
person or group on another, resulting in greater loss to the system as a whole.
 The number of issues in the conflict can increase, resulting in greater complexity and
greater difficulty in managing the situation.
 Specifics can give way to global concerns, which often cause the person to be equated with
and confused with the issue at stake, or the entire relationship between the disputing parties
can be called into question.
 The intention can shift from getting a specific interest satisfied to beating the other parties at
all costs. The number of parties can increase, making it even more difficult to deescalate the
conflict
1.8. Conflict outcomes
Conflict always manifests itself in terms of some specific outcomes. Three possible outcomes can
emerge:

 Dominance or imposition: resulting in resentment/ antipathy and sometimes destructive

consequences.
 Withdrawal or avoidance : resulting in resentment and lowered self-image.
 Compromise or resolution: resulting in at least some beneficial consequences being
achieved.
These outcomes are dependent on the approach or strategy used to deal with the conflict. The
choice among alternative strategies can spell the difference between antipathy and mutual respect.
In summary, the outcomes result from five basic approaches, or strategies, available to address to
conflict situation:

 Collaboration: A win-win strategy based on a clear positive vision and the use of problem
solving to ensure that the interests of all parties are met. This approach results in
maintaining strong interpersonal or intergroup relationships while ensuring that all parties
achieve their interest.
 Compromise: A mini-win/mini-lose strategy based on a solution that partially satisfies the
interests of the parties involved. This approach results in the parties' attempting to win as
much as possible while preserving the interpersonal or intergroup relationships as much as
possible.
 Accommodation: A yield-lose/win strategy wherein one party yields to the other party/s to
protect and preserve the relationships involved.
 Controlling: A win/lose strategy based on imposing a particular preferred solution on the
other party (or parties). This approach results in sacrificing the interpersonal or intergroup
relationships to achieve a desired outcome, regardless of the consequences to the other party
or parties.
 Avoiding: A lose/lose strategy based on withdrawing and choosing to leave the conflict.
This approach results in abandoning both the desired outcomes and the opportunity to
enhance the relationship.
1.9. Factors Affecting the Course and Consequences of Conflict

The issue of particular conflict takes constructive or destructive course and outcome depends on many
factors. Identifying these determinants helps to identify the broader environment a particular conflict
operates and the potential for devising solutions towards constructive outcomes.
 The process of conflict and conflict orientation of the parties
The type of conflict orientation taken by the parties about the process of conflict is one
determinant. For one of the conflict orientation conflict is viewed as mutual problem that
highlights mutual interest and seeks the enhancement of mutual power. This kind of orientation
encourages a trusting and friendly orientation towards the other party with a positive interest in
the other party’s welfare and needs and encourages readiness to respond to any positive signal
by the other party. A perceived similarity in beliefs and values, a sense of common bonds and
interests between conflicting parties, although are no guarantee to the impossibility of conflict,
are likely to lead to constructive outcome carried through honest, open communication with
persuasive rather than coercive form and intent.

An alternative conflict orientation is the one that led to destructive conflict outcomes. This
orientation defines the conflict process in win-loss terms that seeks to maximize power
difference with a readiness to exploit the other party’s needs and weakness. This supports the
tendency to polarize opposed values and beliefs.

 Prior relationship of the parties

If the conflicting parties did have cooperative bonds before the conflict and if those bonds were
stronger than their present day incompatibilities and served significant needs of the parties, then
those earlier bonds could encourage parties to seek cooperative ways of settling their present
problems. For example if the parties have other common goals to cooperate about (i.e. super-
ordinate goals) which is bigger than their present day goal incompatibility, and if they have
common allegiances to a common community, religious, creed, state etc, then present day
cooperation is likely. The weaker and the more insignificant were pas cooperation, the more
difficult it is to find cooperative tendencies to the present day problem.

 The nature of the conflict

By ‘nature of the conflict’ the reference is to the different dimension of the conflict in terms of
such factors as the centrality of the conflict issue, the rigidity of the issue in the eye of the
parties, the number of issues involved and their interconnectedness, the degree to which the
conflict is acknowledged and the like.

 The centrality of the issue of conflict:- an issue that is infringed up on something

considered vital to a person’s physical well being, socio economic position, self esteem
etc is central. These issues are considered to be human needs which are universal needs
by human being irrespective of their difference in sex, race, and ethnicity, political and
 economic difference and are considered non negotiable. These are central conflict issues
that characterize intractable conflicts for they are most irreconcilable ones. Thus, more
central an issue becomes, the less likely to easily resolve it constructively and vice versa.
 Issue rigidity:- Independent of the issue centrality, the perceived lack of satisfactory
alternative for the initially desired outcome or the lack of satisfying method of attaining
the outcome characterizes issue rigidity. Sometimes parties become issue rigid for
psychological reasons that make them perceive the proposed alternative as unsatisfactory
to their standards. At other times, objective environmental factors cause issue rigidity by
posing scarcity limit the possibility of finding acceptable substitutes and restrict the
possibility if the conflict is over necessities. Still relevant is the nature of the issue which
by itself makes it harder for parties to substitute for it. For example, a party that defines
its conflict issue rigidly in terms of having more power or total victory or more status
over the other party find itself too rigid and uncompromising thereby making
constructive conflict resolution harder.
 The number and interconnectedness of the issues:-if the conflict revolves around a
single issue, then the chances are that the winner takes all and the loser gets none. For
this reason the conflict will be heavily contested. But in some conflicts there could be
many comparable issues in a single conflict that can be the source of win-win
opportunities for all of the parties in one or another of the issues thus enabling
constructive resolution. However, if the many different issues in a single conflict are
highly interconnected constructive conflict in a way of win-win outcomes is unlikely.
The high degree of the interconnectedness among the issues establishes the perception
that a loss in one implies a loss on all others.
 Consensus on the importance of the different issues:-If conflicting parties value the
significance of the conflicting issue with equal importance to them, it is very difficult to
find a compromising solution without dissatisfying one of them.
 The degree of acknowledgement about the conflict:-Unacknowledged conflict where
the conflicting parties do not recognize the fundamental conflict or the existence and
legitimacy of one another’s existence will remain harder to resolve because it remains
latent and the manifest confrontations are not about the primary issue. Unless the
underlying conflict is recognized and dealt with, it will remain a breeding ground for
various manifest conflicts that resist constructive and long term resolution.
 The characteristics of the parties in the conflict:- the ideologies, personalities, social
positions and personal resources of the conflicting parties determine whether conflict
 take constructive or destructive course and outcome. Similarities in the basic perspective
of the relationship between the conflicting parties are usually conducive to compatibility
and hence to constructive resolution of the conflict. In addition, personalities may well be
conducive to competitive or cooperative relationships. Such characteristics as
aggressiveness, authoritarianism, need for dominance, suspiciousness, dogmatism,
tendency to derogate others etc and other characteristics such as egalitarianism, trusting,
open-mindedness, toleration of ambiguity etc complement competitive and cooperative
and hence destructive and constructive resolution of conflict respectively.
 Third parties:- the attitudes, strength and resource of interested third parties in a conflict
are often crucial determinants of the course of conflicts. Third parties who expect to
maximize their own power by playing the two conflicting rivals off against each other
could instigate or aggravate conflict. Even this negative third party intrusion can
indirectly facilitate the constructive resolution of the conflict. The conflicting parties,
fearing the intrusion of this kind of third parties, could find themselves unity against the
outsider intervention. In a much more positive sense third parties who are prestigious,
powerful, and skillful may deliberately facilitate a constructive resolution of conflicts by
helping provide the problem-solving resources( such as institutions, facilities, expertise,
personnel, social norms, procedures etc) to facilitate the discovery of mutually
satisfactory solution.

Chapter review questions

Answer the Following Questions

1. Discuss the negative results of conflict

2. Briefly discuss factors affecting the course and consequences of conflict.
3. What issues/ factors leads a certain conflict for further escalation d/intensification?
4.
 Chapter Two
Conflict Analysis
2.1. Introduction

Conflict analysis is the important prerequisite before a conflict management or resolution will be
done. It is an important first step in the conceptualization of interventions that initiate and sustain
social transformation processes. It is also a basic stage towards the resolution of conflict; a good
conflict analysis leads to suitable solutions. Conflict analysis should inform decision-making
with the aim of improving the effectiveness of conflict prevention, conflict management and peace
building interventions, including the effectiveness of development and humanitarian
assistance. It is important to emphasize that conflict analysis is an ongoing process and not a static,
one-off exercise. Different conflict analysis frameworks, methods and tools have been developed.

2.2. What is conflict analysis and why is it important?

 For many of those who are engaged in practical work on conflict, the concept of conflict analysis
seems quite remote from their own experience. It is sometimes seen as requiring objectivity and
neutrality rather than personal experience and strong emotion. This kind of perspective takes conflict
analysis as ‘research methodology’ in the strict sense. However, this is not the understanding of the
concept one sees conflict analysis as a practical process of examining and understanding the reality of
the conflict from a variety of perspectives to establish the particular basis on which strategies can be
developed and actions planned.
 Conflict analysis is the systematic study of the profile, causes, actors, and dynamics of
conflict. These purposes of conflict analysis is to enhances a better understanding of the
dynamics, relationships and issues of the conflict situation and helps us to plan and carry out
better actions and strategies. It also helps development, humanitarian and peace building
organizations to gain a better understanding of the context in which they work and their
role in that context.
 Conflict analysis can be carried out at various levels (e.g. local, regional, national, etc) and
seeks to establish the linkages between these levels. Identifying the appropriate focus for
the conflict analysis is crucial: the issues and dynamics at the national level may be different
from those at the grassroots. But while linking the level of conflict analysis (e.g. community,
 district, region or national) with the level of intervention (e.g. project, sector, policy), it is
also important to establish systematic linkages with other interrelated levels of conflict
dynamics. These linkages are important, as all of these different levels impact on each other.
For example, when operating at the project level, it is important to understand the context at
the level at which the project is operating (eg local level), so the focus of the analysis should
be at that level; but the analysis should also take account of the linkages with other levels
(eg regional and national). And similarly when operating at the regional, sector or national
levels.
 Conflict analysis is not, and should not be, considered as a one-time exercise. As conflicts are
dynamic and situations are developing, the exercise must be a non-going process. This essentially
helps us to adapt our actions to changing factors, dynamics and circumstances.
 Conflict analysis is thus a central component of conflict-sensitive practice, as it
provides the foundation to inform conflict sensitive programming, in particular in
terms of an understanding of the interaction between the intervention and the context.
This applies to all forms of intervention – development, humanitarian, peace building–
and to all levels – project, program, and sectoral. In other words, conflict analysis will
help: to define new interventions and to conflict-sensitize both new and pre defined
interventions (eg selection of areas of operation, beneficiaries, partners, staff, time
frame). (Planning stage).
 In general conflict analysis helps conflict resolution practices and practitioners :
 To understand the background and history of the situations and current events.
 To examine the sources and consequences of conflict;
 To identify all the relevant groups involved in the conflict.
 To understand the perspectives all groups have and to know more about how they relate to each
other.
 To find out more about what is going on in a conflict;
 To identify areas where they need to know more;
 To begin to see ways in which they can influence the situation;
 To identify factors and elements which underpin/highlight conflicts.
 To learn failures and successes.

2.3. Key Elements/ of Conflict Analysis

The key elements/ of conflict analysis helps to develop a comprehensive picture of the
c o n f l i c t context in which you operate. Generally, “the elements of conflict analysis can
never be exhaustive, nor provide absolute certainty. Conflict dynamics are simply too
complex and volatile for any single conflict analysis process to do them justice.
Nevertheless, you should trust your findings, even though some aspects may remain
unclear. Do not be discouraged; some analysis, no matter how imperfect, is better than no
analysis at all.

 Conflict Profile
A conflict profile provides a brief characterization of the context within which the
intervention will be situated.

Key questions for a conflict profile

 What is the political, economic, and socio-cultural context? e.g. physical geography,
population make-up, recent history, political and economic structure, social
composition, environment, geo-strategic position.
 What are emergent political, economic, ecological, and social issues? eg elections,
reform processes, decentralization, new infrastructure, disruption of social networks,
mistrust, return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), military and civilian
deaths, presence of armed forces, mined areas, HIV/AIDS.
 What specific conflict prone/affected areas can be situated within this context? eg, areas
of influence of specific actors, frontlines around the location of natural resources,
important infrastructure and lines of communication, pockets of socially marginalized or
excluded populations.
 Is there a history of conflict? eg critical events, mediation efforts, external intervention.
Note: this list is not exhaustive and the examples may differ according to the context

 Causes of conflict
In order to understand a given context it is fundamental to identify potential and existing
conflict causes, as well as possible factors contributing to peace. Conflict causes can be
defined as those factors which contribute to people’s grievances; and can be further
described as:

 structural causes – pervasive factors that have become built into the policies,
structures and fabric of a society and may create the pre-conditions for violent
conflict.
 proximate causes – factors contributing to a climate conducive to violent conflict or
its further escalation, sometimes apparently symptomatic of a deeper problem
  triggers – single key acts, events, or their anticipation that will set off or escalate
violent conflict.
 Protracted conflicts also tend to generate new causes (eg weapons circulation, war
economy, culture of violence), which help to prolong them further.
 As the main causes and factors contributing to conflict and to peace are identified, it is
important to acknowledge that conflicts are multi -dimensional and multi-causal
phenomena – that there is no single cause of conflict. It is also essential to establish
linkages and synergies between causes and factors, in order to identify potential areas
for intervention and further prioritize them. Some of the tools in Annex 1 – eg
Clingendael / Fund for Peace, RTC – offer methods to assess the relative importance of
different factors. Many tools developed for conflict analysis also categories conflict
causes or issues by governance, economics, security and socio-cultural factors.

Key questions for an analysis of conflict causes

 What are structural causes of conflict? eg illegitimate government, lack of political

participation, lack of equal economic and social opportunities, inequitable access to
natural resources, poor governance.
 What issues can be considered as proximate causes of conflict? eg uncontrolled security
sector, light weapons proliferation, human rights abuses, destabilizing role of
neighboring countries, role of diasporas.
 What triggers can contribute to the outbreak / further escalation of conflict? eg
elections, arrest / assassination of key leader or political figure, drought, sudden collapse
of local currency, military coup, rapid change in unemployment, flood, increased
price/scarcity of basic commodities, capital flight.
 What new factors contribute to prolonging conflict dynamics? eg radicalization of conflict
parties, establishment of paramilitaries, development of a war economy, increased
human rights violations, weapons availability, development of a culture of fear.
 What factors can contribute to peace? eg communication channels between opposing
parties, demobilization process, reform programmes, civil society commitment to peace,
anti-discrimination policies.
Note: This list is not exhaustive and the examples may differ according to the context.

 Actors
People are central when thinking about conflict analysis. The Resource Pack uses the term
“actors” to refer to all those engaged in or being affected by conflict. This includes
individuals, groups and institutions contributing to conflict or being affected by it in a
positive or negative manner, as well as those engaged in dealing with conflict. Actors differ
as to their goals and interests, their positions, capacities to realise their interests, and
relationships with other actors .

Interests, goals, positions, capacities and relationships

 Interests: the underlying motivations of the actors (concerns, goals, hopes and fears).
 Goals: the strategies that actors use to pursue their interests.
 Positions: the solution presented by actors on key and emerging issues in a given
context, irrespective of the interests and goals of others.
 Capacities: the actors’ potential to affect the context, positively or negatively. Potential
can be defined in terms of resources, access, social networks and constituencies, other
support and alliances, etc.
 Relationships: the interactions between actors at various levels, and their perception of
these interactions.
Some approaches distinguish actors according to the level at which they are active
(grassroots, middle level, top level). In particular, conflict transformation theory attaches
great importance to middle level leaders, as they may assume a catalytic role through their
linkages both to the top and the grassroots. In any case, it is important to consider the
relationships between actors / groups at various levels and how they affect the conflict
dynamics.

Particular attention should be paid to spoilers, ie specific groups with an interest in the
maintenance of the negative status quo. If not adequately addressed within the framework
of preventive strategies, they may become an obstacle to peace initiatives.

Similarly, it is important to identify existing institutional capacities for peace, in order to

further define entry points to address causes of violent conflict. Capacities for peace
typically refer to institutions, organizations, mechanisms and procedures in a society for
dealing with conflict and differences of interest. In particular, such actors need to be
assessed in relation to their capacity for conflict management, their legitimacy, the
likelihood of their engagement, and the possible roles they can adopt.

Key questions for an actor analysis

 Who are the main actors? eg national government, security sector (military, police),
 local (military) leaders and armed groups, private sector/business (local, national,
trans-national), donor agencies and foreign embassies, multilateral organizations,
regional organizations (eg African Union), religious or political networks (local,
national, global), independent mediators, civil society (local, national, international),
peace groups, trade unions, political parties, neighboring states, traditional
authorities, Diaspora groups, refugees / IDPs, all children, women and men living in
a given context. (Do not forget to include your own organization!)
 What are their main interests, goals, positions, capacities, and relationships? eg
religious values, political ideologies, need for land, interest in political participation,
economic resources, constituencies, access to information, political ties, global
networks.
 What institutional capacities for peace can be identified? eg civil society, informal
approaches to conflict resolution, traditional authorities, political institutions (eg head
of state, parliament), judiciary, regional (eg African Union, IGAD, ASEAN) and
multilateral bodies (eg International Court of Justice).
 What actors can be identified as spoilers? Why? eg groups benefiting from war
economy (combatants, arms/drug dealers, etc), smugglers, “non conflict sensitive”
organizations.
Note: This list is not exhaustive and the examples may differ according to the context.

 Dynamics
Conflict dynamics can be described as the resulting interaction between the conflict profile,
the actors, and causes. Understanding conflict dynamics will help identify windows of
opportunity, in particular through the use of scenario building, which aims to assess
different possible developments and think through appropriate responses.

Scenarios basically provide an assessment of what may happen next in a given context
according to a specific timeframe, building on the analysis of conflict profile, causes and
actors. It is good practice to prepare three scenarios: (a) best case scenario (ie describing
the optimal outcome of the current context; (b) middle case or status quo scenario (ie
describing the continued evolution of current trends); and (c) worst case scenario (ie
describing the worst possible outcome).

Broadly speaking, conflict dynamics refers to the process of change in the course of the conflict to
widen (such in new issues), to intensify (such in new actors) and broaden (to such in new victims)
or to follow the reverse process to bringing in benign or malignant outcome of conflict for final
settlement or protraction respectively. The four basic stages of conflict have different sub stages.
Initiation/emergence/ stage include difference, contradiction, polarization, and some occasional
violence. The stage of escalation includes intensified violence and the war. The stage of de
escalation begins with cease fire to agreement, to normalization. The final stage of settlement is a
post conflict situation of reconciliation.

 Description of the stages of conflict

 Difference: It is the initial condition of the emergence of the perception of

incompatibility of goals. Such kinds of differences are omnipresent in every social
relationship and as a result are not always destructive. It is only when such initial
difference, be it objective or subjective, is left to persist without early effort to deal with
it that it progress into the next higher stage of towards escalation .i.e. contradiction.
 Contradiction: At this stage one or both of the parties start recognizing their difference as
real and began occasional confrontational behavior to show their intent although these
are by no means organized and sustained. At this stage the conflict may remain latent. If
no effort at resolving the conflict at this stage then many elements in the form of negative
attitudes and perceptions start built-in it to take it into the next stage of escalation.
 Polarization: this is the stage that follow the persistence of the initial difference without
an early opportunity peacefully solve it were either untried or unsuccessful leading the
conflict parties become unequivocally aware of their problem and chose to engage in
increased mobilization of resources and support to pursue their interest non peacefully.
Polarization is characterized by very strained relationship in which the earlier difference
and contradiction start grow into the perception of irreconcilable antagonisms. The
parties start considering their incompatibility as unbridgeable through non violent means.
As a result conflict becomes more and more manifest.
 Violence/war follows if polarization persists. This stage is the highest crises stage of the
escalation characterized by complete breakdown of communication and the outright use
of direct violence. The process of de-escalation begins with cease fire.
 Cease fire is the first de escalatory step where the parties agree to a temporary stoppage
of the direct violence. If it made to persist then a stage of agreement commences.
 In agreement stages parties may agree to take some formal and initial resumption of
talks to deal with some of the immediate issues of the violence. At interstate conflicts,
this may include the signing of peace treaties, exchange of prisoners of the war, clearing
of land mines etc
  Normalization is the stage where the parties would try to put themselves back into pre
polarization and pre violence levels.
 Reconciliation is the last stage in the full cycle of a conflict. Here the parties try to
address and settle their initial source or root source of the incompatibility and envision a
lasting peace. If unsuccessful the parties can be said to find themselves in motion
towards repeating the conflict all the way backwards again
 For Galtung, contradiction involves a structural violence; so it requires removal of the structural
injustice and inequality. In other words, he suggests peace building. Violence and war is the
manifestation of a conflict behavior; so changing the violent behavior generally demands peace
keeping and peace enforcement strategies.
 Difference, contradictions and even polarization are sustained not only by objective sate of
affairs but also by subjective perceptions and misperception which often times are the results of
negative attitude and perception and sustained by certain cultural elements; so change in these
regard require a broader strategy that aims at transforming cultural violence. The much more
elaborated model by Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse and Hugh Miall can be presented in
a table below:

The Conflict Progression Model for Contingency Approaches to Holistic Peace

Stages of Strategic Responses Tactical Responses (skills and Process

Conflict

Difference Cultural Problem solving workshops, support for

indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms,
peace building
conflict resolution training, fact finding
missions, peace commissions and the like

Contradiction Structural Development assistance, civil society

development, governance training and
peace building
institutional building, human right training,

Track II (non official mediation),

problem solving and the like

Polarization Elite peacemaking Official (Track I) mediation, special envoys,

negotiation, coercive diplomacy,
 direct preventive peace keeping etc

Violence Peace keeping Interposition, crisis management,

and violence containment etc

War War limitation Peace enforcement,

peace support and stabilization etc

Cease fire Peace keeping Preventive peace keeping,

disarmament, confidence building and

security enhancing works etc

Agreement Elite peace making Electoral and constitutional reform,

power sharing arrangements and

decentralization,

problem solving workshops etc

Normalization Structural Collective security and cooperation

peace building arrangements, economic resource based

cooperation and development and the like.

Reconciliation Cultural Inquiry, justice, truth and reconciliation

commissions, peace media development, peace
peace building
and conflict awareness education and training,
cultural exchange and initiatives, sports, etc

The above table shows a contingency and complementarities model, in which ‘contingency’
refers to the nature and phase of the conflict, and ‘complementarity’ to the combination of
appropriate responses that need to be worked together to maximize chances of success in conflict
resolution.

Key questions for an analysis of conflict Dynamics

 What are current conflict trends? e.g. escalation or de-escalation,
changes in important framework conditions.
What are windows of opportunity? e.g. are there positive developments? What factors
support them? How can they be strengthened?
What scenarios can be developed from the analysis of the conflict profile, causes
and actors? e.g. best case, middle case and worst case scenarios.
Note: This list is not exhaustive and the examples may differ according to the context.

2.4. Tools and techniques(Methods) for Conflict Analysis

 Tools are useful aids for the people who carry out conflict analysis and play different roles.
These tools include: the root cause analysis (helps stakeholders to examine the origins and
underlying causes of conflict); the issue analysis (examines deeply the issues that contribute
to conflict and those that give rise to a specific conflict); the stakeholder identification and
analysis (identifies and assesses the dependency and power of different stakeholders in a
conflict.), the 4Rs (rights, responsibilities, returns, relationships) examines the rights,
responsibilities and benefits of different stakeholders); the conflict timeline (examines the
history of a conflict and improves the understanding of the sequence of events that led to the
conflict); and mapping conflict over resource use (shows the present and future geographical
location of resources and determines the primary issues of conflict).

 The tools and techniques for analyzing conflict situations that we shall see are suggested by
such practitioners and academicians as Simon Fisher, Dekha Ibrahim Abdi, Richard Smith and
others based on the real experience of people around the world who have used the tools,
adapting them to their own needs. They suggest that conflict analysis is not a one-time exercise.
It must be an ongoing process as the situation is developing, so that we can adapt our actions to
changing factors, dynamics and circumstances for the following reasons
 To understand the background and history of the situation as well as current events.
 To identify all the relevant groups involved, not just the main or obvious ones.
 To understand the perspectives of all these groups and to know more about how they
relate to each other.
 To identify factors and trends that underpins conflicts.
 To learn from failures as well as successes.
  Conflict analysis can be done with the help of a number of simple, practical and adaptable
tools and techniques. Below, we shall explain some of the tools for conflict analysis and
illustrate how they have been used in specific cases.
 Some of the techniques/methods for conflict analysis are Stages of Conflict, Timelines, and
Conflict Mapping(which describes what is happening in the conflict) , The ABC Triangle
(Attitude, Behavior, and Context)( which stresses the interrelation of three main parts of
conflict in the form of a triangle), the Doughnut (the Onion), which helps to discover hidden
elements of conflict) , The Conflict Tree(helpful to analyze specifically intergroup conflicts);
and the pyramid or island method (which facilitates the distinction between underlying causes
of conflict and positions and interests of parties), and Force-Field.
 Often these conflict analysis frameworks are best used in combination and flexibly, according
to the situation we are analyzing, with one tool highlighting certain factors or issues or points in
time, which are then analyzed with other tools. One’s own analysis, and that of the people he\
she works with, will be informed by own experiences, perceptions and values and may well be
different. The tools may not necessarily be scientific, but they do open the way to inclusive and
effective action

I. Stages of conflict Framework for Conflict Analysis

The tool is based on the understanding that conflicts change over time, passing through different
stages of activity, intensity, tension and violence. It is, therefore, helpful to recognize these stages
and use them together with other tools to analyze the dynamics and events that relate to each stage
of the conflict. The basic analysis comprises five different stages, which generally occur in the
order given here (although there may be variations in specific situations) and may recur in similar
cycles. These stages are:

Pre-Conflict: This is the period when there is an incompatibility of goals between two or
more parties, which could lead to open conflict. The conflict is hidden from general view,
although one or more of the parties are likely to be aware of the potential for confrontation.
There may be tension in relationships between the parties and/or a desire to avoid contact
with each other at this stage.
Confrontation: At this stage the conflict has become more open. If only one side feels there
is a problem, its supporters may begin to engage in demonstrations or other confrontational
behavior. Occasional fighting or other low levels of violence may break out between the two
sides. Each side may be gathering its resources and perhaps finding allies with the expectation
 of increasing confrontation and violence. Relationships between the sides are becoming very
strained, leading to a polarization between the supporters of each side.
Crisis: This is the peak of the conflict, when the tension and/or violence is most intense. In
a large-scale conflict, this is the period of war, when people on all sides are being killed.
Normal communication between the sides has probably ceased. Public statements tend to be
in the form of accusations made against the other side(s).
Outcome: One way or another crisis will lead to an outcome. One side might defeat the
other(s), or perhaps call a ceasefire (if it is a war). One party might surrender or give in to
the demands of the other party. The parties may agree to negotiations, either with or without
the help of a mediator. An authority or other more powerful third party might impose an end
to the fighting. In any case, at this stage the levels of tension, confrontation and violence
decrease somewhat with the possibility of a settlement.
Post-Conflict: Finally, the situation is resolved in a way that leads to an ending of any
violent confrontation, to a decrease in tensions and to more normal relationships between
the parties. However, if the issues and problems arising from their incompatible goals have
not been adequately addressed, this stage could eventually lead back into another pre-
conflict situation.
As a practical tool to plan and carry out better actions and strategies, the stage of conflict
framework must be seen as a graphic that shows increasing and decreasing intensity of conflict
plotted along a particular time scale. Its purpose includes the following:

 To see the stage and cycles of escalation and de escalation of conflict.

 To discuss where the situation is now.
 To try to predict future patterns of escalation with the aim of preventing these from
occurring.
 To identify a period of time to be analyzed later using other tools.
II. Timelines Framework for Conflict Analysis
In principle, a timeline is a very simple tool. It is a graphic that shows events plotted against time. It
lists dates (years, months or days, depending on the scale) and depicts events in chronological
order. We could use this method to show a succession of events in your own life, for example, or
the history of your country. In this case, you can use timelines to show the history of a conflict. In a
conflict, groups of people often have completely different experiences and perceptions: they see
and understand the conflict in quite distinct ways. They often have different histories. People on
opposing sides of the conflict may note or emphasize different events, describe them differently,
and attach contrasting emotions to them.
 The aim of using timelines in this way is not to try to arrive at a 'correct' or 'objective' history but to
understand the perceptions of the people involved. For this reason, the different events described by
opposing groups are an important element in understanding the conflict. The timeline is also a way
for people to learn about events that are about each other's history and perceptions of the situation.
And in discussing their different perceptions of the conflict, and the events that each group
commemorates, they will develop a richer understanding of their shared situation. A timeline is not
primarily a research tool, but a way to prompt discussion and learning. In conflict it is to be
expected that people will disagree about which events are important and how to describe them. We
aim to reach a point where the parties in a conflict can accept that others may have valid
perceptions, even if these are opposed to their own. Timeline as a tool is a graphic that shows
events plotted against a particular time-scale with the following distinct proposes suggest when to
use it. Timeline helps

 To show different viewpoints o f history in a conflict.

 To clarify and understand each side’s perception of events.
 To identify which events are most important to each side.
III. Conflict mapping as tool /Framework for Conflict Analysis
Mapping is a technique used to represent a conflict graphically, using certain conventional symbols, to
depict the nature of the relationship between the main conflicting parties and their relationship with other
parties to the conflict. Conflict mapping is an important one towards acknowledging a particular conflict
and also as analyzing conflict and finding indicators of how to treat different conflicts adequately.
Conflict mapping is useful not just for explaining, but also for responding to conflicts at all levels. It
helps to place the parties in relation both to the problem and to each other. When people with different
viewpoints map their situation together, they learn about each other's experiences and perceptions.

 Conflicting mapping can be used in variety of ways such as geographical maps showing the
areas and the parties involved, mapping of issues, mapping of power alignments, mapping of
needs and fears. Mapping on its own, however, cannot provide all of the answers. As with all
these tools, it only provides partial insight into the nature of a conflict. Often it is the issues
underlying the observed relationships that lie at the root. The following tools offer some insight
into how to begin to uncover those underlying causes.
IV. The ABC Triangle Framework/ as tool for Conflict Analysis
This analysis is based on the premise that conflicts have three major components: the context or
situation, the behavior of those involved and their attitudes. These three factors influence each
other, hence leading from one to another. For example, a context that ignores the demands of
 one group is likely to lead to an attitude of frustration, which in turn may result in protests. This
behavior might then lead to a context of further denial of rights, contributing to greater
frustration, perhaps even anger, which could erupt into violence. Work that is done to change the
context (by making sure that demands are acknowledged), to reduce the level of frustration (by
helping people to focus on the long-term nature of their struggle) or to provide outlets for
behaviors that are not violent will all contribute to reducing the levels of tension.

In the case of any given conflict different parties have different experiences and contrasting
perceptions. For these reasons, they are likely to attribute the conflict to different causes. One
side may, for example, claim that the root problem is injustice, while another side may feel that
it is insecurity. Each group is focused on the issues that concern it most, and particularly the
areas where it is suffering most. All of these causes and issues are real and important, and all
will haw to be addressed before the conflict can be resolved and the situation improved.

In using the ABC Triangle it is important to be sure about on whose perception the analysis is
based upon. You could do the analysis entirely on your own perception of the realities in the
conflict if you are closely involved in it. Otherwise, it will be important to put yourself in the
shoes of each of the main parties and look at the issues in the conflict as they see it in terms of
'context', 'behavior' and 'attitude'. The ABC triangle helps in the following ways:

 To identify the three sets of factors for each of the major parties.
 To analyze how these influence each other.
 To relate these to the needs and fears of each party.
 To identify a starting point for intervention in the situation.
The following are the time to employ ABC triangle more usefully:
 Early in the process to gain a greater insight into what motivates the different parties.
 Later to identify what factors might be addressed by an intervention.
 To reveal how a change in one aspect might affect another
V. The Onion Framework /as tool for Conflict Analysis
This framework is based on the analogy of an onion and its layers with how the conflict parties
narrate their conflict. The outer layer contains the positions that they take publicity, for all to see
and hear. Underlying these are interests – what we want to achieve from a particular situation.
Finally, at the core are the most important needs we require to be satisfied. It is useful to carry
out this Onion analysis for each of the parties involved.
 In times of stability, when relationships are good and trust is high, our actions and strategies may
stem from our most basic needs. We may be willing to disclose these needs to others and to
discuss them openly, if we trust the others. And through analysis and empathy, they may be able
to grasp our needs even before we disclose them. In more volatile or dangerous situations, when
there is mistrust between people, we may want to keep our basic needs hidden. To inform others
of them would revel our vulnerability and perhaps give them extra power over us. But if we hide
things from the other side, they are also less likely to be able to grasp our needs through analysis
or empathy, as a result of lack of knowledge and because mistrust changes people's perceptions
of each other.

Thus, in a situation of conflict and instability, actions may no longer come directly from needs.
People may look at the more collective and abstract level of interests and base their actions on
these. When those interests are under attack, they may take up and defend a position that is still
further removed from their basic needs. This type of analysis is useful for parties who are
involved in negotiation, to clarify for themselves their own needs, interests and positions. Then,
as they plan their strategies for the negotiation, they can decide how much of the interior 'layers'
- interests and needs – they want to reveal to the other parties involved.

A long-term goal is to improve communication and trust to the point where people can reveal
their own real needs and also understand and try to meet each other's needs. However, even
before this point is reached people can be challenged to examine whether their actions and
strategies are a good way to further their own interests and meet their own needs. The essence of
Onion is that it is a way of analyzing what the different parties to a conflict are saying with the
following proposes:

 To move beyond the public position of each party and understand each part’s interests
and needs.
 To find the common ground between groups that can become the basis for further
discussions.
VI. The Conflict Tree Framework /as tool for Conflict Analysis
This tool is best used within groups - i.e. collectively rather than as an individual exercise. In
many conflicts there will be a range of opinions concerning questions such as: What is the core
problem? What are the root causes? What are the effects that have resulted from this problem?
What is the most important issue for our group to address?
 The Conflict tree offers a method for a team, organization, group or community to identify the
issues that each of them sees as important and then sort these into three categories: (1) core
problem(s), (2) causes and (3) effects.

 You will find when you try this tool that many issues can be seen as both causes and effects of
the conflict. For example, scarcity of food is often a cause of conflict between groups, but it is
also often the consequence of normal cultivation being disrupted by violence. This can form the
basis for a useful discussion about the cycle of violence and the way in which communities can
become trapped by conflict. There is no reason why, graphically, the same issues cannot appear
in both places. The specific purpose that a conflict three framework provides includes the
following:
 To stimulate discussion about causes and effects in a conflict.
 To help a group to agree on the core problem.
 To assist a group or a team make decisions about priorities for addressing conflict issue.
 To relate causes and effects to each other and to the focus of the organization.
VII. Force-Field Analysis as tool /Framework for Conflict Analysis
This tool can be used to identify the different forces influencing a conflict. Whenever you are
taking some action to bring about change, there will be other forces that are either supporting or
hindering what you are trying to achieve. This tool offers a way of identifying these positive and
negative forces and trying to assess their strengths and weaknesses. It can also help you to see
more clearly what is maintaining the status quo. The framework can be put into use in the
following way.

 Begin by naming your specific objective, i.e. the action you intend to take or the change
you desire to achieve. Write this objective at the top of the page and draw a line down the
centre of the page.
 On one side of the line, list all the forces that seem to support and assist the action or
change that is to happen. Next to each one draw an arrow towards the centre, varying the
length and/or thickness of the arrow to indicate the relative strength of each force. These
arrows are pointing in the direction of the desired change.
 On the other side of the line, list all the forces that seem to restrain or hinder the desired
action or change from happening next to each one draw an arrow pointing back towards
the centre, against the direction of desired change. Again, the length and/or thickness of
each arrow can indicate its relative strength.
  Now, consider which of these forces you can influence, either to strengthen the positive
forces or to minimize in some way the negative forces, so as to increase the likelihood of
the desired change taking place.
 You may want to review your plan of action and make modifications to your strategy in
order to build upon the strengths of positive forces, while also trying to minimize, or
remove, the effects of the negative ones.
As a tool for analyzing both positive and negative forces in a conflict force-field analysis has
such proposes as;

 To identify those forces either support or hinder a plan of action or a desired change.
 To assess the strength of these forces and our own abilities to influence them.
 To determine ways of increasing the positive forces or decreasing the negative forces.
Force-field analysis is effective if used in the following situation

 In the planning of an action or strategy to clarify the forces that might support or hinder
what is intend to do.
 While implementing a strategy of change to assess the strength of other forces and your
ability to influence these.
VIII. Pillars as tool /Framework for Conflict Analysis
This graphic tool is based on the premise that some situations are not really stable, but are 'held
up' by a range of factors or forces – the 'pillars'. If we can identify these pillars and try to find
ways to remove them or minimize their effect on the situation, we will be able to topple a
negative situation and build a positive one. A pillar is a graphic illustration of elements or forces
that are holding up an ‘unstable’ situation. This can be carried through the following way.

 Identify the unstable situation (conflict, problem or injustice) and show this as an
inverted triangle standing on one point.
 Next identify the forces or factors seeming to maintain this situation. Show them as the
'supporting pillars' on both sides of the triangle.
 Consider how each of these pillars might be weakened or removed from the situation.
Briefly list your strategies for each pillar.
 Also consider what stable situation could replace this unstable one.
While doing pillar analysis one side of the pillars holding up the conflict are mostly those
caused by, or relating to, the authorities, e.g. harsh policies, exclusion of groups, and/or fear. On
the other side, there are pillars representing lack of coordination, security concerns and
prejudice, which pertain directly to the concern of others. Some of the pillars might be more
 crucial than others, and some are more difficult to influence than others. It may be that work will
have to be done by colleagues at other levels to influence, for instance, the politics concerning
the situations and policies of the donor countries. However, the situation will improve if any of
these pillars is weakened or removed.

Having looked at the pillars that support the conflict, problem or unjust situation, the next step is
to devise definite actions or strategies that could address each pillar and weaken or remove it.
Pillar analysis makes more sense when the aim is:

 To understand how structures are sustained.

 To identify factors that maintain undesirable situation.
 To consider ways to weaken or remove these negative factors, or perhaps to change them
to more positive forces.
XI. The Pyramid as Tool For Conflict Analysis

A pyramid is graphic tool showing levels of stake-holders in a conflict. This tool is needed when
you start to analyses conflicts that have more than one level. With this method, you identify the key
parties or actors at each level. Often most social conflicts have three or two levels. As you consider
each of the levels in a diagram you may find that most of your work is aimed at only one level. This
can make it difficult to bring about lasting change because of the effect of the other levels on your
context.

This type of analysis helps you' to locate critical resource people who are strategically placed
and embedded in networks that connect them vertically within the setting and horizontally in the
conflict. These are people who have the ability to work with counterparts across the lines of
division, therefore, they can be key allies for working within the various levels as well as
working simultaneously at all levels. The specific situation that calls for the use of the pyramid
analysis framework includes;

 To identify key actors including leadership at each level.

 To decide at which level you are currently working on and how you might include other
levels.
 To assess what types of approaches or actions are appropriate for work at each level.
 To consider ways to build links between levels.
 To identify potential allies at each level.
In general, all the above discussed conflict analysis frameworks are not intended to be a rigid
formula, but rather flexible and practical aids to help in understanding the complexities of a
 particular situation in order to then build more effective strategies for addressing the conflicts we
are concerned about. They are often more effective when used in a variety of combinations- for
example, applying an analysis of Stages with Mapping, ABC Triangles and a Pyramid - in order
to explore from various perspectives different aspects of and factors in any given situation. This
kind of multi-dimensional analysis can help enhance your understanding of the situation and
suggest a variety of entry points for action.

Chapter review questions

Answer the Following Questions

1. Why do we analyze conflict?

2. What we analyze in conflict?
3. How do we analyze conflict?

Chapter Thee

Conflict Resolution Mechanisms(CRs)

3.1. Introduction

The theoretical formulations about specific resolution approaches and the subsequent development
of specific strategies, methods, process and skills in Conflict Resolution /CR/ have been evolving
and developing over time. In the process some concepts have lost their relevance, change their
meaning, replaced by more refined conceptualizations, new perspectives have been added or
concepts which were formerly used separately or jointly have been reformulated. One the one hand,
this trend shows how the discipline attempts to adapt itself to changing dynamics of conflict and
peace and refines its approach. On the other hand, the same trend results in the proliferation of
terms with apparent similarity but have equally distinct meaning and practical implications risking
certain degree of confusion.

3.2.The Key Terminologies

 Conflict/Dispute/ Settlement, as one approach to ending of conflict, refer to the reaching of
agreement between conflict parties themselves without the necessary involvement of third
parties. Oftentimes, conflict settlement is achieved through unassisted negotiation between the
parties themselves and as a result it is employed in conflict situations which are relatively less
intense and less violent and the issues are not that much fundamental to disturb the basic
relationship of the parties. If conflicting issues and dynamics have become more serious as in
the case of intractable conflicts, i.e. those involving identity issues, conflict settlement is not the
preferred approach. In case it is preferred, it is not as the final settlement but as a positive start
to further steps. This is because conflict settlement approaches do not focus on the underlying
structural conditions and the pervasive conflict attitudes.
 Conflict Containment requires the involvement of third parties between the conflicting parties
with the aim of alleviating the intensity of the conflict, to constrain the fighting geographically
before it spread into other areas and if the conflict is active to terminate the violence at the
earlier possible time.
 Conflict management/conflict regulation/- is a generic term covering the whole range of
positive conflict handling including conflict settlement and containment approaches and
methods. These three interrelated approaches under the rubric of conflict management can be
differentiated from the other approaches such as conflict resolution and conflict transformation
in terms of their understanding of what they consider as a peace. As we have seen in earlier
sections conflict has three basic elements each constituting a parallel elements or types of
violence and peace. Johan Galtung identifies three types of violence and two types of peace
based on the reversal conditions of the three elements of conflict and/or violence.
 Conflict Resolution-apart from being a generic name for a discipline and as an approach by its
own right considers peace in a much more positive peace sense and attempts to address both the
structural and direct violence aspects and certain aspects of cultural violence with the broader
goal of building sustainable and positive peace.
 Conflict transformation- represents the deepest level of conflict resolution. The focus of
conflict transformation includes and goes beyond institutional changes that support positive
peace by a deeper transformation of the structures of social identity and justice which, by
breaking down the social bonds of the community relationship among those who used to know
each other and tolerated each other, lead them into violence. Conflict transformation opts to
transform the social institutions and the discourse that reproduce the culture of violence and the
structural violence through a rebuilding of fractured social bonds and alter people’s
expectations of themselves and others away from violence and toward peaceful relations.
3.3. Alternative Terminologies in Conflict Analysis and Resolution

Phrases such as peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace enforcement, peace building are often used in
relation to CAR activities. These phrases are not that much different from the terminologies we
discuss in the above section and of course they can be used interchangeably. In fact the difference
is more of a matter of preference than substance. More specifically, one can say that these
‘alternative terminologies’ are attempts at invention or modification of terms to better capture the
broad spectrum of peace and peacemaking possibilities carried out chiefly by the UN in meeting its
major mandate of ‘maintaining international peace and security’. Peacekeeping, peacemaking,
peace enforcement, peace building are multiple options for contributing to peace arranged on a
continuum between shorter-term intervention and security approaches, known as peacekeeping, to
longer-range prevention and institutional change approaches, known as peace building. In other
words, peace keeping and peace enforcement resemble conflict management whereas peacemaking
and peace buildings are more like conflict resolution and conflict transformation respectively.
However, the fact that the UN prefers these alternative terminologies in view of its international
character makes it necessary to define them in international context as the UN is there mainly to
deal with conflicts that are of interstate character although this traditional fixation is somehow
changing in response to the nature of most conflicts after the end of the Cold War where conflicts
have become internal in character than before.

Peace keeping: refers to the interposition of an international armed force often mandated by the
UN to separate armed forces of two belligerent sovereign states. Peace keeping is often carried
out following the consent of the two parties. In the UN context, Peacekeeping operations were
traditionally thought as pre resolution deployment. But later on they were re considered best
suited for use as measures to be instituted after a peace agreement is attained between the
warring parties to implement impartially what has been agreed in case the conflicting find it
unlikely to be able to cooperate easily among themselves after a devastating war. Peacemaking
is a UN approved intervention of a much deeper and multiple level of intervention to induce
parties to a conflict to reach agreement voluntarily by rendering different and often less
coercive encouragements and facilitation works.
Peacemaking: is a more proactive engagement different from the peacekeeping attempts which
only aim to establish safety and achieve the “minimum” condition of peace, which is the
absence of overt physical violence, through such efforts as avoidance of disruptive conflict and
violence, limiting or managing interactions, and punishing or excluding the parties deemed
responsible for outbreaks. Peacemaking has broader goal of resolving the particular conflict by
 going relatively deeply into the root sources of that conflict in comparison to peacekeeping
activities.
Peace enforcement: one of the ‘instruments’ for international organizations. It means that wars
are brought to a halt through direct and overwhelming military intervention under the auspices
of multilateral organs. As a matter of principle, peace enforcement can be seen as part of
peacekeeping activities when the interposition of the internationally deployed army cannot
restrain the conflicting parties from violence. Equally, peace enforcement can also be used
when violence between groups within a state causes serious humanitarian crisis for the civilian
people and when the parties fail to allow humanitarian assistance to the suffering populace. But
one thing that must not be forgotten here is that principles and practices so far in practice
demonstrate the importance of political interests in the part of the peace enforcers.
Peace Building: underpins the work of peacemaking and peacekeeping by addressing structural
issues and the long-term relationships between conflictants. Peace building tries to overcome
the contradictions which lie at the root of the conflict.
3.4. A Foundation for the Terminological Differentiation

Conflictual attitude: represents the existence of cultural violence which uses certain cultural
elements to justify violent actions against others and instigate people to kill others playing on
people’s emotions, feelings and beliefs. For Galtung reversing Conflictual attitude and the
cultural violence contributes to positive peace.
Conflictual behavior :represents observable display of inflicting physical and psychological
injuries and pain on individual or groups by an identifiable actor and this is referred to as direct
violence. For Galtung reversing Conflictual behavior and the direct violence it gives rise to
often results in negative peace.
Contradiction: represents the existence of conditions which are uneven /unequal/ life chances,
unequal distribution of resources and unequal decision making power. According to Galtung,
this constitutes structural violence. Structural violence is an indirect violence because it
operates systematically and slowly, without a necessary direct violence, to erode human values
and shorten life. Example, slavery although structurally violent, the day to day relationship
between a slave and a master does not always involve direct violence. For Galtung, reversing
structural violence together with cultural violence and of course direct violence results in
positive peace

Based on the above formulations one can say that conflict management approach considers conflict
largely in terms of direct conflict and the peace it tries to achieve is negative peace by emphasizing
 on achieving the “minimum” condition of peace, which is the absence of overt physical violence.

3.5. Defining conflict resolution

 Conflict resolution refers to all the methods and process adjusts activities that aim to address
the causes of conflict and seeks to build new and lasting relationship between conflicting
individuals and groups. It is also a technique employed to identify and resolve conflict between
different people, groups and states Conflict resolution as a situation where the conflicting
parties enter into an agreement that solves their central incompatibilities, accept each other’s
continued existence as parties and cease all violent action against each other. Conflict resolution
could be applied in the de-escalation phase after a violent conflict has occurred. Apart from
being a generic name for a discipline and as an approach by its own right considers peace in a
much more positive peace sense and attempts to address both the structural and direct violence
aspects and certain aspects of cultural violence with the broader goal of building sustainable
and positive peace.

3.5.1. Typologies of Conflict Resolution Activities

In general, the terminologies discussed above give a general introduction to their meanings. Each of
these approaches utilizes different methods, process and skills which separately or together
constitute the activities of conflict analysis and resolution field. Some of these are introduced
below.

I. Negotiation: is the process in which conflicting parties seek to settle their problem through a
peaceful compromise of some of their positions to one another in a way of reciprocity often
without the presence of an intermediary. Negotiation is a communication process for enabling
disputing parties to achieve a mutually agreed –on outcome with respect to their differences. In
simplest terms, negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying to
work out a solution to their problem. This interpersonal or inter-group process can occur at a
personal level, as well as at a corporate or international (diplomatic) level. Negotiations
typically take place because the parties wish to create something new that neither could do on
his or her own, or to resolve a problem or dispute between them. The parties acknowledge that
there is some conflict of interest between them and think they can use some form of influence
to get a better deal, rather than simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them.
They prefer to search for agreement rather than fight openly, give in, or break off contact.
 Depending on the different aspect and character of the conflict, negotiations can be of two type;
unassisted and assisted negotiation.
 Unassisted negotiation is the one in which the parties to a conflict get start it by themselves
without the assistance of intermediaries. But conflicts which involve very complex issues,
as distributional or value based issues, are very difficult for an unassisted negotiation to be
used. In these cases, conflict parties find it difficult to initiate and pursue the negotiation by
their own. This could be the result of emotional trap where the parties avoid initiative for
unassisted negotiation fearing the consequence of appearing weak to one another. Financial
trap also calls for assisted negotiation where the parties need a resourceful third party to
provide for different facilities. Remember! Negotiations are often costlier engagements.
Power imbalances between the conflicting parties together with the desire by the stronger
party to prevail in the negotiation process also hinder the weaker party from consenting to
unassisted negotiation. These difficulties call for assisted negotiation by the involvement of
a neutral third party.
 Assisted negotiation can take different forms, such as mediation, facilitation /conciliation/,
arbitration etc. Although we shall see these in detail later on, let’s see the broader conditions
that provide interested third parties ‘entry points’ to take on the responsibility for assisted
negotiation. Often times conflicting parties find themselves in a dilemma between
compromising their public posture (positions) in spite of the difficulty of continuing the
violence; the cost of which becomes higher to bear by both parties. When conflicting parties
are frozen in this dilemma, third party proposal for negotiation are likely to be welcomed as
the best possible chance to settle the dilemma that caught the parties with grace. Another
entry point for assisted negotiation is when the parties to a conflict get convinced that
giving into the demands of third party’s intervention to assist talks does not amount to
surrendering their ultimate control over the final outcome. In other words, conflicting
parties are likely to go for assisted negotiation if the negotiation process proceeds with non-
binding outcomes or if the process leaves the conflicting parties to retain a veto power over
the final outcome or a veto to disqualify any intermediary who seems biased or
incompetent. These issues of neutrality and competence of the third party are equally
important elements which determine the willingness of conflicting parties to go for assisted
negotiation. When parties agree a prior to be abide by the final outcomes of the assisted
negotiation the process refers to as arbitration. Here the arbitrator is chosen and agreed upon
by the two parties and listens to each side of the argument and arrive at a decision to which
 the parties have already agree to be abiding by. So arbitration represents the surrendering of
control over outcomes by the parties.

II. Mediation: Mediation is a form of assisted negotiation which involves the assistance of a third
party who is/are not involved in the dispute/conflict, who may be of a unique status that gives
him or her certain authority with the disputants/conflicting parties; or perhaps an outsider who
may be regarded by them as a suitably competent and neutral go-between. It must be kept in
mind that all forms of mediation are in some way negotiations but not necessarily visversa.
Conceptually, negotiation has to do with argument, bargaining and compromise between
protagonists trying together to find their way towards a settlement whereas mediation, with the
necessary involvement of a third party, is a psychological effort to change perception both of
the conflict and of the enemy to the extent that both protagonists gain some hope of reasonable
resolution and so are more prepared to negotiate more seriously. Mediation, in this sense, has
the purpose to abate the illusions of the responsible protagonists so that they may better be able
to make realistic efforts to end the conflict by negotiation. This kind of mediation is called pure
mediation to differentiate it from the much more used form of mediation i.e. ‘mediation with a
muscle’.
 As different from arbitration, mediation does not in principle imply to the conflicting parties to
be abide by the final outcome. Mediations are more of consensual process of assisted
negotiation. Here the point is that, at least theoretically, mediators do not have formal basis of
authority to demand conflicting parties to surrender their veto over the final outcome. But, in
practice one can make a distinction between ‘pure’ vs. ‘mediation with a muscle’ as two types
of mediation practices.
 Pure mediation: it is more of a voluntary process in which the parties to the mediation not only
retain the veto over the final outcomes but decidedly reduce the role of the mediator to
procedural assistance only. An example of this is the process of conciliation or facilitation.
Here the facilitator assumes the role of encouraging the parties to move towards negotiation
focusing entirely on the process and procedural issues agreed up on by the parties. These
include offering a good office for the parties, making sure meetings takes place in the time and
place, seeing meeting spaces are arranged as agreed upon, ensuring that notes and minutes of
the meetings are kept etc. Facilitators do not give their own ideas on the substantive issues but
focus on the communication by monitoring the quality of the dialogue intervening only through
questions when there is a need to enhance understanding. Although limited and procedurally
oriented, the role of facilitators is important. Through their good office, facilitators make
 possible a negotiation process that would have been otherwise impossible. Facilitators
encourage parties to give a try to the possibilities of coming to the table without giving up any
of their control over the substance of their negotiating issue. In fact facilitation, by encouraging
parties to deal with less controversial and procedural issues first enhances confidence building
towards a further dialogue on substantive issues. This is because; parties who experience a
certain degree of agreement over less controversial issues are likely to develop a sense of
accomplishment in the process and a desire to go on further.
 ‘Mediation with a muscle’ is when the third party has certain extra leverage to force the
outcome of mediation although the conflicting parties formally retain their veto. In this case, a
mediator affects the content and substance of the bargaining process by providing incentives for
the parties to negotiate or by issuing ultimatums directly with aim to change the way issues are
framed and the behavior associated with them.
 Mediation is a very complex undertaking with long duration to bear result as most conflicts
may not be settled quickly unless some non-mediatory force merely suppress the symptoms of
the violence temporarily without removing the causes. The complexity, therefore, results from
the fact that in any given conflict mediators may change, their role may be redefined, issues
may alter, indeed even the parties involved in the conflict may and often do change. Mediators
may intervene early in a conflict in an attempt to prevent it, or later on when fatalities have
already reached high levels. In order to fully understand this complex reality a comprehensive
definition of mediation is that it is a process of conflict management, related to but distinct from
the parties’ own negotiations, where those in conflict seek the assistance of, or accept an offer
of help from, an outsider (whether an individual, an organization, a group, or a state) to change
their perceptions or behavior, and to do so without resorting to physical force or invoking the
authority of law.
 From the definition we recognize that any mediation situation comprises four elements (a)
parties in conflict, (b) a mediator, (c) a process of mediation, and (d) the context of mediation.
All these elements are important in mediation. Together they determine its nature, quality, and
effectiveness, as well as why some mediation efforts succeed while others fail. What mediators
do in their efforts to resolve a conflict may depend, to some extent, on who they are and what
resources and competencies they can bring to bear. Ultimately, though, their efforts depend on
who the parties are, the context of the conflict, what is at stake, and the nature of their
interaction making mediation, above all, adaptive and responsive.
 Motives for mediation
 Why does mediation even take place? The process is time-consuming, involves risks and
uncertainty and often does result in failure. Besides, not every actor can afford or has the
credibility and time to mediate. So, why mediate? Why parties in conflict would be prepared to
relinquish control over aspects of their conflict management experience. Why would a third
party be willing to intervene in a serious conflict that has defied many attempts at resolution?
In fact the parties’ motivation and commitment to accept and engage in mediation undoubtedly
affect the outcome of mediation. Effective mediation requires consent, high motivation,
political will, and active participation.
 Traditional approaches to mediation assume that conflict parties and a mediator share one
reason for initiating mediation: a desire to reduce, abate, or terminate a conflict. To this end,
both sides may invest considerable personnel, time, and resources in the mediation. For those
who alternatively view mediators as political actors, the motivation for the third party to
engage in mediation and expend resources is because they expect to resolve a conflict and gain
something from it. For many actors, accordingly, mediation is a policy instrument through
which they can pursue some of their interests without arousing too much opposition. The
relationship between a mediator and disputants is thus never entirely devoid of political
interest.
 Different mediators have different motives for intervening in a conflict. When the mediator is
an unofficial individual the motives for initiating mediation may include a desire to be
instrumental in changing the course of a longstanding or escalating conflict, gain access to
major political leaders and open channels of communication, put into practice a set of ideas on
conflict management, and spread one’s own ideas and thus enhance personal stature and
professional status.
 Where a mediator is an official representative of a government or an organization, as is often
the case, another set of motives may prevail. Such persons initiate mediation because they
have a clear mandate to intervene in disputes (e.g. the Charters of the African Union, and the
UN), they may want to do something about a conflict whose continuance could adversely
affect their own political interests., they may be directly requested by one or both parties to
mediate, they may see mediation as a way of extending and enhancing their own influence by
becoming indispensable to the parties in conflict, or by gaining the gratitude (and presumably
the political goodwill) of one or both protagonists (e.g. the frequent efforts by the United
States to mediate the Arab–Israeli conflict).
 Adversaries or conflicting parties in conflict have a number of motives for desiring mediation.
Mediation may help them reduce the risks of an escalating conflict and get them closer to a
 settlement; Each party may embrace mediation in the expectation that the mediator will nudge
or influence the other party toward their position; Both parties may see mediation as a public
expression of their commitment to an international norm of peaceful conflict management;
They may want an outsider to take much of the blame should their efforts fail; or They may
desire mediation because a mediator can be used to monitor, verify, and guarantee any
eventual agreement. One way or another, parties in conflict – and a mediator – have
compelling reasons for accepting, initiating, or desiring mediation.
 Whether we are studying ethnic, internal, or international conflict, we should understand that
mediation is not a totally a unique or a distinct humanitarian response to conflict motivated
only by altruism. A mediator, through the very act of mediating, becomes an actor in a
conflictual relationship. This relationship involves interests, costs, and potential rewards, and
exemplifies certain roles and strategies. A mediator’s role, at any one time, is part of this broad
interaction.
 To be effective, mediators’ roles must reflect and be congruent with that interaction. Mediation
as practice revolves around the choice of strategic behaviors that mediators believe will
facilitate the type of outcome they seek to achieve in the conflict management process. As
such, mediation is a coherent and planned activity involving various roles, tactics, processes,
and strategies that can be exercised in the practice of mediation.
 Focusing on the content, process and procedural aspects of conflict management three
fundamental mediator strategies are (a) communication-facilitation, (b) procedural, and (c)
directive strategies. In the first strategy, a mediator typically adopts a fairly passive role,
channeling information to the parties, facilitating cooperation with little control over the more
formal process or substance of mediation. The second strategy enables a mediator to exert a
more formal control over the mediation process with respect to the environment of the
mediation. Here a mediator may determine structural aspects of the meetings, and control
constituency influences, media publicity, the distribution of information, and the situational
powers of the parties’ resources and communication processes. Directive strategies are those
strategies of mediation which are the most powerful form of intervention. Here a mediator
affects the content and substance of the bargaining process by providing incentives for the
parties to negotiate or by issuing ultimatums. Directive strategies deal directly with and aim to
change the way issues are framed and the behavior associated with them.
 The choice of any one of these strategy is clearly affected by the nature of the relationship
between the parties, and the context of the conflict. Mediators adapt their style of intervention
to meet the requirements of the situation, and that certain styles or strategies of mediation will
 be generally more effective in certain situations. But there are certain general factors that
determine the choice of strategy such as conflict intensity, previous relationship, mediator
identity etc.
 Conflict intensity usually refers to such factors as the severity of conflict, the level of
hostilities, the number of fatalities, the level of anger and intensity of feeling, the types of
issues at stake, and the strength of the parties’ negative perceptions. When conflict intensity
is low conflict parties are concerned do not want third party intrusion. Mediators’ behavior
in such cases may simply involve being a catalyst for negotiations, in which case the least
invasive form of intervention would be used. In contrast to that, in high-intensity conflicts
mediators are keen to prevent further escalation and do so by adopting more active forms of
intervention. High-intensity conflicts are more associated with higher levels of mediation
involvement.
 Previous relationship has to do with how past experiences of conflict and conflict
management affects current behavior and determines choice of mediation strategy. Any
current conflict management is affected by previous conflict management efforts and any
learning that may have taken place. The past does, indeed, cast a shadow on the present.
Previous mediation efforts can establish norms and a certain relationship between the
parties, and these can affect their current disposition and behavior.
 Mediator identity; this describes the position of a mediator. This will clearly affect the
choice of a strategy. Who the mediator is determines to a large extent what a mediator can
do. At the most basic level, some mediators have the full range of resources and thus the
full range of strategies available to them. Others can only use communication strategies, as
they simply do not have access to expensive resources.
 In general mediation behavior and choice of strategies cannot be prescribed in advance. They
are part of the overall structure of a mediation event and context. Mediators choose strategies
that are available, feasible, permissible, and likely to achieve a desired outcome. Mediation
behavior is adaptable; it reflects to a large extent the context in which it takes place. This tells
us that mediation is not only about the presence of intentions, but also requires certain resources
and skills. Basically, it requires the ability to provide a wide range of ideas, options, and
strategies to be considered in the process. For this reason often it is advised that team
mediations are better for it brings together different people with a specter of positions to the
conflict parties and talents.
 Apart from the technical competence and willingness certain interpersonal skills are required.
Intermediaries must wield a level of respect and trust and must give the correct impression to
 the parties that their positions are well understood and well represented by the intermediaries. If
in group, intermediaries must have human skills that complement one another that would create
a balanced environment. This would include individuals with characteristics such as people
with tremendous contact, people with oratory/persuasive/skills and people with quick mind to
take advantage of opportunities and people with deeper analytical skills and understanding of
the conflict history and people with sensitivity etc.
 Although real-world mediations, be it at international or national levels, differ in many ways
due to the uniqueness of every conflict, one can identify some of the common strategies,
process, tactics and skills involved. In what to follow you will be provided with some of the
fundamental features of mediations and/or assisted negotiations and the related constructive
roles of the intermediaries. This can be seen as divided into three major stages or phases of pre-
negotiation, negotiation, and post-negotiation.
 Pre-negotiation/mediation phase: some of the initial or preparatory actives by the
intermediaries to get start the process of negotiation begins with meeting with the parties to
assess their interest with an attempt to convince the parties about the possibility of producing
better outcomes through consensual approach. A core strategy of this initial encounter is the
activity of representation. This is where the intermediary conducts the assessments of the
conflict parties to choose the leaders to represent the positions, interests and needs of their
group. Often a conflicting party does have different interest groups in it. So part of the
representation is to carefully devise strategies to make the representation accommodative
enough of the real character of the conflicting parties. Another core strategy of the intermediary
at this stage is to devise a strategy/ method of inquiry. The strategy must involve identification
of the origins, development of the conflict, the issues and the current status of the conflict. The
aim is to produce a draft protocol to begin the negotiation/mediation process. This report must
equally be fair and be based on the past experience and concerns of the conflicting parties. The
fairness in the eye of the parties serves the following benefits. First, it assists the creditability of
the intermediaries in terms of demonstrating their objectivity, well informedness, and their clear
positive intentions. Secondly, it helps create an opportunity for conflicting parties hear their
own positions and concerns and their opponents. This help the parties distil the central issues
for negotiation.
 The negotiation stage: Once actual negotiation is started, the role of the intermediary requires
certain strategies. One of the core strategies is empowerment action. Often mediations/assisted
negotiations precede a relation of inequality (in terms of skills, experience or resource) between
the parties. In this context, intermediaries must create an environment of equality so as not to
 expose the process be exploited by the stronger party. In situations of inequality and imbalance
the mediators concern for balancing and producing a fair ground and fair result should outweigh
their strict adherence to impartiality. Strict adherence to impartiality in the condition of obvious
inequality would give the stronger party a chance to dominate the process and ensure the
imposition of injustice. Another core strategy at the negotiation stage is manipulation of the
agenda. The intermediaries must encourage parties to deal first with less controversial and
procedural issues. This strategy helps the purpose of confidence building and good will on the
parties of the parties by giving them a sense of accomplishment and a confidence in the
workability of the process. Another strategy at this stage is control of communication. Often
actual negotiations are not like every ordinary conversation and are likely to be filled with
emotionally charged and irrelevant exchanges that would cause deadlock. In these situations,
intermediaries must constantly remind the parties to remain focused on the agenda of the
negotiation and may even require them to breakup sessions for informal behind the scene
negotiations with each parties separately. These informal sessions give the intermediaries the
chance to interpret to each parties the real arguments and concerns of their opponents. Informal
sessions are useful to the parties with the assistance of the intermediaries to explore where their
common areas lay and thus to develop compromise. In addition, it helps them develop empathy
and more open ended mind to accommodate each other’s interest. Furthermore, informal
sessions can be taken as opportunities for the intermediaries to present a more concrete draft
proposal for the parties’ further consideration, amendment, modification and reconciliation of
their divergent positions. This last strategy is called invention of options for parties by the
intermediaries. While doing so the intermediaries must take great care not to become
particularly supportive of one option against another or should not be seen as such. If so, that
would give a blow to their neutrality. Inventing options only involves suggesting alternatives to
the groups dispassionately.
 Post negotiation stage: Although intermediaries have far less direct role in post negotiation
phases, they can still have significant roles to play. The difficulty for a direct role is because
ratification of the agreed text goes beyond the confines of the negotiation setting as it requires
the individuals who reached the agreement to go back to their respective constituencies, who
may have some unrealistic expectations, and seek approval of the draft agreement. However,
the intermediaries could enhance the chances of ratification or legitimatization by providing
their assessment of the process of the actual negotiation process and how the participants done
it effectively in manners to enhance the gains to their constituency. A particularly useful
strategy would be to emphasize the emotionally healing aspect of the whole encounter by
 capitalizing on the common denominators between the conflicting parties and their respective
constituency and by constantly appealing to the transcendental humanity that might make the
conflict issue at hand comparatively less significant.
III. Problem-solving: is a more ambitious undertaking in which conflict parties are invited to
reconceptualize the conflict with a view to finding creative, win–win outcomes. Problem
solving workshops can be seen as sharing some features from what we above call pure
mediation. But they are distinguished for their less if not indirect political appearance as they
primarily try to engage individuals whose position in the respective conflicting parties is not big
enough to the extent of being the key decision makers regarding the conflict. However, in
mediations establishing relationship with the key decision makers regarding the conflict is the
way to changing the habits of the mind that generate and sustain the causes of the conflict.
Reconciliation is a longer term process of overcoming hostility and mistrust between divided
people.
IV. Arbitration: - describes a paralegal process lead by an independent third party, namely the
arbitrator. A decision toward resolution was taken by the arbitrator based on legal regulations
and the perception of the conflicts as stated by the parties involved. This result is binding and
the parties have limited control over it. The process can take place voluntarily o by legal
enforcement and is meant to relieve civil courts, being less formal and costly and much faster. It
is placed further to the right of adjudication. Here the participation of the parties is even higher
since both adversaries can choose who is going to decide the issues under dispute, where as in
adjudication the decision maker is already appointed by the state. The parties in conflict can
sometimes identify the basis up on which their case will be decided and whether the outcome
will be binding or not.

Chapter review questions

Write short answers for the following questions.

1. What are the motives of mediator's in the mediation process?

2. How do conflict intensity determines the mediation process?
 Chapter four

The concept of Peace and peace building

4.1. Defining peace

The term peace is used in wide spheres. It seems that peace has a variety of meanings in
different contexts of usage. This is because of , peace itself is connected with various
aspects; religion, education, social factors etc For example, what peace is in religion may be
different from what it is in philosophy, politics, military, or history.

 Peace literally defined seems to be a tool or means to end war or conflict, or absence of war
or violence. However, Peace is not merely the absence of war, nor can it be reduced
solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies. Even during the time
of no war, it does not mean people are at peace and society is peaceful, because problems
and hostilities may be still there. The reason why scholars are not satisfied with the
absence of war is that they view peace as the presence of more other good things like
justice, order, good law, good government, good relationships, well-being, freedom, respect
for human rights, security, etc.
 From our daily experience in life and social existence, peace can also be described as a
state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal and group
relations.
  It is an agreement or treaty between individuals, antagonistic nations, groups, etc.,
to end hostilities and abstain from further fighting or antagonism.
 It is also defined as the normal freedom from civil turmoil and violence of a
community; public order and security and the freedom of the mind from annoyance,
distraction, an anxiety, an obsession, etc.; tranquility; serenity.

4.1. 1. Types of peace

peace is a multidimensional concept that can be viewed and discussed through v arious
types such as internal peace, external peace, positive and negative peace.

I. Internal peace: is also called as "inner peace" p e a c e w i t h i n o n e s e l f , or" peace of

mind or soul".
 It is a state of calm, and peacefulness of mind that arises due to having no suffering, or
mental disturbance such as worry, anxiety, greed, hatred, ill-will, delusion and other
debasements.
 Internal peace is essential; it is generally regarded as true peace and as a real foundation
of peace in society or peace in the world. It clearly shows that internal peace influences
other peace. For example, a worried and disillusioned person is always sensitive to fight
with others.
II. External peace: is peace that occurs in society, states, and the world.
 It is a normal state of society, countries and the world - a state of peaceful and happy
coexistence of people as well as nature.
 In its broader sense external peace includes a state of social harmony, social justice,
social equality, friendship, public order and security, and respect to human rights. As
such, external peace is the absence of all social evils as well as the presence of social
virtues.
III.Positive peace
 Positive peace is a true, lasting, and sustainable peace built on justice for all peoples. It
is the presence of the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain
peaceful societies.
 It involves the elimination of the root causes of war, violence, and injustice and the
conscious attempt to build a society that reflects these commitments.
 Well-developed positive peace represents the capacity for a society to meet the needs
of citizens, reduce the number of grievances that arise and resolve remaining
 disagreements without the use of violence.
 Efforts to achieve positive peace emphasize: establishing peace by supporting non•
violent resolution of disputes, establishing social equality and justice, economic
equity, ecological balance; protecting citizens from attack, and meeting basic human
needs, establishing a civil peace that provides the constitutional and legal means
necessary to settle differences nonviolently , eliminating indirect violence, that
shortens the life span of people, sustains unequal life chances, or reduces quality
of life for any citizen ,practicing conflict resolution as a foundation for building
peaceful interpersonal relationships.
IV. Negative peace
 Negative peace is defined as a peace without justice. It is a false sense of " peace" that
often comes at the cost of justice.
 Negative peace is the absence of direct violence or the fear of violence. In a negative
peace situation, it may not see conflict out in the open, but the tension is boiling just
beneath the surface because the conflict was never reconciled.
 Efforts to achieve negative peace emphasize: managing interpersonal and
organizational conflict in order to control, contain, and reduce actual and potential
violence, reducing the incidence of war by eliminating the extreme dangers of the
war system and limiting war through international crisis management, preventing
war through strategic deterrence and arms control.
 The concept of negative peace addresses immediate symptoms, the conditions of
war, and the use and effects of force and weapons. Words and images that reveal the
horror of war and its aftermath are often used by writers, artists, and citizen groups in
their efforts to stop it.

4.2. The concept of peace building

4.2.1. Introduction

Simply stopping fighting does not mean putting a permanent end to violence rather persistent
work to find creative solutions to conflict is needed to build sustainable peace. When conflicts
happened, the next step is how do resolve it and how to bring a long-lasting peace by addressing
the core problems so that societies will not return to destructive violence.
4.2.2. Defining peace building

 Peace building is a long-term process of ensuring peace through encouraging conflicting

parties to talk to each other and bringing them together to discuss the issues and understand
the views of others, and repairing their broken relationships.
 It focuses on the long-term support and establishment of viable political, socio- economic
and cultural institutions capable of addressing the root causes of conflict and creating the
necessary conditions for sustained peace and stability. Peace building strives to transform
the social institutions and the discourse that reproduce the culture of violence and
structural violence through rebuilding fractured social bonds and alter people's expectations
of themselves and others.
 Peace building activities seeks to promote the integration of competing or alienated
groups within main stream society, through providing equitable access to political
decision-making, social networks, economic resources and information that can be
implemented in all phases of conflict.
 Successful peace building activities seek to create an environment that helps people to
resolve their differences peacefully and lay foundations to prevent future violence, to
create self- sustaining, and durable peace.
 It also reconciles opponents, prevents from restarting, creates rule of law mechanisms,
increases tolerance and promotes coexistence, protects human rights, improves socio-
economic development, reforms justice and security institutions, promotes a culture of
justice, truth and reconciliation, and addresses underlying structural and societal issues.
 Peace building is not a short term process. It focuses on long-term support and
establishment of, viable political and socio- economic and cultural institutions capable of
addressing the root causes of conflicts, as well as other initiatives aimed at creating the
necessary conditions for sustained peace and stability. Peace building occurs either before
violent conflict erupts (a preventative measure), or after violent conflict ends (an effort to
rebuild a more peaceful society). These activities also seek to promote the integration of
competing or alienated groups within mainstream society, through providing equitable access
to political decision-making, social networks, economic resources and information, and can be
implemented in all phases of conflict.

4.2.3. Dimensions of Peace Building

The are many ways categorizing the different dimensions or aspects of peace building activities.
Differing ways of presenting such dimensions are often linked to differing assumptions relating
 to the basic causes and drivers of conflict. Nevertheless, the following are identified as key
dimensions of peace building activities:
 Security dimension: includes
 disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants
 improving control of small arms and light weapons,
 security and military measures,
 security sector reform, and law enforcement
 Governance and political dimension
 Preventing spoilers
 Strengthening intelligence apparatus
 Rebuilding or strengthening legitimate political process and institutions, governance,
 Promoting civil society, elections, combating corruption and judicial reform.
 Support for political and administrative authorities and structures
 Reconciliation and promotion of non-violent conflict resolution
 Support for good governance, democracy and human rights
 Support for civil society and the media
 Legal action and truth commissions: balance between truth, justice, punishment,
reconciliation and impunity
 Social, economic and environmental dimension
 Reduce socio-economic differences and unequal distribution of benefits or
burdens as root causes of conflict
 Fairness in resource distribution, physical reconstruction, aid, and market uniform.
 Included marginalized and vulnerable populations and geographical regions
 Reduce competition for limited natural resources (e.g. land, water) and
environmental degradation
 Support control of exploitation and trade in valuable natural resources (e.g.
diamonds, oil, metals)
 Repatriation and reintegration of refugees and internally displaced persons
 Rebuild infrastructure ("quick impact projects")
 Support high-quality and accessible health and education services
 Stimulate productive sector development, employment, trade and
investment (legal and economic reforms, institutional and technical
cooperation)
 Psychological dimension: Addressing psychosocial conflict: includes trauma healing and
interpersonal and inter-communal reconciliation.

4.2.4. Actors of Peace Building

 Any successful peace building strategy inherently relies on a multi-stakeholders engagement
process with a wide variety of actors. Actors are may be groups, individuals, states, civil
society, Non-Governmental Organizations, community members International organizations,,
etc who directly or indirectly involved with conflict and contributing peace building. These
actors have different interests, motives, perceptions and adopted their own mechanisms to
bring sustainable and long-lasting peace. Their resources , power and neutrality determine the
success of peace building. Broadly actors of peace building can be classified as ; top-level,
middle-range and grassroots
 Top- level actors: are the main military, security and political leaders. These leaders are
usually highly publicly visible, and their actions may be sharply constrained by political
considerations. A number of regional and international actors have attempted to facilitate
negotiations between conflicting parties such as ruling governments and rebel forces.
Africa Union(AU) , United Nation(UN) , European Union(EU) and other organizations are
playing role for building peace.
 Middle range actors: are usually respected figures in business, education, religion,
community. These actors are generally have connections to people in both the top and the
grassroots level. extended Civil wars has been eliminated much of the middle-range actors,
as warring parties have attempted to their control within their territories. Middle -range
peace building attempts have focused largely on arranging meetings between religious
leaders, community elders , and other stakeholders from opposing sides deal with and try to
find possible solutions to their problems with the support of top-level actors.
 Grassroots actors: are primarily parties directly involved in the conflict, traditional and
local authorities, and community elders and religious leaders, women and youth. These
leaders often have a critical role in resolving the conflict formally and informally because
these actors are directly affected by the occurrence of the conflict and their role in peace
building process is immediate need to survive. And also they have played a great role in
organizing the community and religious followers for ending the conflict and promoting
peace or aggravating the conflict. The participation of those who are directly or indirectly
involved in a conflict situation are critical to peace building efforts because of these are the
key deciders for the fruitfulness of peace building activities. If any peace building
 process ignores them , the process may lacks legitimacy, which in turn aggravated the
conflict.

4.2.5. Principles of Peace Building

 For a successful peace building activities are governed through the following principles:
 Commitment and flexibility: Peace building is strategic and requires long-term commitment
and flexibility. It cultivates imagination where immediate reactive tendencies are prevalent. It
leads protagonists to look beyond their problems and see a future.
 Integrity: use a comprehensive approach that focuses on grassroots while strategically
engaging actors at middle-range and top levels of leadership and includes advocacy at local,
national and global levels to transform unjust structures and systems
 Participatory: to involve people not merely as beneficiaries but as active participants. There
are many different actors, instruments, and systems that affect the peace of a relationship,
community and society. Bringing all actors on-board and planning with the whole picture in
mind is critical
 Holistic: to address the full range of peace and conflict issues, the long-term causes as well as
the immediate symptoms and achieve right-relationships that should be integrated into all
programming.
 Inclusiveness and diversity: to engage and benefit the whole of society, since limiting the
engagement and benefits to only some people or actors will entrench the conflict problems and
driven by community-defined needs and involves as many stakeholders as possible. Respect
for the dignity of any and every person irrespective of sexual, religious, or cultural orientation
is the bedrock of human relationships. Peace building is about demonstrating reverence and
appreciation for our common humanity and living with our differences
 Sustainability: the process of building peace is supported for as long as is necessary, rather
than being subject to arbitrary political or bureaucratic timetables;
 Knowledge-based : because peace building has much greater prospects of success if it is
based on research and strengthened by continuing monitoring and assessment.
 Simplicity: keeping the process simple. Conflicts already lead to confusion and bewilderment.
Helping the parties to respond gradually in a less complicated fashion removes the fear that
conflicts, especially intractable conflicts, are insurmountable
 Collaboration: Peace building is about complementarily and not about duplication;
about collaboration and not about competition. The strategy focuses on mobilizing actors to
 clearly delineate their roles, responsibilities, strengths and limitations and evolve a coordinated
and harmonized response to any conflict and process of change

Chapter review questions

Answer the Following Questions

1. What does internal and external peace mean and how an individual's peace
contributes to the peace of society?
2. Explain the concept peace building.
3. Discuss the roles of different actors in the peace building process.

Chapter five

Indigenous Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Essence, Features

And Limitations

5.1 Introduction

Different societies of the world have developed their own mechanisms to resolve conflicts based on
their historical , traditional and cultural landscapes. Like in other parts of the world Africa, have
developed their own indigenous institutions. However, the mechanisms are different from a given
society to the others because of the difference in culture, tradition and custom.
5.2. Defining indigenous conflict resolution mechanism

 Indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms are grass roots and community-based mechanisms
of solving conflicts arising within or between individuals, groups and communities according
to their customary set of practices that are present in all communities.
 They are age-long and ancient set of practices and part of social systems which play important
role in the reconciliation, maintenance and improvement of societal relationships. The
mechanisms are deep-rooted and contained in the custom, culture and traditions of the society.
 Indigenous conflict resolution mechanism is a social capital that implies the ability of social
norms and customs to grasp members of a group together by effectively setting and making
possible the terms of their relationship, sustainability facilitates collective action for achieving
mutually beneficial ends.

5. 2 Main Features/advantages of indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms

Although indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms vary considerably from society to society,
from region to region, from community to community and from society to society, there are
certain features that indigenous institutions share in common. These are:

 Context specific: one of the features of indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms is that
each indigenous institution has its own distinct structure of resolution which dictates how
various forms of conflict should be resolved.
 Since there are different societies and communities with a specific history, a specific
culture and specific custom.
 There is no one single and general principle and procedure of "indigenous conflict
resolution mechanisms". Rather, indigenous conflict resolution approaches are always
context specific.
 Voluntary and consensual proceedings: indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms generally
require voluntary participation of both conflicting parties and reaching agreement to abide by
the outcomes.
 Indigenous institutions do not have the kind of coercive mechanism as does the formal or
modem system, and rely on social pressure and exclusion from the community to deal with
non• compliance.
 Locally circumscribed constituency: indigenous conflict resolution institutions operate
locally, that is, they resolve conflicts within particular group and often within specifically
 circumscribed geographic locations, often within a community of people who know each other
and live within close proximity.
 However, in few cases there exist institutions that cut across boundaries and have the
capacity to resolve inter-ethnic and inter-clan conflicts.
 Accepted and flexible norms, rules and values: indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms
generally deliver justice in accordance with norms, rules and values that are generally
known and accepted by societies. However, the rules and evidences are often flexible and can
be adapted to particular cases and circumstances.
 Group-based responsibility: indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms often consider that
responsibility for the harm rests, not with the individual but with the broader social grouping,
often the family or clan.
 The family or community members of the offender are involved in ensuring that the offender
among their midst complies with the verdict and where compensation is required may be
expected to contribute.
 Negotiation and compromise: indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms generally
involve negotiation between the conflicting parties to try and resolve the case amicably.
 This usually involves both parties accepting some measure of responsibility for the dispute
and agreeing to the decision. Rather than one party being viewed as the winner and the other
as the loser, both parties stand to benefit from reconciliation.
 Dynamism and responsiveness to change: indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms
are not static but evolve over generations to their current status, and can respond to changes in
views and values.
 Many have evolved in recent times and changed over the past periods to become more
formalized in response to interactions with the formal systems and regional, national or
international pressures.
 Restoration and maintenance of peaceful co-existence: indigenous conflict resolution
mechanisms aim to restore peace and harmony between the conflicting party members,
neighbors, clans or local groups so that the former accuser can continue to live together in
frequent interaction.
 Forgiveness and compensation: indigenous conflict resolution institutions often require
the loser or wrong doer to ask forgiveness and/ or pay compensation, rather than imposing
physical punishment or imprisonment.
 Compensation is often paid by one individual, family or clan to another in the form of
restorative penalty that enables parties to be reconciled.
 Public participation: indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms are usually held in public
and often allow participation by those attending it.
 Rather than being imposed, the outcome is negotiated and discussions may continue till the
decision is agreed upon by all present.
 The outcome needs to be consequential and requires public approval to enable decisions to be
backed by community sanctions of exclusion if required.

5.3. Actors in Indigenous Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

 Indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms involve various actors in the conflict resolution
process. The actors who participated in the conflict resolution process may vary from society to
society. In some societies religious leaders may be the one of the actors in the process. In other
communities clan leaders may take part in the process. Generally the actors participated in
indigenous conflict resolution process can be classified as :
 Conflicting parties(accuser and accused): they are the main actors or participants in the
resolution process because, the existence of the system depends on the presence of
conflicting parties, who bring their cases in search of justice. If conflicting parties were not
there , it would not be possible to have the system of indigenous conflict resolution. The
disputants familiarities with the system, their trust on elders or religious leaders, time and
cost effectiveness of the system are some of the reasons behind the local people's persistence
of the system. Participants in the indigenous resolution process may be relatives, friends,
neighbors and clan members of conflicting parties, religious leaders, and any passerby can
also attain. In most cases these participants may have the right to participate in discussing
the case. However, they do not have a role in decision-making.
 Mediators: the main actors in the indigenous conflict resolution activities are elders, clan
heads, religious leaders , respected persons, etc. It is crucial for a mediator to be trusted by
the parties to a conflict, and in order to achieve that, the mediators must be an upright and
honorable person, who shows will and determination to help the conflicting parties. In this
regard, mediators are selected based on their good reputation, wisdom, exemplary deed,
status, experiences, patience, commitment, talent, skill and knowledge in delivering just
decisions, well versed in traditional rules and other calibers. In many community elders who
are respected and accepted in their community by their wisdom, experience, moral standard,
knowledge of the custom of community, their ability to analyze and advise disputants, and
being character of patient are selected as a mediator.
 The crowed : the crowed consists of any interested person or sympathizer of disputants.
5.4. Weaknesses of Traditional Approaches

The major strengths of traditional approaches to conflict transformation are:

 Traditional conflict transformation does not necessarily put an end to violence in the long
term:
 In a traditional context, recourse to violence – violent self-help – is a ‘normal’ option. Every
peace deal that has been achieved is under the proviso that it might be revoked in the near or
distant future. A permanent pacification of the conduct of conflicts as it is given (theoretically
at least) in the context of the modern state with its monopoly over the legitimate use of violence
is not achievable in the traditional context. Moreover, certain highly ritualized and thus
controlled forms of violence are perceived not as violation of the rules, but as integral to the
societal order and as indispensable elements of conflict resolution. Fighting can be a means of
constituting and re-establishing harmony. Furthermore, violence permeates the everyday life.
Violence against weak members of the community, in particular domestic violence against
women and children, is a ‘normal’ feature of ‘peaceful’ life in many traditional communities (as
it is, one might add, in modern state societies) and for re-framing the context of the conflict.
 Traditional approaches may contradict universal standards of human rights and democracy:
 If councils of elders for instance broker peace deals between conflict parties and if these
councils actually consist of old men only, this type of gerontocratic rule is problematic by
modern democratic standards, all the more so if the young and the women who are excluded
from decision-making processes become the subjects of these decisions.
 Women often are the victims of customary conflict resolution processes that are dominated by
males in order to resolve conflicts between males, e.g. swapping of women between conflict
parties or gift of girls as compensation, or compensation negotiated by male community leaders
and exchanged between males for the rape of women or girls. Furthermore, the treatment of
perpetrators according to customary rules can contradict universal human rights standards, e.g.
by a violation of personal integrity or even torture.
 These problematic features of traditional approaches may themselves lead to conflicts.
Young women and men – ‘infected’ by modern ideas from the outside world – often are no
longer willing to subordinate themselves to gerontocratic rule. Of course, the severity of this
problem depends on the specific circumstances in the given community: In communities
where young men and women also have a say in community affairs or where custom is
 adaptable, the situation is more relaxed than in rigidly authoritarian or gerontocratic
circumstances.
 Traditional approaches have a limited sphere of applicability:
 They are confined to the relatively small community context, to the “we”-group of family,
clan, village or neighboring communities. This problem can be addressed to a certain extent
by re-framing of the “we”-group. Boundaries of groups are not fixed, but can be changed.
However, inclusion of certain far-away external actors such as multinational enterprises,
central state authorities and mercenaries will probably pose grave difficulties (although this
would have to be tested on a case-by-case basis), all the more so as traditional approaches in
such situations clash with modern external (and more powerful) systems of conflict
regulation.
 Another problematic group of actors consists of those members of the community who
willingly or unwillingly have left the community, live in a modern environment and only
have relatively loose ties to their places of origin. New types of leaders (warlords,
businessmen, politicians) are a case in point, as are young members of the community who
left their village in order to make their fortune elsewhere, mostly in the cities (and who only
too often fail desperately). The problem becomes particularly evident with regard to young
male ex-combatants in post-conflict situations. Often they are so deeply alienated from their
communities of origin that it is almost impossible to re-integrate them into traditional life by
customary means.
 To put the problem in more general terms: wherever traditional societal structures and custom
have been severely undermined by the impact of the modernizing powers of capitalism such as
urbanization, privatisation and monetarisation it will be difficult or even impossible to apply
traditional approaches to conflict transformation. However, even under such conditions it is
worthwhile to look closely at the specific conditions of the given place and conflict. For
example, it would be short-sighted to simply conclude that urbanization automatically leads to
the breakdown of traditional structures. Often people still have very close ties to their places of
origin or they transfer the ‘village’ and its values and rules to the new urban environment.
 Traditional approaches are preservative:
 They are geared towards the preservation of the status quo or the restoration of the
‘good old’ order. Disturbances of that order have to be controlled and fixed. Traditional
approaches only work in the framework of that order and are only applicable to conflicts
that occur within a given community.
  Traditional approaches are difficult to apply with regard to conflicts against the
community, conflicts that challenge the framework of values and relations of the
traditional order. The conservative character of traditional approaches does not sit well
with modernizing influences from either within the community – young men and
women challenging traditional authorities and the ‘good old ways’ – or from outside the
community – western external actors intervening in the name of modern values and
interests such as profit, taxes, statutory law and human rights.
 Given these pressures from within and without, traditional approaches will have to
adapt, and combinations of traditional and modern institutions and instruments of
conflict transformation will have to be developed. Although traditional societies are
generally characterized by a relatively slow pace of change, experience shows that
custom is adaptable indeed and that positive mutual accommodation of traditional and
modern approaches can be successfully achieved.
 Traditional approaches are open to abuse:
 There are many examples of traditional authorities abusing their powers for their own
benefit and to the detriment of the weak members of traditional communities.
 Misconduct commenced in colonial times when traditional authorities became
instrumentalized by the colonial masters. This tendency continued in the post-colonial era,
and it also is effective today under conditions of weak or failed statehood. Biased
approaches on the part of elders, chiefs, etc. that are sometimes merely motivated by
personal greed nowadays are often legitimized with reference to custom. Status and
prestige stemming from the traditional context is instrumentalised to gain personal
advantages.
 With regard to Africa, for example, the relevance and applicability of traditional strategies
have been greatly disenabled by the politicization, corruption and abuse of traditional
structures, especially traditional rulership, which have steadily delegitimized conflict
management built around them in the eyes of many and reduced confidence in their
efficacy. The co-optation of traditional rulers as agents of the state, and their manipulation
to serve partisan ends, which dates back to colonial times, not to mention the corruption of
modern traditional rulers, have considerably reduced the reverence and respect commanded
by this institution and, therefore, the ability of traditional rulers to resolve conflicts.
 Whenever the modern roles of politician, entrepreneur or warlord on the one hand and
traditional roles of elders or chiefs or big men on the other are united in one and the same
person, a perversion of custom is imminent. This of course weakens the legitimacy of
 traditional authorities and discredits traditional approaches in the eyes of community
members, and as a consequence traditional approaches are weakened in general. And in
situations in which traditional approaches no longer function and modern state-based or
civil society approaches do not function either, unregulated and uncontrolled forms of
violence thrive.

Chapter review questions

Answer the Following Questions

1. What is indigenous conflict resolution? And what make indigenous?

2. Compare and contrast modem and indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms.
3. Discuss the common features of indigenous conflict resolution mechanism?
4. What roles of indigenous conflict resolution Mechanisms play to the society?

References

 Dedring, Juergen, 1976 Recent Advances in Peace and Conflict Research: A Critical Survey.
London: Sage Publications.
 Folarin, S. (1997) “Christianity and Islam in the University of Ibadan”, B.A. Long Essay
Project, Department of History, University of Ibadan.
 Galtung, Johan. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict,Development and Civilization.
London: SAGE Publications, 1996.
 Girshaw, Tirsit. “Indigenous Conflict Resolution Mechanisms in Ethiopia”, Paper Presented at
the First National Conference on Federalism, Conflict and Peace Building, Ministry of Federal
 Affairs (May 5-7, 2003), Addis Ababa.
 High Miall,Oliver Ramsbotham; Tom Woodhouse,2002 Contemporary Conflict Resolution.
Cambridge: Polity Press
 Hobson, J.A. (2006) Imperialism: A Study (Cosimo Inc.)
 Jeong, H. (2000) Peace and Conflict Studies: An Introduction (Aldershot: Ashgate).
 Katz Neil H. and John W. - --Lawyer,1993 Conflict Resolution Building Bridges. California:
Corwin Press, Inc.
 Lederach, J.P. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington
D.C.,: UNIP Press, 1997.
 Nhema, A.G. (ed.). The Quest for Peace in Africa: Transitions, Democracy and Public Policy,
OSSREA: Addis Ababa, 2004.
 Ross, Marc Howard, 1993 The Management of Conflict. Interpretations and Interests in
Comparative Perspective. London: Yale University Press.
 Stewart, Frances. Horizontal Inequalities and Conflict: Understanding Group Violence in
Multiethnic Societies. London: Palgrave, 2008.
 Sweetman, Caroline Ed. 2005 Gender, Peace building, and Reconstruction. Oxfam Focus on
Gender. Oxford: Oxfam: Publishing
 Tongeren, Paul Van, e’tal. Eds.2005 People Building Peace II: Success Stories of Civil
Society. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
 Wallensteen, Peter. Understanding Conflict Resolution. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2007.
66