How can the termination of a conflict lead to a more sustainable peace? This book chapter, published by Palgrave/Macmillan, examines how different methods of violent conflict termination relate to prospects for long-term social change. Settlement, resolution and transformation differ significantly with regard to their understanding of the causes and nature of violent conflict. At the same time, the three different methods each involve assumptions about external conflict resolution, the effect on participants and wider impacts. Transformative methods – particularly traditional conflict resolution mechanisms – seem the most promising but are likely to require adaptation if they are to deal with violent intra-state conflict.
Social and historical processes influence how the parties to a conflict see each other and play a significant role in intra-state conflicts and their resolution. Understanding of the causes of a conflict cannot therefore be reached without appreciation of its precise social context. In Africa, such context is likely to involve social cleavages (introduced by colonial powers) which have become established in party politics. These divisions between privileged and suppressed sections of the population must be addressed in attempts to end conflict.
What do settlement, resolution and transformation approaches to ending conflict involve? Conflict settlement refers to strategies that seek to create a win–win situation. They target political, military and religious leaders – with experts and academics as facilitators – who are assumed to modify their behaviour once they realise it is to their advantage. Conflict resolution involves process-oriented efforts to address the underlying structural causes of violent conflicts. It involves a broader range of actors, but while it may stimulate social change, does not directly encourage it. Conflict transformation does seek to encourage wider social change, through transforming the antagonistic relationship between the parties. Traditional approaches to conflict transformation, for example, involve elders mediating in a public process to help a community find ways of preserving its identity, socio-economic relationships and norms.
Conflict settlement and conflict resolution have been criticised for assuming that workshops will impact the broader society and for de-politicising the larger context. These methods are also seen to be lacking in their understanding of the causes of violent conflict and their basic cultural assumptions. The only one of these four criticisms that might apply to traditional conflict management approaches, however, is de-politicisation.
- Conflict transformation seeks to use and build on culturally appropriate models of conflict mediation, empowering those involved.
- Traditional approaches promote local ownership of the process, and are most suitable for the local cultural context.
- It is unclear whether traditional approaches consider the wider political contexts which influence its participants and whether they can contribute to long-term social change.
- Traditional community-level conflict management strategies seem more appropriate for dealing with mid-level crimes rather than intra-state conflicts.
If local conflict management mechanisms are to deal with violent conflicts they may need to be enhanced with modern dimensions – ‘new’ approaches combined with ‘old’. Further implications include the following:
- A theoretical framework is necessary for evaluating conflict transformation, and social change is crucial for any analysis of the uses and limitations of traditional conflict management.
- Any approach to terminating conflicts must consider the historical and social context plus perpetuating factors such as economic gains and interests. The socio-political context of both agents and structures is important.
- The relationship between the parties must be addressed in order to end a violent conflict, and the wider community must be involved.
