University of Nairobi

College of Education and External Studies

MASTERS IN PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Conflict Analysis and Resolution

LECTURES ONE TO FOUR: THEORIES AND ANALYSIS OF

PEACE AND VIOLENCE

Course Outline: Definition of peace as absence of violence; definition and

dimensions of violence; relations of peace and development; peace in a
violent world.

Lesson I: Analyzing Peace, Violence and Conflict

In this course we will be talking a lot about three key words: peace, violence
and conflict. But let us start with a question: what is peace?
Activity 1:

Individually or in small groups, the class should give a definition of peace.

Normally it is difficult to define peace.

Peace as the Absence of Violence

We start by examining two common statements, namely “peace is the

absence of war” and “peace is the absence of violence”. Perhaps more
than any other period in human history, the 20C has been the quite
brutal with two full World Wars and several other quite large armed
conflicts.

As we write, several regions and countries, particularly the Middle East, Asia
and Africa, have been unstable for quite some time. For example, the
disagreement and the resultant killings between Israel and Palestine is
now over half a century old, beginning at the creation of the State of
Israel in 1948.

Kenya itself has not been at war with its neighbours for a very long time, that
is, since the “Shifta War” with Somalia in early 1960s. Internally too
there has been only periodic skirmishes usually during elections, and
full-blown inter-tribal wars in Kenya are unknown.

But can we say that the world, and, indeed our country, is really at peace?
Somehow, a close examination of the world situation tends to suggest
that generally we are not at peace with ourselves. We may not be at
war, but we are not at peace. We are “peaceless”.

Activity 2:
What are examples of peacelessness in our nation at personal, family and
community, and even at national level?
What are some examples of peacelessness at the international level?

From the above group activities, we should accept that, although we are not
at war, we have a lot of violence at personal, family, community and
world levels. This should make it easier to accept the statement that
“peace is the absence of violence” as the more valid one than that
“peace as the absence of war”.

2. Definition and dimensions of violence

This linkage of peace and violence is important. But we need a definition of

violence.

Activity 3:
In groups, discuss and define violence
In normal thinking, we tend to look at the concept of violence in a rather
narrow manner, usually associated with direct somatic or bodily
incapacitation or deprivation of health. When looked at this way, violence
ranges from say a slap all the way to killing, this being the extreme
manifestation. In this kind of thinking, we would exclude other types of
violence, for example, mental incapacitation that may include use of abusive
language and ignoring or chiding a partner at home on a regular basis.

The narrow definition of violence would require that there be an identifiable

actor who intends harm to be the consequence. In other words, an accident
cannot seriously be defined as violence; at least not at the human level.

However, if this was all violence was about, and peace was seen as the its
negation, then peace as an ideal would have little meaning since many
highly unacceptable social orders would still be considered compatible with
peace. Hence there is the desirability of extending the definition and the
concept of violence to be more embracing.

An extended definition of violence

In such an extended definition, violence is considered to be the cause of the

difference between what good we actually have as contrasted with the good
that we have the potential of having.

This concept is best illustrated by drawing the “cup of violence” to illustrate

the gap between actual and potential good that is caused by violence.

The Cup of Violence

Potential

Violence

Present position
It is generally human desire to have a full cup, be it of the untouchable
goodness or of more earthly resources such as money, good health, and
even power. Whatever increases the distance between what we actually
have and what we are capable of having is, by definition, violence. In the
same way, whatever impedes the reduction of the distance, between these
two parameters – the human potential and the currently situation – can be
regarded as violence.

A few examples will help clarify the concept. In the 21C, with all the medical
advances we that have now have, large scale deaths from preventable
disease, such as tuberculosis (TB), should be regarded as violence. However,
it would not be fair to conceive such deaths as violence in 18 thC because the
level of medical advancement then was far from what we have today.
Likewise, death from hunger in any part of Kenya today should be regarded
as violence because the country has the potential of averting it. Another
local example is in order. In 2006, it was discovered that 38% of Kenyans
over the age of 15 years (mostly women) were illiterates (KNLS, 2007).
Noting that Kenya has both the needed material and human resources, and
that the country has declare total adult literacy as a desired goal, this failure
is certainly an expression of violence since the national potential after 40
years of independence is much higher.

In 2005, the hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in Texas, USA with unusually
high destruction and human suffering. That area is prone to hurricanes. For
President Bush and his government, this was an ‘act of God”. However, the
fact that it was the poor black population that suffered most is structural
violence as the deaths were related to societal imbalance. Only the black
people had homes in that low lying area that was bound to be hit one day.

What would you say about the IDPs in our camps since 2008? Is it desirable
not to have Kenyans suffering thus? Are we capable of settling them? If the
answers to the two questions are positive, then the cause of the IDPs
remaining in the camps is violence.

As a recap, we note and emphasize the two key words – potential and actual
– using the literacy scene as an example. When the potential in a generally
highly desired/considered action is higher (full literacy in a situation with
adequate resources for the job) than the actual (present 38%), and therefore
an act was avoidable – but it actually occurred – then by definition, violence
is present. These two key words in the above definition should be kept in
mind throughout this book.

3. Six Dimensions of Violence

We will analyze violence under six headings

Physical and Psychological Violence
Positive and Negative Approaches to Violence
The Object of Violence
The Subject of Violence
Intended and Unintended Violence
Manifested and Latent Levels of Violence

a) Physical and Psychological Violence

There is need to include in the definition two types of violence: physical and
psychological violence.

While somatic (bodily) violence is easily visible and might even include
death, psychological violence – including lies, brainwashing,
indoctrination, threats, etc – needs to be considered as it reduces human
mental potentialities.

b) Positive and Negative Approaches to Violence

One can be influenced not only through punishment when one does what the

influencer considers wrong, but also the opposite – by rewarding when the

“right” thing is done – “right” as determined by the influencer.

c) The Object of Violence

Can there be violence when actually no physical or biological object is hurt?

Consider when a person or nation displays means of physical violence, e.g.

throwing of stones or testing of nuclear weapons. Though no one is hurt,
there is the threat of physical violence, and an indirect mental violence. In
fact, since the threat constrains human action through fear of injury, etc we
can term it as violence.

In any case, the whole intention is to constrain human action through display
of power/force that denotes possible violence if this or that happens. Note,
for example, the infamous balance of power between the so-called Big
Powers that kept all of us at tenterhooks was intended to have this very
effect. Moreover, a lot of resources that could have been utilized to increase
human potential were squandered on this useless armament.

d) The Subject of Violence

Is there a subject or an actor of the violence? Can there be violence where

there is no one committing direct violence?

We need to note two types of violence: personal or direct violence – when

there is an actor, as opposed to structural or indirect violence – where no one
in particular is involved. In both cases, individuals may be killed, hit or hurt,
or manipulated in terms of “stick and carrot” strategies. For example, if
people are starving – when this could have been avoided – then there is
violence, even if there is no direct subject-action-object relationship, e.g.
during a siege or the way the world economy is organized today with halves
and have-nots.

Another example of the distinction:

If a husband beats his wife, then a visible and recordable subject-action-

object relationship is established; as opposed to when thousands of
husbands keep their wives ignorant of world events, then there is structural
violence.
Another example is when life expectancy for the upper class groups is twice
as high as those in the lower class groups. In this case, structural violence is
being committed, though no one particular person can be named as the
perpetrator of the violence or no one person is being killed directly. In
general then the whole society or a large segment of society is guilty.

e) Intended and Unintended Violence

In both Judeo-Christian ethics and in Roman Jurisprudence (both of great

influence in our country), guilt is tied more to intentions rather than the
consequences. Hence the distinction between manslaughter and murder
even though someone was killed.

However, our definition of violence and peace (being the absence of

violence) are located entirely on the consequences side. This is important
because the concentration on who does what instead of what was done, to
whom and by whomever – will most likely let off the masterminds (and acts
related to structural violence) and catch only the small fish. If our concern is
peace, and peace is the absence of violence – then action should be directed
against personal as well as structural violence.
f) Manifested and Latent Levels of Violence

Manifested Violence – whether personal or structural – is observable; while

latent violence is something not there, yet it might come up anytime.

For personal violence, this means that a little provocation could lead to a
flare up leading to killings, etc – as is the case with racial or religious
confrontations. This indicates a situation of unstable equilibrium.

Similarly, for structural violence, we may think of systems that are

insufficiently protected against sudden external/internal forces, and that
could flare up with very limited provocation. It is for this reason that
studies on early warning systems are needed.

4. A Widened Perspective

As we have noted in 3) above, violence can be regarded in several ways: the

traditional thinking of violence to cover personal violence only; physical
vs psychological violence; intended and unintended violence; etc

It is however urged that making the distinction between personal and

structural violence the basic type of violence has advantages: it gives us
a unifying perspective – the cause of difference between potential and
actual realization; and also it places structural violence at the same plane
as personal violence since both are as harmful.

5) Why is making this distinction necessary?

We should appreciate that personal violence has come to the fore because it
shows; it causes noticeable suffering, usually on identifiable culprits. The
culprit may complain and perhaps action taken. On the other hand,
structural violence is silent and evasive. It is seen and often accepted by
both the object and the subject as natural and as the order of things.
But also note the converse and related facts. The thinking and the fight
against personal violence has largely taken form in what we would call
static societies – basically Western capitalistic ones based on Judeo-
Christian philosophy, where individual freedom has always been
emphasized; but also where such violence gets accepted as part of the
order of things - people will fight; a wife will be beaten, etc, and then the
law will take its course.

This thinking is contrasted with the fight against structural violence that has
arisen from what we would call dynamic and unstable Eastern European
societies. These societies were essentially Marxist in thinking in which the
ideals of the philosophy of the society/people (the so-called masses) took
preference before the individual. This is also a key African philosophy and
of many Third World societies - where resources were communally owned
or where, after colonization and its capitalist philosophy, re-distribution of
resources (held by a few) was essential for sustainable peace. This
distinction between these two world views has divided the world for a
long time and has been a major cause of conflict and violence.

As we conclude this lesson, it is in order to raise two pertinent questions:

Can “individualism” and capitalism – as embraced by the West, AND

socialism/communalism/the “people first” concept – a key African and
generally socialist concept – exist in harmony side by side?
When will society all over the world accord structural and cultural violence
the same leveled seriousness as it gives direct violence?

Lecture II: Peace and Peace Theory and Research

We begin by noting that it is difficult to define what peace is. Even Johannes
Galtung, perhaps the one scholar who has been instrumental in the
development of peace theory, has suggested that the best way to
define peace is to define violence, its antithesis. This kind of thinking is
perhaps informed by the fact that we live in such a violent world that
peace seems difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. War and violence
seem the norm. Some "peace thinkers" have even abandoned any
single and all-encompassing definition of peace; and have promoted
the idea of many peaces. They argue that since no singular, correct
definition of peace can exist, peace should be perceived as a plurality.

Meaning of Peace
Whatever the difficulty, we need to have a definition of peace that is
independent of violence. This would help us establish an intellectual climate
in which peace research and studies might prosper.

Peace researchers have proposed 6 meanings of peace:

a) Peace as the absence of war, that is, absence of direct violence

b) Peace as justice and development (absence of structural violence)
c) Peace as respect and tolerance between people
d) Peace as gaia, (balance in and with the ecosystem)
e) Inner peace (spiritual peace); and
f) Peace as “wholesome”, “making whole”, i.e. a feeling of total
satisfaction with life and anything around one.

Conceptions of Peace

Several conceptions of peace have been proposed:

Peace is a natural condition

The first is based on rational reasoning – that peace is a natural condition,
whereas war is not. The fact is that peace is a set of human social
goals that most human being desire to have. There is so much
literature on war and conflict that this premise calls for researchers to
now generate and present enough information so that a rational group
of decision makers will seek to avoid war and conflict.

a) War is sinful

Second, the view that war is sinful is held by a variety of religious traditions
worldwide. In fact, all major religions preach peace as their main philosophy
and linking it to godliness.

Judeo-Christian religions preach:”thou shall not kill”;

Christ is the prince of peace;
Islam means peace;

The Arabic term "Islam" itself (‫ )إسلم‬is usually translated as "submission"; submission of
desires to the will of their god, Allah. It comes from the term aslama, which means "to
surrender" or "resign oneself".[1]

The Arabic word salaam (‫"( )سلم‬peace") has the same root as the word Islam.[2] One Islamic
interpretation is that individual personal peace is attained by utterly submitting to Allah. The
greeting "Salaam alaykum", favoured by Muslims, has the literal meaning "Peace be with you".
 Jainism goes to great lengths to avoid harming any living creatures,
including insects. (See article on Jainism at the end of this lecture)

Regrettably, the most vocal religious groups – Quakers, Mennonites and

other Christian peace churches, Jains from India and Buddhists) are
small and have limited political clout; while many of the larger groups
have now and again been involved in sponsoring violence.

c) Pacifism

Third is pacifism: the view that peace is to be a prime force in human

behaviour. In various countries that have compulsory military service,
objectors of conscience may be allowed to skip military service and do their
national service in other non-violent areas.

d) Kindoki

Another view worth considering is the one from the Great Lakes Region of
Africa: word for peace is kindoki – which refers to a harmonious balance
between human beings, the rest of the natural world, and the cosmos. This
vision is a much broader view of peace than a mere "absence of war" or
even a "presence of justice" standard.

e) Peace in not utopia

Some thinkers also critique the idea of peace as a hopeful or eventual end.
They recognize that peace does not necessarily have to be something
humans might achieve "some day." Peace exists in the present and that we
can create and expand it in small ways in our everyday lives, and that peace
changes constantly. This view makes peace permeable and imperfect rather
than static and utopian.
Negative and Positive Peace

We have distinguished and considered the two essential sides of violence -

personal and structural/cultural, as basic. Hence when we define peace
as being the absence of violence, we also need to note its two sides,
namely: peace as the absence of personal violence, and peace as the
absence of structural violence.

Let us consider each in turn.

Peace as the absence of personal violence: normally referred to as

“negative peace”.

“Negative peace” is the kind of peace that might be possible under the
tyrant who oversees a non-violent empire but does not foster a sense of
peace. For example, consider the situation in Nineteen Eighty-Four by
George Orwell. While there was no visible violence in the whole society,
fear and acquiescence from brainwashed citizens (where children spied
on their parents, and listening devises everywhere, etc) was the order of
the day.

Think also of the problem of the "happy slave", who when told he is free,
retorts that he "does not want to be free".

Peace as the absence of structural violence: normally referred to as positive

peace = social justice.
Consider the views of these two greats on the issue:

a) Mahatma Gandhi suggested that if an oppressive society lacks violence,

the society is nonetheless not peaceful, because of the injustice of the
oppression. Justice needed to be an inherent and necessary aspect; hence,
peace requires not only the absence of violence but also the presence of
justice.

b) During the 1950s and 60s, when Martin Luther King Jr. and the American
civil rights movement carried out various non-violent activities aimed at
ending segregation and racial persecution in the US, he stated peace was
more than just the absence of violence. While there was not open combat
between blacks and whites, there was an unjust system in place in which the
government deprived African Americans of equal rights; and while some
opponents criticized the activists for "disturbing the peace", King observed
that "true peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of
justice."
But why the terms “negative peace” for absence of personal violence, while
the lack of structural/cultural violence is seen as “positive peace”?

Basically because the absence of personal peace does not lead to a

positively defined condition; whereas, the absence of structural violence
– that we call positive peace and also social justice – is a positively
defined condition that amounts to the egalitarian (i.e. unrestricted)
distribution of RESOURCES and POWER in society – whose
implementation would automatically lead to the reduction or elimination
of personal violence. In such an environment hostility and further
violence could no longer flourish.

Peace, Peace Research and Development

Conceived this way, peace carries an extra and new meaning beyond what
we have discussed previously. Peace is much more than the control and/or
reduction of overt use of violence. It also includes what is generally referred
to as “vertical development”. In other words, peace theory becomes
connected not only to conflict theory but also equally with development
theory.

Hence peace research – defined as research into the conditions – past,

present and future – of realizing peace, will be concerned with both
research into the negative peace; and also the development research,
concerned with positive peace; but both having highly important
overlaps.

Peace research needs to emphasize both sides – as both personal peace and
the general societal peace (social justice) are important and interlinked.
Peace between and among individuals and among their societies must be
based on a more equitable distribution of available resources; and also
through ensuring sustainable development through intelligent and
unselfish nurturing of these resources. At the personal and also societal
level, it is also important – more important even – to consider the
distribution of actual power as this determines how the resources are
distributed – whether it is at the family or the state level.

Peace Through Dialog 2007 - Dr. Priyadarshana Jain : Peace

19.10.2007
JAINA Convention
 2007

Dr. Priyadarshana Jain

Dr. Priyadarshana Jain is M.A,

Peace M.Phil, and Ph.D in Jainology; and has

Peace today is in pieces. The tragedy of our modern
times is that we talk of peace but silently prepare for
war. There can be no way to peace because peace itself
is the way. Peace is the quintessence and the goal of
life but the world seems to have lost the keys to the
been a lecturer for the past 10
years in the Dept of Jainology,
University of Madras, Chennai. She
specializes in teaching Jainism to all
groups and is a resource person for
Foreign students and other
foreigners coming for spiritual
retreats at various Christian

kingdom of peace. Religion in Latin means 'to unite', but
history reveals that many of the religions have more
often been the cause of war and disunity and have
disturbed the peace of mankind. Although all religions
and philosophies stand by peace and nothing else, all
saints and philosophers have lived and died for peace
but have never killed in the name of religion. A greater
need is felt today to understand the very nature of
peace and to understand the role of religion in its light.
centers. She has written many
papers and translated two books of
Jainism. She visited several cities in
the USA in 2006 as a member of a
special project for female interfaith
leaders from India funded by the
U.S. Embassy in New Delhi.
jainpriyaa@yahoo.co.uk.
Tel. in Chennai: 09840368851
Land line - 04465286778

As said earlier religion means to unite with God, with emancipation, but this
unification is not possible in the absence of peace, because only a peaceful mind can
be the mirror of God, of the Paramatman. Just as one cannot see one's reflection
in troubled waters, so also self-realization and liberation are not possible for a
person who does not know the value of peace.
Peace is one's own essence (svabhava), but in modern times ignorance, egotism,
materialism, violence, depression, stress, emotional imbalance, pressure of varying
degrees at various stages in life, seem to be mounting by leaps and bounds and
there are more psychological problems and cases than ever before. We are not at
peace with ourselves and are searching for peace in material pleasures and
mundane accomplishments where we are never going to find it. Peace is within each
one of us , in harmony is the inner strength and not in external people, places and
things. Just as happiness is a state or mind, peace is a state of the pure and
perfect self that is focused in the centre of life and not revolving in the
circumference of men and matter.

One who is at peace with oneself alone can experience and radiate that peace
everywhere. A person who is at peace with himself alone can realize peace in the
family, society, nation and the world at large and not the vice-versa. Peace is being
in the here and now of life. Peace is living in the present moment sans the dreams,
imaginations, desires, expectations, worries, tensions etc. Peace is in surrendering
of the external self to the inner self, realizing the potential of the supreme self
within. Peace is in the bottom most part of your being waiting to be tapped,
yearning to manifest, waiting there for you to return to your eternal home. The
greatest journey is that which brings you to your eternal home and this is possible
only through peace.

Peace or no Peace - the choice is yours but

remember what you wish you will find, if you
choose peace you have nothing to lose, but if you
choose otherwise you lose yourself and
everything.

Peace and freedom are the birthright of all

souls but we pass from one life to another
without realizing our purpose of life, which
cannot be anything other than enlightenment
(Sambodhi and Nirvana). It is only in
enlightenment that that fathomless,
unobstructed, and never-ending Peace can be experienced and enjoyed forever.

Had peace been anywhere outside it would have been found, but it is the very
essence and core of all beings and until we realize this it will elude us at every
step. Hence the need for right gods, gurus and dharma who will guide us at every
step to realize the peace within us, so as to be released from all external
conditioning. Peace happens when love meets wisdom, knowledge meets character
and mind meets the soul.

So, no matter who you are with, whether you are under the sun, what you do with
life as long as you are at peace with yourself, self-realized and enlightened, calm
and serene, cheerful and balanced, relaxed and helpful, undisturbed and
unaffected by the adversities and prosperities that come your way, chosen by you
in your ignorance in past lives. Now is the time to choose peace in wisdom,
happiness, cheerfulness, forgiveness, contentment and spirituality. When you live,
eat, walk, talk meditatively, peace manifests with ease and you enjoy what the most
materially accomplished people fail to enjoy.

Finally the mantra for Peace is REALISE YOURSELF, BE HAPPY AND DO GOOD.
Be happy come what may, and do well to all the people you can, by all the means you
can, at all the times you can and in all the places you can.

May peace be with all until we find peace.

Lecture III: The Search for Peace in a Violent World

1. Our Violent World

As already noted, we live in a violent world. Accordingly, many people do not

think or believe that peace on earth is possible; and facts seem to support
their pessimistic viewpoint.

So as to suggest an alternative viewpoint, there is the need to establish

showcase projects with innovative, high-impact strategies for anticipating
and managing intense group conflict and violence that afflicts societies
throughout the world.

This is made even more urgent because those organizations involved in

conflict resolution — unlike many other traditional development fields —
operate in complex multi-contexts situations and often with limited time to
manage conflicts. They are also so heavily overwhelmed by the sheer
enormity and urgency of the work at hand (for example, in saving lives) that
they have little time to study and record their experiences. Some of them
could also be believers that peace is just an ideal that would be difficult to
achieve – hence overlook significant increases in their effort for peace.

2. Barriers to Innovative Peace Initiatives

Lack of Empathy

Warring groups or gangs have no sense of their enemy/opponents as

humans who are entitled to rights and happiness, as they consider
themselves.

This lack of basic compassion and a feeling of superiority complex and a

holier-than-thou attitude, whether committed by or directed to an individual
or a group – is basically the root cause of prejudice and discrimination.
Prejudice and discrimination are key building blocks of many forms of
conflict.

This inability to see oneself in another hardens the heart and blocks the
ability to hearing another side of the story, a perspective outside one's own.
Your story becomes “the only” story.

This dehumanization of the “other”, this stripping the other of his/her human
rights (even to think and hold ideas); putting “them” into boxes and throwing
them into the sea – hence allowing groups to "justify" violence and killing.
For example, slavery was justified by designating the blacks as not quite
human. After all, they dressed differently, if at all; spoke no comprehensible
language; and did not even know God. “Abuse of religion” is considered a
serious matter by some of its adherents to an extent that they are prepared
to kill for this, although other so equally qualified adherents think otherwise.
The Rwanda genocide between Hutus and Tutsis and other ethnic cleansing
could be seen in this same light.

Culture of Violence

Consider societies torn by civil war; or cities and communities wracked by

gangsters (whether fighting among themselves or harassing the members of
society at night or at will); or families terrorized by their own members.

These terrorized groups create "bunker" mentalities among themselves

characterized by personal trauma, perpetual fear, and a belief that one is
powerless to change the situation. Historical precedent of "solving" conflict
through violence and the mistaken belief that “there is no other way”
perpetuates an endless cycle of "justified" revenge.

Group-based inequities
Discrimination that has been made systemic – that is, universal and
structural – leads to significant imbalances in rights, resources and the spoils
of society. This type of unfairness leads to three inter-related phenomena:
i) It lays the foundation for resentment on the part of the oppressed
against the oppressor, and the urge to do “something” about it;
ii) It encourages the oppressor to think of the oppressed as lazy and
incapable of rising to the situation; and
iii) Creates a mentality of scarcity – even in plenty - that encourages the
dominant group to perpetuate the status quo.

Corrupt or inept government and public systems

Failures of the system to render justice, equal services or timely remediation

lead citizens to take issues into their own hands and hence commit violence
on others, including the innocent, in “kangaroo” courts; or may come to
believe that discriminatory beliefs and practices are the order of the day,
and hence participate in perpetuating them. It is in such situations that
unscrupulous leaders exploit prejudices of the population to incite or
perpetuate violence that serves their political or personal gain.

2. The Alternative Strategy: Giving Peace a Chance

Realizing that violence only breeds violence, and that peace cannot be
sustained through force, there is the need to propose well-tried strategies of
peace building that reject war and violence, even as a last resort.

a) Humanize the "other"

Getting warring factions to see their enemies as similar to themselves is the

core component of peace, making true dialogue and collaboration possible.
This also demands that the disenfranchised groups be empowered to “see
themselves as belonging and hence also entitled”; and also to generate their
own agenda and solutions to their issues.

b) Create alternate systems

New systems in which people have confidence and with which they are
comfortable are needed. It might be necessary to do these reforms
simultaneously.
These may include new court and justice structures including community
based tribunals; new governance structures, including decentralization of
control of power and resources, new system to document government
abuses to counterbalance the failures of what went on previously; and
alternative education programs that empower the marginalized to
comprehend and hence help in operationalizing the above.
c) Explore original wounds

Digging into individual traumas, historic ill-treatment of groups, dynamics of

prejudice, and exposing injustice can all lead to a kind of healing that
releases bitterness and long-held beliefs. This is what the “Truth and
Reconciliation Commission” like that of South Africa and the Kenyan one are
supposed to achieve.

d) Create communities of peace/resistance

Communities with “early warning” techniques; trained with specific conflict-

resolution tools; acquainted with the mutual benefit of cooperation, and
armed with tactics to defuse heated situations, are more likely to find ways
to avoid violent conflict.

e) Build non-violent pathways to rights, equality and assets

Options must exist for bettering one's circumstances outside of violent

means. Hence the need for legitimate employment opportunities to avoid
drifting into criminal acts (case of Mungikis). It is also important to show
by legally-accepted collective state/community action that violence
(discrimination, prejudice, etc), corruption and embezzlement, etc does
not pay.

The end of Cold War has seen Africa implode and be engulfed by large scale
and violent conflicts that have been characterized by massive violation of
human rights and perpetration of crime against humanity. Examples:
Rwanda, DRC, Sierra Leone and currently Darfur, and even more recently in
our own country.

Yet despite this seemingly intractable cycle of violence and conflict, there
has been a parallel attempt to galvanize lasting and sustainable peace. The
search has not only been on attempting to prevent, manage and resolve the
current problems and addressing their consequences but more on tackling
the root and structural causes of the conflicts. The result of all this has been
the realization that violence has no place in putting Africa on a path of
sustainable development. People and nations have to swallow their pride and
accept that “there is no way to peace, and that peace is the only way”.
Lecture IV: The Conflict Theory and Analysis

1. Introduction

We start by noting that we all have extensive experience of conflict as it is

part of human very existence. We are always trying to manage conflict
one way or other (including even avoiding it at all costs); but generally
however, we have few skills of dealing with it.

2. Defining Conflict

Note that

a) Conflict involves people – (and other animals too on whom more and
more studies are coming up).
b) It is a state of interaction between two or more parties – or even two or
more parts of ourselves.
c) Conflict is a state of human interaction where there is disharmony.
d) It emerges when parties compete over perceived or actual goals,
values or interests.
e) It occurs when parties confront each other with opposing actions and
counter-actions
f) It is an indicator that something is changing, has changed or needs to
change
g) Basically it is an interaction that aims at “beating” the opponent.

We should therefore expect many definitions of conflict depending on one’s

the perception or concentration.

Activity:

Students in groups to give their own definitions of conflict

The word conflict arises from a Latin root “fligere” - "to strike together" or
“to engage in a fight”- and can be defined as any situation where one or two
parties aspire towards incompatible or competing means or ends.
Conflict may take place within one person; between two or more people who
know each other; or between large groups of people unknown to each other.

3. Conflict as a Perception Issue

For there to be a conflict, the situation must be perceived as such by the

parties involves. If no one is aware, then there cannot be a conflict.

A perceived conflict may also not be real; for example, if in the middle of
it all you discover that all along you have been talking about the same
thing. The initial perception of conflict was all a matter of
miscommunication.

Conversely, there many potential conflict situations that never matures.

For example, despite minimum wage legislation, many house servants do
not know about and even if they did, perhaps would never organize to
claim their rights.

It is the same with many oppressive cultural practices, whereby, though

those involved know these are wrong, they leave the matter to lie to
avoid obvious family conflicts.

4) The Perspective of the Conflict

A conflict perspective is a particular interpretation and understanding of

what is happening in a conflict by the parties involved in it; by interested
external parties; and even sometimes by independent observers.

Perspectives are normally standpoints, beliefs, values and views that parties
to a conflict and other people hold about the conflict. Often perspectives are
competing and conflictive, principally because they arise from differing
interests and positions of the parties.

Often also perspectives emanate from deep historical narrations, e.g.

a) Those communities that believe themselves to be warriors in history

would act today in a manner that would justify their past

b) Other perspectives may also have historical roots – that seem to place
one group against the other, with consequential rejection by the other

c) Some perspectives may of course spring from current needs of the

parties.
But whatever the perspective of parties, a careful analysis will discover areas
of agreement that could be useful common ground in conflict transformation
process.

5) The Role of Conflict - Four (4) Views of Conflict

Is conflict useful or not in personal and group relationships? There are a

number of views on the matter:

a) The Functionalist (Traditionalist) View

Functionalist view states that conflict is harmful and must be avoided. It sees
conflict is a result of poor communication, narrow mindedness,
lack of trust among people, and failure for the parties in the
conflict to appreciate and to respond positively to the needs of the
other parties.
Hence, conflict is bad and must be avoided. Conflict resolution then must be
directed towards identifying the causes of the conflict and putting programs
in place to help avoid future conflicts.
Though much research shows that this approach does not necessarily lead to
improved long-term conflict resolution, many people still evaluate conflict
situations from this perspective.

b) The human relations view

Conflict is natural and inevitable outcome in any group or relationship. A

conflict might even strengthen a group. Hence it should be welcome as
sometimes it is beneficial.

c) Interactionist View

That conflict is a positive and absolutely necessary force in a group for it to

perform effectively. Hence conflict should be encouraged since a friendly,
placid, cooperative group or relationship is prone to a standstill, becoming
dull, and unresponsive to the need for change.

d) Structuralist View
The world is full of conflicts, but the main one is hinged on the way the
economy is organized. Society is organized in two groups – the haves and
the have-nots, and inevitably these two groups have to be in conflict. The
have-nots are the many labourers – who produce all the wealth and
benefit little from it. Then there are the very few investors – who benefit
most from the wealth so created and also control its distribution. In the
present day capitalistic world, conflict between the employees - who
receive a tiny fraction of their produce; as contrasted to the huge
earnings of the investors;
has the potential to develop into conflict at various levels, including
demonstrations, stoppages, strikes, etc

6. Levels of Conflict

Conflict can occur at four (4) different levels, and at times,

more than one level at the same time

a) Intra-personal: conflict that occurs within an individual

b) Inter-personal: conflicts that occur between two or more individuals
c) Intra-group: conflicts that occur within a group
d) Inter-group: conflict that occur between two or more groups

Activity:
In groups, students to come up with relevant Kenyan scenarios of conflict in
the 4 categories (These could be role played)

See other examples from pp. 9 -12 of Conflict Management for Peacekeepers
on scenarios on interpersonal, intergroup and interstate conflicts.

7. Conflict Theory and Analysis

The main theory of conflict involves a critical investigation into the following
three elements: the structures and dynamics in conflict situations; the
actors, and the root causes of conflict. This analysis is important in
determining intervention mechanisms, the management and resolution of
conflict.

a) The structure and dynamics of the conflict

(The background and context of conflict

Three related dimensions are to be considered:

i) The distant past – may span decades or even centuries

 ii) Immediate past context – that may show deterioration of relationships
among parties, including the trigger that sparked the violence
iii) Current events –

This historical background enables us to understand the genesis and

dimensions of the current events in the conflict - that is, the causes and the
background and framework within which the causes have emerged and
matured.

But note that the parties involved will contest any conflict. In other words,
you will get different versions of the events. This contest by the parties is
important as it exposes the parties involved and highlights their interests; it
exposes the causes of the conflict; and it gives the conflict intervener
valuable knowledge to use in the intervention process.

Any conflict will be informed by a number of factors:

(see figure on p.20 Conflict Management for Peacekeepers)

i) The personalities and the personal perspectives of the individuals

involved, i.e. their relationship with the adversary, communication
skills, values, interests, needs, fears, etc;
ii) The social, cultural, political, economic, legal, and/or religious
context within which the conflict is set
iii) This context will be affected by the interests, position, power, rights,
feelings of, and outside pressures on, the parties.

8) Conflict Analysis

Whoever you are, and whatever reason you are involved in a conflict – either
as an intervener or a direct party – you need to a deeper understanding of
the conflict to be of value.

You consider three aspects:

a) The story the conflict: What happened? What was the context? What
is the time line?
b) What are the root causes of the conflict?
c) Who are the parties in the conflict? What are their roles, interest, etc?
How can you use these parties to bring to an end or reduce the
conflict?

Story
 Parties Root Causes

a) The Story
(Also known as stages of conflict process or conflict progression)

i) A factual account of what has happened – that requires talking to those

involved (and other peripheral parties); doing background research; visits
of observation; etc

ii) Background and the context: why the conflict? What are its causes? etc.
Note that these “facts” will be highly contested by the parties, each with
“own true story”
iii) A timeline of the events

Stages of conflict

Each conflict has its dynamics, characterized by different stages and phases
of change and transformation.

i) Pre-conflict – a period when goals between the parties are

incompatible and which could lead to open conflict. At this stage the
conflict is not well know since the parties try to hide it from public
view, but communication is undermined between them
ii) Confrontation – the conflict becomes open or manifest.
Characterized by occasional fighting; low level of violence, and search
for allies by warring parties; mobilization of resources; strained
relations and polarization.
 iii) Crisis – peak of conflict. In violent situations, this is the stage of
intensive fighting, leading to killings, injuries, large scale population
displacement, and the use of small arms, etc
iv) Outcome – there is an assumption that all conflict will pass through
this stage somehow: one side will win/another loses; cease fire may be
declared; one may surrender; or a stronger third party may impose a
solution and thus stop the fighting.

Reduction/Cessation of conflict is the main issue here to allow

discussion and search for other means of restoration of peace.

v) Post-conflict – violence has ceased or reduced considerably and the

parties have gone beyond the crisis stage.

Now is the time to address the root causes of the conflict - such as the
needs and fears of the parties. If not tacked now, conflict cycle may be
re-enacted and a return to pre-conflict stage, with the consequent re-
eruption of conflict, being a possibility. Now it is also the time mend –
rehabilitation of destroyed infrastructure, etc
(See UNDP work in this connection and the challenges)

b) Parties in a Conflict

In conflict analysis, it is useful to identify and to ascertain ALL the parties

involved in a conflict, even those who seem not too important. Parties are
 Individuals
 Groups, and
 Entities (organizations, states)

They participate in a conflict either directly or indirectly depending on

feelings that

 They have interests to pursue,

 Something of value is at stake, or
 They believe that their interests, positions or needs are
threatened in one way or other.

Indirect parties may be helping their allies and friends achieve their own
interest to which they may have long-term secondary interest.

There usually are three categories of parties to a conflict; and it is important

to know their relationships and their common and opposing interests.

i) The “primary parties” –

  those directly involved in the conflict;
 are most visible and commonly known, and
 who must be involved in any negotiations. For example, clans, warlords
and Islamic Courts in Somalia; main political parties in Kenya, etc

ii) The “secondary parties” – those who are directly affected by the conflict;
and those with the ability to destabilize any agreement they do not agree
with.

iii) The “peripheral parties”: those on the outside but still have an interest in
the outcome of the proceedings. These “indirect parties” (commonly referred
to as “shadows”) – could complicate the situation:

 They are not very visible in the conflict,

 Their identity and roles are difficult to determine
 They operate by proxy and may heavily influence either party in the
conflict – positively or negatively.
 They could also be your allies in the negotiations, as they have no
direct interest.

For example

i) In what category are Ethiopia, Al Qaeda, Kenya, America, Eritrea in

the Somali conflict’ and what is their roles?
ii) Who is who in the Mungiki saga in Kenya; and what are their roles?

Note:

i) It is necessary in conflict analysis to capture these parties so as to

include them in conflict transformation and resolution.
ii) Failure to include them might lead to the derailment of the peace
plan.

Positions, Interests, Needs and Fears

In most conflict, the different parties will be pursuing either one or a

combination of the above factors, whether consciously or not.

Where the goal is to reach conflict resolution, it is important to work – with

the parties involved – to identify and then highlight these elements – as the
basis for intervention aimed at the transformation of the conflict.

i) What exactly do you want? This question will give you the party’s
positions. Although this is seen as the tough and uncompromising
stand, it is only a preference that could change.
 ii) Why do you want this? This will give you the party’s interest.
Interest is the tough one - normally hidden and might take time to find
out exactly is behind the party’s seemingly tough position.
iii) Could be unexpressed needs (to also share the cake) and fears (if
they are in they will squeeze our people out, etc

c) Root Causes of Conflict

At the end of the day, all conflicts emanate from competing interests.
2 .4 .3 D im
cau
The Circle of Conflict is a useful tool for identifying the root causes of conflict
– covering
i) Relationship Conflicts: Caused by misconceptions; poor
communication; rivalry or competition in the relationship
ii) Information Conflicts: Caused by lack of information; different
interpretation of data; different procedures for information
assessment; different views of what is important
iii) Interest Conflicts: caused by different needs/wants; hidden
interests, etc
iv) Structural Conflicts; caused by unacceptable status quo; structural
social injustices or discrimination; unequal power/authority; unequal
access to/and control of resources; external influences.