Features

Resolving Conflict

A whole of society approach brings results

Dr. Shruti Sharma

The war on terror has changed tremendously since the 9/11 attacks in the United States, which sparked a drive for sustained global efforts to contain terrorism.

Close to 15 years down the line, we unfortunately see an increase in the expanse of terror and conflicts. The emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has profoundly altered the picture.

The conflict is perplexing. It ranges across space, from countries such as Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt, to Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and many more. It spans time, with each of these conflicts having a lengthy history. The complexity of the crises is also perplexing, where one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

In spite of all the differences that separate these conflicts, some similarities run through them. Attempts to deal with any of these conflicts make it imperative to understand the underlying similarities among them.

Common Threads Across Conflicts

Such conflicts have at least four common features. First, all of them emerge from highly fragmented societies. Most nations facing unrest today have heterogeneous populations with a history of friction among factions.

Second, there is a history of conflict between the various fragments that dates back to the prepolitical state period. Most of the conflicts that we see today are a continuation of historical conflicts that were present before the advent of current states and political institutions that govern these regions today. In fact, many of these states along with their institutions of governance were superimposed on an underlying set of conflicts.

For instance, we could look at some conflicts in Africa, where the ethnic strife among various tribes and clans predates the current political organization of the continent. Similarly, the societal divisions among tribes and groups in northeast India predates the Indian state. The tensions between Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese predate the Sri Lankan state.

Third, the idea of a nation-state as a vehicle of political organization emerged much later and was influenced and shaped by these ongoing conflicts within the societies. A closer look at state formation in these regions highlights that the pre-existing fault lines — built on historic rivalries, defined by ethnicity, economic class, social caste, socio-religious identity and linguistic identity — were carried on to gain control over the state institutions and resources.

Indian voters wait in line to cast their ballots during the Jharkhand assembly elections in November 2014. AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Indian voters wait in line to cast their ballots during the Jharkhand assembly elections in November 2014. AFP/GETTY IMAGES

The nations that failed to take along all those who comprised a part of the society as “a nation” or “a people” have experienced the intensification of these conflicts. The conflicts in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia and many other nations can be understood from this prism.

Fourth, the creation of new political institutions of governing became another arena to carry forward the conflicts. The newly created political institutions across South Asia and the Middle East have seen elites from various factions clash in efforts to capture more power. In most cases, certain classes could gain greater control, leading to the exclusion of others.

This allowed the pre-existing conflicts to be carried forward through a new avatar — the political institutions of the state. These factors underscore the need to understand conflicts in their historical perspective. Hence, the first step in containing political violence must be understanding the history and the continuing exclusions that perpetuate these conflicts.

Conflicts and Exclusion: The Inter-linkages

There is a mutually sustaining relationship between conflicts and political exclusion. Exclusions are mostly studied from the perspective of the state. However, there is also a need to understand exclusion from the perspective of those excluded, rather than solely from the perspective of the state actors.

Research interactions with respondents in conflict zones, be it Kashmir or Manipur in India, invariably bring up the word “injustice” the moment that questions are asked about the ongoing conflict.

Researchers have found three reasons why people who consider themselves excluded fight
to correct injustices:

Recognition: Each collective of people that a nation-state claims as citizens needs to feel recognized equally. Whenever any single group feels underrecognized as a part of the state, seeds of conflict are sown. The demand for fair recognition transitions from a “felt need” to formal demand in terms of representation in political institutions. It becomes a yardstick to measure the levels to which a community is recognized by a state. This can be classified as a demand for equality.

Representation: As can be gauged from all the conflicts mentioned so far, excluded people struggle for “fair” representation. Perpetual denial leads to polarization along fault lines — which could be ethnic, tribal, linguistic, economic or regional, depending upon the context of the conflict. For example, many of the struggles on the African continent are between ethnic groups striving to either retain control over political institutions or to upset the current arrangement in their favor. This can be equated with a demand for liberty to shape their own progress.

Equitable development: The issues here are basic needs such as food, shelter, education, health, employment and connectivity — the needs that shape people’s everyday existence. Tensions are worsened by the perception that the two previously noted factors lead to inequitable development, both human and infrastructural, and that better development could meet these basic needs. A vicious cycle is generated when all three factors work simultaneously, strengthening each other and perpetuating a sense of alienation that brews conflict.

These three aspects can be condensed into the age-old demands of equality, liberty and justice that most societies have come to see as rightful demands.

Denial of these three factors combines to create a sense of injustice that fuels a web of perceptions, breeding and eventually nurturing conflict, an expression of which is armed resistance or terrorism. Thus, exclusion acts as a gear of conflict in society. Certain factions control the political institutions, accentuating the exclusion of other groups and nurturing a sense of injustice. Each rotation of the gear perpetuates this exclusion.

It is important to understand that this gear is able to reverse its mechanics and break free of the vicious cycle of conflict. The beginning of this reversal can be achieved only by an honest inquiry into exclusions from the perspectives of those excluded and by correcting those stands and actions that perpetuate that sense of exclusion.

Whole of Society Approach

The whole of society approach implies a partnership in governance between the state and various sections of society that the state seeks to represent, organize and regulate. In that sense, this approach makes these components partners in the process of governance. As can be deduced from the Arab Spring uprisings, there is a strong demand for equality and partnership among citizens globally.

Along with the state, the primary stakeholders in the whole of society approach are women, youth and civil society organizations (CSOs).

In containing conflict, the focus is often on the terrorist, who frequently is a fringe element in a society reeling under war and conflict. However, between the protagonist (state) and the antagonist (terrorist), there is a larger society that gets neglected and further excluded.

Conflict situations have a disempowering effect on women and children globally. The current conflicts provide numerous illustrations, such as schoolgirls being held hostage for attending school in Nigeria or ISIL’s harsh treatment of Yazidi and other female captives. Each conflict has its own set of ramifications on women and children.

The mere fact that conflicts inherently contain seeds of criminality toward women is beyond argument and denial. The breakdown of law and order causes the most serious repercussions for them.

The extent of their suffering paradoxically makes them the strongest stakeholders for establishing the rule of law again. The response of escapees from Boko Haram to return to the very schools that were considered un-Islamic and the response of Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace in forcing the warring factions in Liberia to sign a peace pact substantiates the claim that women can play a critical role in forging sustainable peace.

The whole of society approach also underscores the need for a level of trust between CSOs working in conflict areas and the respective states. Many CSOs such as the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders work to create normal living conditions for those forced to live under the shadow of violence — especially women and children.

Many CSOs find themselves at a crossroads, becoming a target of extremists as well as being distrusted by certain states by virtue of their work. In Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India and elsewhere, many activists have been marginalized for their efforts or for their criticism. A recent example was the assassination of Pakistani human rights activist Sabeen Mahmud in April 2015.

Initially, trust is needed for any discursive process to begin between states and CSOs. Mutual trust is often lacking due to claims of human rights violations that these organizations highlight, creating unease between the two sides in this dialogue. Further, government officials often denounce CSOs as “armchair critics.”

Dissent and criticism are constructive for better developing any idea, and this is expected of a state rather than a high-handed curb on dissenting voices. Repressing dissent is not conducive for peace and cooperation. The whole of society approach recommends a partnership between states and CSOs.

There have been practical examples of the two sides joining forces for better governance. For instance, activists with Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace are engaged in drafting the constitutional rights for women in a new Libyan constitution.

Women have formed many CSOs in conflict states such as Afghanistan, India, Liberia and Libya. Various indigenous women’s initiatives have engaged with states to contain conflicts, such as the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace, Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace, School of Leadership Afghanistan and the Manipur Women Gun Survivors Network in India.

In some cases, states can be seen to be responding with a gradual yet decisive inclusion of women in political decision-making roles. In the Jharkhand state of India,  the process was triggered by a number of national-level policies empowering women, leading them to take up positions of responsibility by winning local, village-level elections.

Conclusion

Inclusion and conflict have a complex relationship. Any attempts at conflict de-escalation require critical understanding of the links between the outbreak of conflicts, divided societies and political institutions. This understanding can provide a useful background to understand the existing tensions and conflicts. A comprehensive perspective on conflicts and inclusion can be instrumental in developing sustainable mechanisms to de-escalate conflicts.

On this basis, inclusive policymaking and implementation can be explored as an effective means of countering armed conflicts. However, inclusion is essentially reflexive, because each attempt at inclusion will push the boundaries of exclusion. Each wave of inclusion will lead to another wave, until those excluded from fair recognition, representation and equitable development feel that they’re a part of “a people” narrative that states seek to represent.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button