CHAPTER 2: NON-VIOLENCE, THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE AND THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN ZIMBABWE
4.4 Conflict management, resolution and transformation
4.4.3 Conflict transformation
Conflict transformation includes the process, action and approaches which seek to constructively address the conflict, dealing with the attitudes and behaviours of the parties, as well as the contradictions – the root causes and underlying structures and dynamics – of the conflict through peaceful means, using empathy, non-violence and creativity. It is described as an approach that addresses the structural realities of inequality, rights, and justice, and aims to transform violence and destruction into constructive social change. Conflict transformation is the process which leads to the development of a positive constructive outcome of the conflict, helping the parties to move beyond, to transcend the conflict by ensuring that goals of all parties are respected and their basic needs and rights are upheld (Galtung, 1996; Lederach, 1997; Wallensteen, 2002; Brand-Jacobsen, 2004; Miall et al., 1999; Miall, 2004). The emphasis here is on ‘process’ rather that a single act. For conflict transformation to be sustainable and effective it must address all the levels and manifestations of the conflict, including the root causes.
The Institute for Multi-track Diplomacy acknowledges the strong bias towards systemic change, and defines conflict transformation as follows:
Conflict transformation refers to the process of moving from conflict-habituated systems to peace systems. This process is distinguished from the more common term of
103
conflict resolution because of its focus on systems change. Social conflicts that are deep- rooted or intractable get these names because the conflict has created patterns that have become part of the social system. With the social system as the unit of analysis, the term ‘resolution’ becomes less appropriate. Transforming deep-rooted conflicts is only partly about ‘resolving’ the issues of the conflict – the central issue is systemic change or transformation. Systems cannot be ‘resolved,’ but they can be transformed, thus we use the term conflict transformation (http://www.imtd.org/transform.html ) Relating it to conflict resolution, Lederach (1997, p82-83) says conflict transformation “goes beyond the resolution of issues”, and locates it descriptively and prescriptively across four interdependent dimensions – personal, relational, structural, and cultural. He goes on to qualify
‘descriptively’, saying transformation refers to the empirical impact of conflict – in other words, to the effects that social conflict produces. At a prescriptive level, transformation implies deliberate intervention to effect change. Lederach posits that at both descriptive and prescriptive levels, transformation is operative at all four dimensions. The personal dimension refers to the changes effected in, and desired for the individual. From a descriptive perspective, transformation suggests that individuals are affected by conflict both negatively and positively, for example, in terms of their physical wellbeing, self esteem, emotional stability, capacity to perceive accurately, and spiritual integrity. Prescriptively, transformation represents deliberate intervention to minimise the destructive effects of social conflict and maximise its potentialities for personal growth at personal, physical and spiritual levels.
Lederach’s relational dimension depicts the changes effected in, and desired for the relationship. Descriptively, transformation refers to the effect of conflict on relational patterns of communication and interaction. Prescriptively, transformation represents intentional intervention that minimises poorly functioning communication and maximises mutual understanding, and that brings to the surface the relational fears, hopes and goals of the people involved. The structural dimension reinforces Galtung’s structural violence, and highlights the underlying causes of conflict and the patterns and changes it brings about in social structures. In this case, transformation at the descriptive level refers to the analysis of
104
social conditions that give rise to conflict and the way that conflict effects change in existing decision-making structures and patterns. At a prescriptive level transformation represents deliberate intervention to provide insight into underlying cause and social conditions that create and foster violent expressions of conflict, and to openly promote non-violent mechanisms that reduce adversariness, minimise and ultimately eliminate violence. Lederach’s cultural dimension is also buttressed on Galtung’s cultural violence. At a descriptive level, transformation is interested in how conflict affects and changes in cultural patterns of a group, and how those accumulated and shared patterns affect the way people in that setting understand and respond to conflict. Prescriptively, transformation seeks to understand the cultural patterns that contribute to the rise of violent expressions of conflict, and to identify, promote and build on the resources and mechanisms within a cultural setting for constructively responding to and handling conflict.
Zimbabwe’s multi-layered and multi dimensional conflict, as elaborated in Chapter Two of this study, fits Lederach’s conflict transformation prognosis and therapy in its descriptive and prescriptive levels, which also reinforce Galtung’s theory. The prescriptive levels described above also inform the AVP training and related interventions in this study.
Building on Galtung’s work, Miall et al. (1999, p156-7) outline five generic ‘transformations’ of protracted conflicts. First is context transformation, which recognises that conflicts are embedded in a social, regional and international context which is often critical to their continuation. Changes in the context may sometimes have more dramatic effects than changes within the parties or their relationships. Second is structural transformation, which recognises that the conflict structure is the set of actors, issues and incompatible goals or relationships which constitutes the conflict. If the root causes of the conflict lie in the structure of relationships within which the parties operate, then a transformation of this structure is necessary to resolve the conflict. Third is actor transformation, which recognises that parties may have to redefine directions, abandon or modify cherished goals and adopt radically different perspectives. This may come about through a change of actor, a change of leadership, a change in the constituency of the leader or adoption of new goals, values or beliefs. Fourth is
105
issue transformation which recognises that conflicts are defined by the conflicting positions parties take on issues. When they change their positions, or when issues lose salience or new one arise, the conflict is transformed. Fifth is personal and group transformation, which is a change of mindset among actors, such as offering reconciliation, or where an oppressive government accept their opponents into an inclusive government.
There is no single approach to conflict transformation. However, to be effective, Brand- Jacobsen (2004, p14) suggests that conflict transformation approaches and methodologies used in any context or situation should be:
Meaningful to the people/participants involved in and affected by the conflict, not simply imported from outside the community/country or imposed from above.
Practical, providing effective tools and resources for people to directly and actively engaged in working to address the conflict constructively.
Participatory, involving people as the participants, actors and decision-makers, guiders and implementers in the actual process of transforming their conflicts.
Rooted in the traditions, culture and people of the community (indigenous) and addressing the real needs of the people as identified by the people themselves.
Integrated, comprehensive and holistic, effectively addressing all of the issues – including the ABCs of each party – and aspects of the conflict, with different aspects and steps/stages complementing, reinforcing and supporting each other, avoiding the pitfalls of fragmented, competing, and contradictory processes.
Sustainable, not relying or dependent upon outside support and outside-driven processes and interference.
Inspiring, providing people with confidence and hope in their ability and the ability of the process to overcome and transcend the conflict, transforming it constructively, and creating new opportunities and possibilities out of the conflict.
106