CHAPTER 2: NON-VIOLENCE, THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE AND THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN ZIMBABWE
4.5 Models of conflict resolution and conflict transformation
106
107
The transcend method is based on trained conflict practitioners meeting the parties in a conflict one-on-one in a conversation-style setting. Often, conflicting parties are wedded to their positions and tend to attribute everything wrong on their adversaries. They are basically blocked to any other way of viewing the situation. The transcend method uses dialogue and creativity in an effort to expand the spectrum of acceptable outcomes among conflicting parties. Beyond exacerbating conflicts or just compromising for the sake of peace, the method goes beyond by stimulating creativity and developing new perspectives through conversation- style dialogues.
Galtung (2004) postulates that the transcend method is underpinned on the processes of a third party encouraging disputing parties to refrain from calcifying their respective positions and moving them each toward new and creative perspectives on the problem. This is firstly done by probing and exploring the negative goals (fears) and positive goals (hopes). With optimum creativity, this will open cognitive space to new outcomes not envisioned by the parties. Such outcomes will relate to the range of goals seen by the parties. Allaying the fears and satisfying the hopes from a different angle. At this stage, positive outcomes are creatively enlarged to arrive at positive goals that overlap for both sides. Secondly, mutual acceptability is built by taking into account all kinds of objections and probing for sustainability of the new possibilities. Thirdly, parties would meet to negotiate the details of a transcending outcome, beyond a compromise. A new common goal that goes beyond (transcend) the original goals may be identified to cement the new positive relationship that emerges. Galtung warns us of the mistake of failing to take account the whole ABC triangle as fallacious. Conflict can only be transformed if all the issues in ABC are dealt with in a holistic way. Conflict transformation has a task to change the direction of the flow of events so that escalation is turned into de-escalation and polarisation into positive interaction. In such a positive transcendence conflict parties move from a lose-lose position to a win-win position. The diagram on Figure 4.3 below and the explanation that follows explains Galtung’s model, as expatiated by Wallensteen (2002, p36-7).
108
A(100%)
0% B(100%)
Figure 4.3, Galtung’s basic diagram for elementary conflict transformation, adapted
from Wallensteen, (2002, p37).
Figure 4.3 above shows actors A and B with contradictory goals. If A gets 100% of the available resources, there is nothing left for B, and vice versa. If either one wins, the resource finds itself at either point A or point B, respectively, meaning complete victory for one actor, and complete defeat for the other. It is an outcome an actor is not likely to abide by easily and voluntarily.
Anything beyond these points may, however, be more acceptable and possible. Along the diagonal are positions at which the parties may meet. C marks a classical point, where the parties divide the resources 50-50, equally much (or little) for each side. The parties may also agree on going to point E, none of them takes anything, and the valuable may be handed to another actor, or are destroyed during the fighting. To the right and above the line is where Galtung’s ideas lead: transcendence. The hope is to find points of type D, where both parties can get what they want at the same time. Creativity is needed for transcendence, as espoused by Brand-Jacobsen above. Conflict often stifles innovations and reduces the options perceived by the actors.
E A loses and B loses
B B wins and A loses A A wins
and B loses
C
Compromise
D A wins and B wins
109
4.5.2 Ronald Fischer’s Interactive Conflict Resolution (ICR)
Fischer (2005) recognises the unofficial facilitated interactions between antagonists in violent and protracted conflicts. In line with Lederach’s model, he notes that such interventions are increasingly being directed towards all levels of actors, involving high-level influentials who have an ear of the leaderships, mid-level influentials from a variety of sectors who can influence policy-making and/or public opinion, and grassroots leaders who are essential in shaping public attitudes and peacebuilding initiatives on the ground. Fischer further borrows from John Burton’s ‘problem-solving conflict resolution’ approach and refines it to develop what he refers to as Interactive Conflict Resolution (ICR). He defines ICR as “small group problem-solving discussions between unofficial representatives of identity groups or states engaged in destructive conflicts that are facilitated by an impartial third-party panel of social scientist practitioners”. In a broader definition, he says these include “ facilitated face-to-face activities in communication, training, education or consultation that promotes collaborative conflict analysis, problem solving and reconciliation among parties engaged in protracted conflict in a manner that addresses basic human needs and promote the building of peace, justice and equality” (Fischer, 2005, p2). He elaborates this by asserting that it could encompass, for example, dialogue at community level with neighbourhood residents from conflicting groups facilitated by skilled practitioners. It could also include training workshops in the concepts and skills of conflict analysis and resolution which bring together participants from contending collectivities in interactions that may only at times focus on the relations between their groups.
In this case the third party may have generic knowledge of conflict but limited knowledge of the conflict from which the participants come.
In Fischer’s model, third parties may organise inter-group educational activities, more structured and information laden, with the intent of broadening and informing the attitudes that members of the groups hold toward each other.
110 Characteristics of ICR
Firstly, it is quiet yet not a secret back-channel approach, which does not seek publicity but is quick to explain its purpose as an analytical exercise designed to increase mutual understanding of the conflict among unofficial influentials that might assist in charting broad directions toward peaceful outcomes. Secondly, it offers the leadership of the parties an informal, low-risk, neutral and non-committal forum, where people they trust can engage in an exploratory analysis geared to joint problem-solving which just might create some ideas that could point the way out of their destructive mess, while at the same time assuring that their basic needs are also addressed. Thirdly, it develops alternative forms of interaction which could be complementary to official negotiation and implementation. ICR emphasises that effective and constructive face to face interaction among representatives of the parties themselves is required to understand and resolve complex inter-communal and international conflicts.
However, Fischer warns that ICR interventions are complex operations taking place in an even more complex field of conflict affected by countless conditions, dynamics and other forces that determine outcomes, all of which are subject to varying interpretations.
A central assumption of ICR is that constructive analysis and creative problem-solving between antagonists can be most satisfactorily implemented through the assistance of a skilled and knowledgeable third party. The method also takes a social psychological approach by asserting that relationship issues (misconceptions, unmet basic needs etc.) must be addressed and that the conflict will be resolved only by mutually acceptable solutions that are developed through joint interaction. The objectives of the discussions typically range from individual attitude change through the generation of innovative, mutually agreeable solutions to the conflict, to improvements in the wider relationship between the parties.