3.2 Conflict Transformation Theories
3.2.2 Other conflict transformation theorists
41 3.2.2 Other conflict transformation theorists
42
According to Miall (2004), the theorist Galtung is a pioneer in the area of conflict transformation, who argues that it is possible to transcend conflicts if parties are assisted to explore, analyse, question and reframe their positions and interests. According to Botes (2003), Galtung’s theory of conflict transformation has more to offer in respect that every conflict has a finite life and an end whereby it is solved or declared intractable. Galtung (2007), in his analysis of conflict transformation, asserted that peace depends on transformation into another relation between conflicting parties since violence is a product of untransformed conflict.
Tilahun (2015) observed that Galtung had an understanding of peace in two dichotomies:
positive peace as integration of human community and negative peace as the absence of violence. Grewal (2003) proposed that positive peace involves strategies of integration of human society through improved communication and understanding, peace education, institutional cooperation, dispute resolutions, arbitration, conflict management peace by peaceful means. In this regard, Galtung concluded that forceful means cannot transform conflict. It was observed by Herath (2016) that this positive peace is sustainable and builds on justice for all people while negative peace is without justice and comes at the cost of justice involving conflict. Grewal (2003) and Tilahun (2015) conceded that it is also the absence of violence, pessimistic, curative, peace not always by peaceful means. Galtung (2007) contended that for conflict to be transformed, strategies should be peaceful so as to neutralise intensity of violence through training, research, counselling and mediation in the way TRANSCEND focuses on transforming cultural and structural violence. In as much as MCZ was involved, counselling was carried out in various forms for psychotherapy purposes. In view of Galtung’s theory, the “goal of peace-building and conflict transformation is to enable people to be self- reliant in dealing with conflicts using peaceful means” (Galtung, 2007: 128). Generally, Galtung’s theory assists with explaining Lederach’s and insisting that the aim for conflict transformation should be non-violent, but it is not as holistic as that of the peace-building model.
3.2.2.2 Raimo Vayrynen’s Analytic Conflict Theory
According to Miall (2007), the analytic conflict theory is the theory based on understanding transformation rather than settlement of dynamic forms. The latter is the bulk conflict theory concerned with issues, actors and interests and focused on to establishing solutions to mitigate or eliminate contradictions between them. The approach focuses on four types of intervention that peace builders should act upon as discussed by Miall (2004), Ryan (2007) and Vayrynen
43
(1991). Actor transformation brings about changes in parties concerning the conflict or the outlook of new actors. It is of great value to focus on issue transformation which has to alter the political drive and ideology of the conflict, for instance, when winning political support is enforced by forcing and beating people. In terms of rule transformation, this dimension targets changing the norms or rules governing a conflict among conflicting groups which fosters hindrances in their good relationships. In view of structural transformation, what has to be influenced for change is the whole structure or system of relationships and power distribution within which conflict occurs.
Botes (2003) noted that Vayrynen’s contribution was on how conflict transformation should work in practice as it seeks to identify what needs to be redressed. Vayrynen pointed out that changes should be for the micro (parties and nature of conflict) and macro (socio-political system where conflict is). Miall (2007) noted the relevance of both Vayrynen’s theory and of Lederach’s theory of peace-building. Conflict transformation needs a third part to facilitate peace; it needs to focus on structural and relational transformation and it may not always be most effective to find change at the level of existing political elites. The two theorists concurred on the effectiveness of transforming conflicts through a bottom-up approach. Ryan (2007) observed that Vayrynen’s theory was anchored on mediation as it links to a broader range of social and political theories and it involves change to all levels of society. This theory has relevance within MCZ’s context of intervention as a conscience of the nation to fulfill its transformative role as a third party in mediation and training workshops on peace and justice.
However, it has limitations of not being expansive to accommodate some of the activities fostered by MCZ. Also, it has given lenses to researchers to look at what has to be transformed as mitigating solutions are put in place. However, Vayrynen’s theory is less comprehensive than Lederach’s theory of peace-building. The former is less clear on the structural levels of the society, diversified intervention strategies, the scope for drawing peace-building resources and time frames than the former. Miall (2004) argued that Vayrynen’s theory is basically analytical and interpretative lacking the practicality of transforming conflict in society while Lederach’s theory is prescriptive, offers peace-builders a means to conceptualise a path from conflict towards desired outcomes. Lederach’s theory is thus preferred for this study.
44 3.2.2.3 Kumar Rupesinghe’s Eleven Points Model
According to Fransson (2008) and Shulika (2013), Kumar Rupesinghe’s theory is constituted of eleven elements involved in a conflict transformation process within the country under the conflict. The pre-negotiation stage initiates the warring parties into negotiation process for the sake of coming up with terms for sustainable peace while the stage of understanding root causes is critical for identifying sources of a given conflict and developing relevant peace measures.
As has been enshrined in relevant literature review and primary data, MCZ was represented in playing peace talks of 1979 Lancaster House Conference between BLM and Rhodesian Forces, during the 1987 Unity Accord between ZANU-PF and PF ZAPU after Gukurahundi era and was also involved in the 2008-2009 mediation between MDC-T and ZANU-PF leading GNU.
Ownership of the peace process level allows the local actors to be primary architects, owners and long-term stakeholders unlike an international community project which might do more harm than good. Solomon and Mngqibisa (2000) added that this is relative to a bottom-up process that has total support for the peace work because the locals feel it is their peace.
Fransson (2008) observed that identifying all the actors, involves them in peace process. Actors include the elite, local leaders, women, non-military actors and opinion shapers who, when involved, minimise chances for a breakdown in the peace process. In as much as identifying of all the actors is vital, facilitators are critical as they contribute through their expertise and knowledge to various matters such as finances, skills in mediation, legal aspects or in designing a peace process. Also, the setting of a realistic timetable is important. Rupesinghe (1995) proposed that sustaining the effort requires financial resources, patience and constant support from sponsors. For the stage of evaluating success and failure involves reflecting of interests for the parties, approaches to transform conflicts, progress or challenges encountered and then drawing lessons from the process.
Rupesinghe (1995) and Fransson (2008) viewed strategic constituencies as various important networks embracing media, religious institutions, peace institutions, government officials, donors and business community. With the aspect of use of religious institution as reflected by this theory, MCZ employed health services centres, vocational training centres as well as mission schools to foster reconciliation and healing. The involvement of SCOs guarantors in negotiating peace is also important. Outside peacemakers as well as local peacemakers are critical in peace-building. The former are a form of non-partisan broker for mediating mitigating resolutions since the state is always party to the conflict. The latter, the local community, are involved in peace-building initiatives with a first-hand knowledge of conflicts,
45
actors, the political situation and cultural background. They have the will to own and ensure sustainability more than outsider actors.
Miall (2004) said Rupesinghe (1995) argued for a comprehensive approach to conflict transformation that involves multitrack interventions, hence the approach of multiple approaches was the one in congruent with what the MCZ had done; provision of humanitarian needs, training workshops on peace and justice, religious reconciliatory sermons, teachings and prayers, public counselling centres by engaging all level of societies be it victims or perpetrators. These approaches became mitigating factors of political violence and conflict.
The approach emphasises building peace constituencies at the grassroots level and across the parties at the civil society level. Peace alliances should be established with many groups capable of bringing positive change such as business groups, the media or the military. Also required is conflict resolution training and interventions which include diplomatic interventions and peacekeeping. Rupesinghe (1995) contended that the holistic approach has the capacity to understand leading factors of conflict such as political, economic, social or psychological and therefore actors can come up with appropriate mitigating elements against conflict. These could be short-term or long-term strategies depending on the nature of the conflict. The third part could be peace-keeping forces or mediators that facilitate negotiations between the warring parties. Rupesinghe (1995) pointed out that in the process of working towards peace, as negotiations are set for specific time frame, the drive for conflict transformation depends on an identified leader who chooses all key actors at the local level and determines the new constitutional order is in place to transform attitudes, institutions and mechanisms.
Fransson (2008) and Shulika (2013) viewed Rupesinghe’s model as a bottom-up friendly approach, which was certainly the strategy embraced by the MCZ together with other peacebuilding actors. Targeting local communities (using indigenous people and their knowledge within the setting) from below in conflict transformation strengthens grassroots’
resources and capacity to work towards enhancing constructive and positive outcomes of various peace projects. For Campbell (2011) and Lefranc (2011), a bottom-up peace-building approach is the liberal government’s sovereign authority that works through the freedoms of its citizens to achieve specific goals in their own context. The approach is top-down or authoritarian when the affected individuals no longer have the freedom of self-diagnosis of their challenges and strategies of dealing with violence. Rupesinghe’s model is significant for
46
this study in that it reinforces the participatory peace-building trend and discourages the trickle- down approach as discussed in Lederach’s model of peace-building (Lederach, 1997).
Lederach’s model of peace-building, however, continues to “serve as one of the most comprehensive statements to date of conflict transformation for practitioners” (Miall, 2004: 6).
It is comprehensive and inspired by the values of peace and justice, truth and mercy in the promotion of reconciliation, and thus was adopted as the main theoretical framework of this study.