Approaches To Peace-Building In Conflict Transformation

A number of theories have been considered in this research. However, whilst some of them have been found to be relevant some were found to be less appropriate tools of analysis for the proposed study. Akinyoade (2012) categorizes the theories in Peace and Conflict Studies PCS according to their respective field definition issues, the first group includes, defining peace; nature, causes, and the onset of conflict. The second definition issue is dynamics of conflict. The third issue is concerned with conflict resolution; and finally the last is concerned with building sustainable peace. The theories belonging to the first and second distinction issue focus on the psychological and the social aspects of conflict and are generally directed towards providing different understandings of the concept of peace and the conceptualization of the conditions necessary for establishing positive and sustainable peace. These include but are not limited to: Human needs theory, Frustration-aggression theory and the Enemy systems theory.

The human needs theory is premised on the belief that all human beings have universal basic human needs fundamental for their survival. Proponents of this theory such as Burton (1990); Azar (1990); Sites(1990); Sandole (1990); Roy (1990); Mitchell; (1990) and Bay (1990) argue that human beings, irrespective of race, color, gender and religion, have ontological, biological and innate needs which are essential for their growth and survival in society. Human needs theory stipulates that there is more likelihood of conflict and violence as a result of unmet human needs, psychological and physiological, rather than that of interest, as people strive to fulfill their needs.

The central argument embedded in the Frustration aggression school of thought is based on the hypothesis that violent behavior generally results from frustration. This suggests that whenever humans are repressed from attaining their basic needs or reaching their desired goals, they will become irritable and aggressive. On the other hand, the Enemy system theory makes the following key assumption that human needs enable people to divide themselves into out-groups (enemies) and in-groups (allies).

The relevance of the Enemy system theory is that it helps to understand why conflict erupts among people. It further allows us to tie together micro and macro levels of analysis by introducing key multi-level phenomenon.

The second core issue, Dynamics of conflict, is concerned with understanding what conflict is and also appreciating the various forms of conflict. The strength of these theories can be seen in their ability to offer conceptual analysis to understanding conflicts. However, the weakness of these theories is that they may also fail to provide tools that are needed to resolve the conflicts and also to achieve sustainable peace. The third core distinction issue places emphasis on Conflict Resolution. The advantage of the theories in this area is that they offer conflict resolution mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration, negotiations, etc. Wani, Suwitra and Payeye have argued that perhaps unintentionally, the term ‘Conflict Resolution’ may carry “the connotation of a bias toward ‘ending’ a given crisis or at least its outward expression, without being sufficiently concerned with the deeper structural, cultural, and long-term relational aspects of conflict”. However, this method affords short term solutions and mechanisms of resolving conflicts but may fail to provide mechanisms of resolving escalating conflicts.

Galtung (1964) in his founding Journal of Peace Research was one of the very first peace scholar to write extensively on the two types of peace in an attempt to develop a theory that could provide an understanding on how to end violent conflict. In his writing Galtung considers two types of peace; negative peace which he explains as follows: “the absence of turmoil, tension, conflict and war”, and positive peace which is understood as the “conditions that are good for management, orderly resolution of conflict, harmony associated with mature relationships, gentleness, and love”. This led to the founding of Positive-negative peace theory which bases its conceptualization of conflict transformation on the understanding of violence as direct and indirect violence. It is an expounded conceptualization of violence and hence has an expounded understanding of peace. For Galtung these two dimensions of peace cannot be separated instead they lead to each other. He argues that negative peace is characterized by ceasefires or what we see when the world’s powerful nations or the UN, NATO or regional bodies such as SADC, equipped with their coercive military power, intervene in attempts to end violence. While Galtung cannot be labeled as an advocate for coercion, he does, however suggest that coercion in certain situations may lead to positive peace.

Similarly, Sandole (2010:9) notes that “negative peace might be a necessary condition for positive peace. However, negative peace tends not to be sufficient.” For Sandole (2010), negative peace falls short of transforming deep-rooted causes and conditions of conflict which might arise. This is mainly due the failure of conflict resolution to address the root cause(s) of war (frustrated basic human needs).Instead, conflict resolution places greater emphasis on top leadership at the detriment of addressing the root causes of the conflict. As such, Galtung advocates for strategies that prioritize engagement with all parties to the violence this includes the victims; perpetrators; civil society, policy makers and governance institutions of a conflicting society.

The final and core distinction issue of building sustainable peace embodies the theories of the new school that proposes the Conflict Transformation approach that helps establish a long term solution to conflicts rather than a resolution approach that offers only short term mechanisms of managing conflicts. For Lederach (1995) “conflict transformation emerged as a search for an adequate language to explain the peacemaking venture”. It became “a relatively new invention within the broader field of peace and conflict studies” and “a process that will make up for the inadequacies of mere resolution”. According to Galtung (1969), effective conflict resolution and rebuilding peace in any conflict society requires engaging of all actors of the conflict (victims, perpetrators, society, policy makers). Therefore, it emerged among conflict transformation theorists like Miall (2005) that any intervention in any conflict should surpass “reframing of position and the identification of win-win outcomes”. This is mainly due to the fact that, often, during violent conflicts, interveners tend to employ strategies that only address antagonisms between top conflicting elites and militant group leaders excluding the important stage of understanding and addressing the root cause(s) of war; frustrated basic human rights and needs. This approach in resolution of conflict was referred to as liberal approach and is understood to serve the interest of the elite and in maintaining the status quo in a conflict society. In addition to paying less attention to the root causes of war, the liberal approach was criticized for creating conducive conditions that further perpetuated the culture of violence. Therefore many of these theories in PCS have been found wanting in this study as theyplace much emphasis on the causes, onset and dynamics of conflict than the more important issue such as transforming the conflict situation and attaining lasting peace.

Based on the inappropriateness and inadequacy of the above-mentioned theories, this thesis will use the Conflict Transformation theory as a central tool for analysis. The concept of Conflict Transformation is a fairly new invention that became increasingly used in the 1990’s with the increase of intra state wars particularly in Africa. Lederach’s (1997) Conflict Transformation can be said to be located within the last core distinction issue which is building sustainable peace. As a result of its long term utility, this core distinction issue is chosen to guide the direction of this study towards the transformation of the spate of conflicts between the Military, Politicians and the monarchy in Lesotho. In his book, titled Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (1997), John Paul Lederach develops his Integrated Model of Peacebuilding. For Lederach, lasting peace in contemporary conflict situations, can only be achieved if new approaches are developed. He notes that peace building calls for a long term commitment towards establishing an infrastructure across the levels of a society, an infrastructure that empowers the resources for reconciliation from within that society and maximizes the contribution from outside. Lederach envisions a peacebuilding model which goes beyond the traditional Conflict Resolution towards a sustainable Conflict Transformation approach and which “focuses on the restoration and rebuilding of relationships and engaging the relational aspects of reconciliation as the central component of peace-building.

”Transforming deep rooted conflict is only partly about “resolving” the issues of the conflict. The central issue is systematic change or actual transformation. The argument made here is that systems cannot be resolved instead they can be transformed thus the preference for the term or concept of Conflict Transformation more than any other conception. As such, Conflict Transformation becomes an orientation, an approach and a framework which helps to generate and create a platform that can simultaneously address existing issues, change, issues that come up and the various relationship patterns.