| Committee for Conflict Transformation Support | CCTS
|
Conflict Transformation: from Violence To Politics Conclusions Conflict transformation is an ongoing process of global proportions. Making the transition from violence to politics, in any situation, may be an urgent need but is unlikely to be other than an uphill struggle when the world context is so inimical. It presupposes all kinds of things that are unlikely ever to be in place to any adequate degree. When I think of the realities of post-war Kosovo/a or Sierra Leone, or the alternating rounds of fighting and uneasy truce in Angola or Sri Lanka, to talk of so many needs for a lasting transition seems not only realistic but a recipe for despair. At the same time, there are relative success stories to point to; places where mass violence has ended and there is at least the opportunity for social and economic life to be developed; where a political climate less hostile to the needs and rights of ordinary people has been established; where even the needs of the battered environment have begun to be thought of. It is part of the conundrum that each step has to be taken before the necessary conditions are in place. The biggest challenge to the theories of conflict transformation is to think how they can be translated into practice in situations where they have not been applied. 'I wouldn't have started from here' is a reasonable thing to say, but it is no answer. If, as I have suggested, it is impossible for many of the things which are needful for a transition to civil politics to be fully possible, and if those needful things are all interdependent and need to be in place at once, we have to accept that the path from violence to politics is always likely to be precarious and often discouraging. It will never be possible to step forward with confidence, at any level. Nothing will be able to be fully under control, but will be susceptible to unpredictable events, conditions and circumstances. So how can we approach what needs to be done? The intricacies of the jigsaw which has to be put together make the task daunting enough, but in addition the pieces and the overall picture will be constantly changing. I will therefore change metaphors and suggest that the task is rather to help keep a river flowing in the right direction. It doesn't matter which bucket of water we contribute, or which blockage we try to remove. All contributions will be needed. Our responses will be governed partly by our knowledge of the river, and the shape and size of our bUÇKet and shovel; but we will be guided by where our local friends, who know the river best, want to work with the resources at their disposal, and what support role they would assign to us. We will try not to get in each other's way, or theirs, and we will keep looking up and around, to see how things are going and whether we are helping or working in the wrong place. We will also keep an eye on the weather, knowing there may be times to take cover and try again later. Some general questions for discussion How can we balance pragmatism and principle, and can they be separated? Is it possible or desirable to generalise about what is and is not negotiable? What is the relationship between peace and justice? What are the values we are using to decide these issues? Whose are they: our own, ones that are acceptable to those involved, or are they based on some 'universal standard', if that exists/ could be agreed? Is it possible to give work at the community level additional political leverage? How can we hold together the value and political importance of self-determination with the facts of global power relations and the notion of humanitarian responsibilities which transcend national boundaries? Can we do anything to change the global context (cultural, political, economic) within which all these things happen? If so, what? How can we make sensible decisions about where to put our efforts as international NGOs, and how can we evaluate them?
|