CCTS
Newsletter 9

Introduction

This paper has been written for a series of seminars designed to explore what is necessary to move from violent conflict to something which might be described as peace. The idea began with a discussion in the CCTS (Committee for Conflict Transformation Support) around the concept and practice of 'reconciliation'. Discomfort was expressed at what seemed to some the cosy and sanctimonious ring of the word and its connotations. It also seemed too ambitious a goal for the harsh realities of the violent intra-state conflicts with which many members were grappling (and it is on intrastate conflicts that this paper will focus). If reconciliation were a realistic aim after complex, long and bloody conflicts, it would, it was argued, come a long way down the road. What we needed to look at was how you ever got on that road in the first place. That meant, essentially, getting from a situation where conflict was being pursued through wide scale violence, to one where it was being dealt with through civil politics. I have added the word 'civil' to the 'politics' of my title, because according to Von Clausewitz, war is the continuation of politics by other means. But war is not just a continuation of anything. It adds a completely new dimension to conflict, with its own dynamics, and its politics are of another kind. It is the destructiveness of war, and the human misery it entails, that underlie the aspirations of conflict transformation and are the basis for the concern to make the transition to other methods of conflict management. To borrow Guus Meijer's words, 'Conflict transformation aims at changing the social organisation and execution of power. In situations of violence, power is organised and exercised by force - by power over; in civil politics, power is exercised by consent and/or consensus - by power with.'

It occurs to me now that this debate, as I have summarised it, might seem to suggest that 'real things', political and material, were being favoured over psychological needs. If so, that is a dichotomy I would want to deny, or perhaps rather to bridge. Since political decisions and actions are taken by human beings of the usual complexity, but in contexts bigger than themselves, to try to divorce thoughts and feelings, and their effects, from other mechanisms seems foolish. But this in turn raises questions about chickens and eggs (what is primary and where to begin) and about different levels and aspects of social being and political life. Johan Galtung (1990) has posited the notion of a triangle of categories or spheres for thinking about violence: cultural, structural and direct (behavioural). As categories go, these seem useful. I would argue that moving from a situation characterised by direct violence to one in which 'normal' political life was possible would necessitate attention to all three spheres. If 'culture' is interpreted not only as long term, underlying patterns of thought and expression, but also the day to day public (and private) rhetoric which is used to promote war and peace, and the prevailing emotional climate within which politicians operate, then it has a vital role to play, even in the short term. And although politicians may decide for 'the people', acting on behalf of or in spite of them, even the most powerful war lords need popular support, or at least people to do their bidding; so it makes no sense to think of a return to any kind of peace simply in terms of the apex of Lederach's (1995) well-known social/ political pyramid. People at all levels must be moving along the road away from violence and towards some kind of civilian co-existence.

Although Galtung's category of structures might appear to be a matter for the longer term, without some civil structures in place, albeit temporary and/or rudimentary, it is hard to see how any transition can be made from the rule of violence to some other kind of governance. (This is a problem facing Kosov/a at the moment.)

It is hard to escape the conclusion that chickens and eggs are inseparable, or indeed indistinguishable, and that everything needs to happen at once. Practically speaking, this will mean edging forwards, as possible, on all fronts. According to current dominant thinking, the primary unit for structures and for the organisation and structuring of civil power is the state. It that is so, recognised state boundaries are needed to provide the overall structure for intra-state civil politics, and those are often at issue, with major population groups straddling existing boundaries. Whether the independent and 'free-standing' state is the best and only unit for political organisation is open to question. It could be that new federal and confederal arrangements could, in some instances, offer more satisfactory and stable structures for the organisation of politics on a regional basis.

In view of all the categories and levels of necessary provision and/or change required for a transition from violence to politics, it seems a tall order to offer anything like a comprehensive overview, or any kind of clarity, within the compass of a not-too-long paper. Maybe, however, the omissions and confusions will be as stimulating as what seems to make sense. Given the breadth of my remit, examples I give will necessarily be briefly alluded to rather than extensively examined. This can be corrected when we meet. I propose to address first the question of necessary conditions for making the initial transition from violence to politics or from war to peace. I shall then expand a little on the need for psychological change, particularly collective, and the reintegration of disintegrated societies. Thirdly I shall discuss the need for establishing participatory politics, and the dilemmas which that implies, and fourthly I shall look at the economic and social foundations which democracy requires, and the role of outside governments and agencies. In the fifth section I shall take a brief look at the question of culture and raise the overarching questions of gender and global justice. I shall conclude by reflecting on the relationship between the needs of peace which I have identified and the realities with which would-be peacemakers have to work. As I understand it, my task is to give a reasonable summary of current thinking, so that we do not have to spend all our time covering already charted territories when we meet, but will share the same map, even if we dispute the way it depicts things. At the same time, I have the job of pointing to some of the difficulties, contradictions, shaky assumptions and unanswered questions which the map reveals; so at the end of each section and of the paper itself, I shall indicate what I think are key issues or questions which need to be addressed.

next  |  seminar report

newsletter  |  ccts