Civilised ways of resolving conflicts

7+( quality of our lives depends not on whether or not we have conflicts (because it is a given that we will always have conflicts in life), but on how we respond to them (or resolve them).” – Tom Crum (The Bishop). There are three dictionary definitions of the word conflict, or what conflict means. The first one is that a conflict is a very serious disagreement. The second one is that a conflict is also a long lasting armed struggle. And the third one is that a conflict is also a difference of opinions, ideas, beliefs, principles, norms, values, visions, perspectives, practices, etc.

Thus by definition, other synonyms for the word conflict are dispute, quarrel, squabble, disagreement, difference of opinion, dissension, discord, friction, strife, antagonism, antipathy, ill will, bad blood, hostility, falling-out, disputation, contention, clash, altercation, shouting match, heated exchange, war of words, tussle, fracas, affray, wrangle and tangle, among many others. The opposite of conflict is simply one word – agreement!

Looked at from the synonyms angle, it becomes very apparent that we experience conflict in our lives almost on a daily basis. There is just no way of avoiding conflict in life and in this world as well.

This is because there aren’t any two people, let alone more than two people, or a whole family, a whole village, a whole community or a whole country, who would always see or do the same things in the very same or similar way or manner no matter how close, friendly or related they may be! People will always have differences in opinions, visions, values, beliefs, principles, practices, traditions and cultures. And hence people would always be in conflict with each other in as far as all these things are concerned.

This is the main reason why all our countries are always faced with one form of conflict or the other at all times!

However, the ever constant presence of conflicts between and among people and nations is not a hopeless situation, which spells gloom and doom for the human race. It does not mean that we as people and also as human beings are destined for the dust heap of perpetual conflict. On the contrary, it means that we as human beings are destined for better and greater things to come.

This is because, over the years, conflicts or differences in opinions, have been the engine room and mother of all the scientific, social, economic and political innovations, growth and developments, which we have witnessed and continue to enjoy on a daily basis in this world today!

POSITIVE

Such positive outcomes out of conflicts have only come about because we were willing to find and implement peaceful and civilised ways and methods of resolving or dealing with our conflicts, and we indeed found and implemented such peaceful and civilised ways and methods to deal with and to resolve our conflicts at all levels of society. Remember that at one time there was conflict as to whether the earth was flat or spherical! And there was also conflict about everything scientific as we know it today!

Fighting, going to war or killing each other are surely not peaceful or civilised ways of resolving conflicts. Such methods of solving conflicts will only lead to death and to destruction, and also to even more and deadlier conflicts! This is not the civilised way to go about resolving conflicts. We must learn from history and also from our very own personal, family, community and even national experiences that violence, fighting, war and killing each other are not and cannot be the correct or preferred ways to resolve conflict. Fighting or beating up each other or someone else just because you can do that will not resolve conflicts, but will only exacerbate them. All conflicts can and must be resolved peacefully and in a civilised manner as well.

Open mindedness is the first and key requirement for civilised and peaceful conflict resolution.

Rigidity, dogmatism, selfishness and dictatorship are antithetical to peaceful and civilised conflict resolution. The first step towards resolving conflicts in a civilised and peaceful manner is for each part in the conflict to realise that there is always their own side of the story, or the side of the story which they support, or want to support or believe in.

And then there is also always the other conflict protagonist’s own side of the story, or the side of the story which the other conflict protagonist supports or wants to support and believe in as well. And then there are many other very different sides of the story which neither of the two conflicting protagonists would be seeing, can see, want to see, or want to believe in!

CASE

Such being the case, it is only the rational and reasonable willingness of both conflict protagonists to agree to look not just at both sides of the story, but also at all sides of the story as well, which is the first and primary step towards peaceful and civilised conflict resolution.

But bearing in mind that the conflict would not have materialised in the first place if both parties were this rational, it then become patently clear that there is always an absolute need for a third party in any peaceful and civilised conflict resolution process.

The job of the third party is not only to act as a free and fair referee in the conflict resolution process, but also to make both conflicting parties see their own blind sides, accept that they are or were blind in that regard, and then undertake to and actually restore their own vision in that blind arena or area. The other duty of the third party is to get both conflicting parties to accept to partake in the peaceful and civilised conflict resolution process, and also to actually undertake that process.

What is sad in this regard is that sometimes both conflicting parties may need to be literally physically dragged to the conflict resolution table, kicking, screaming and shouting instead of just voluntarily and peacefully doing so. This is especially true in cases of gross human rights violations in breach of international laws. For example, international laws have it that all human beings have got the inalienable basic human right to life and to be governed by a government of their own choice, and in a manner of their own choice as well.

Thus in cases where some national governments impose themselves on their own people, and then insist on governing them in ways which they do not want to be governed, and then seek to imprison or kill off any dissenting voices thereof, international laws would be broken.

Such national governments would find themselves being literally dragged to the conflict resolution table even against their own will, or else they would then be made to suffer the ignominious consequences of being forcibly removed from power through concerted international efforts. Such was the fate of many colonial regimes.

EXCEPTION

Yes, there are always peaceful and civilised ways to resolve conflicts, but to every rule there is always an exception, right?

And the exception here is that in situations whereby one or both of the conflicting parties do not want or do not agree to see the sense, logic, reasonableness and need for peaceful and civilised conflict resolution, then there might be no other choice but to use reasonable force to bring both or either of the dissenting parties to the conflict resolution negotiating or dialogue table.

Such is the unfortunate aspect of human existence. Sometimes we really need to be physically forced to do the right things!

To illustrate how conflict resolution can actually be accomplished in a peaceful and civilised manner, let us hypothetically say that there is this country in which its people urgently want a change in the way they are governed, and then they go about peacefully agitating for what they want. What should be the best, reasonable or logical response of the sitting government in such a country in order to attain the desired political change in a peaceful and civilised way or manner?

The correct answer to this hypothetical question is definitely not for the sitting government to stubbornly disagree that there is any need for change, and then to unleash violence on those of its people who would be agitating for the desired change. Unfortunately, this is exactly what most sitting national government are apt to do under such circumstances! And this is not necessarily or solely due to the naturally ingrained greed, selfishness and self-centredness of all sitting governments, or rather of the actual people who sit in government.

Unfortunately, it is also due to the ‘normal’ blindness to facts, to reality, and also to the truth, which usually afflicts people in power on issues which seek to improve the lives, welfare and wellbeing of the whole country.

Usually, sitting governments or rulers mistake such transformation seeking issues to be designed solely to diminish their own personal power, influence and livelihoods, and yet this is not true at all!

PEACEFULLY

What needs to be done in order to peacefully resolve any and all political and governance conflicts in any country is to first of all ascertain if the desired change or conflict is actually originating from the majority of the population or if it is just the orchestrated shenanigans of a minority or a clever few with vested interests. Such a determination can be accomplished through a simple referendum. If the referendum ascertains that indeed the majority of the population wants some form of change in the politics and governance of the country, then the next stage or process must be to go down to grassroots levels to determine the exact changes which the people want or envisage. It is at village or chiefdom levels that ordinary citizens, and as individuals, must be allowed to play a direct role in conflict resolution.

Consulting other organisations like political parties and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has got the tendency of leaving out the real views of the common people on the ground and thus not providing the needed and appropriate solutions to the challenges at hand.

It is a fact that most organisations were formed for the benefit of those who formed them and not for the benefit of the bona fide beneficiaries of any natural community such as of a village, chiefdom, town, city or country. Thus consultations on political and governance challenges or conflicts must always be cascaded down to grassroots levels. I rest my case.