Approaches To Conflict Resolution

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

APPROACHES TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION

INTRODUCTION
Conflict resolution aims at the satisfaction of basic human
needs, as it believes that the non-fulfillment of basic human needs is at the root of
violent conflicts. This opens up space for ‘facilitative’ and non-violent solutions.
therefore, its resolution must involve analysis and reconstruction of perceptions of
beliefs (about) and attitudes towards, the other side, improving communication and
facilitating the development of trust and cooperation between the hostile groups
and individuals.
Gandhi too believed that conflict was the result of structural denial of human
needs. For Gandhi, conflict resolution entails a facilitated problem-solving process
that is interactive, analytical and actively involves all the individuals and identity
groups directly concerned. societies and cultures all over the world have developed
structured and active conflict resolution approaches to address actual and potential
conflicts between individuals, groups and communities.

WESTERN APPROACHES TO CONFLICT


RESOLUTION
Most western approaches to conflict resolution require the usage of a
go-between or an intermediary. Intermediaries can play various roles depending on
the circumstance and the kind of help the disputants require from them. Sometimes
the hostile individuals and groups may decide to resolve the conflict of their own
initiative- by discussing the issues between themselves. If the discussion does not
work, one could move to the process of one-to-one negotiation.
The intermediary may initially focus on the process of conciliation, where she/he
has the limited role of focusing on reducing hostilities. Beyond this, one could
move to the process of mediation and seek active assistance from the intermediary
in exploring options and negotiating a settlement but the responsibility to decide on
acceptable solutions is ultimately in the hands of the contending parties. One could
next move to the process of arbitration where the arbitrator would behave like a
judge, decide on the right and wrong and impose a decision.

1
The role of a facilitator is less active than that of an arbitrator or mediator as a pure
facilitator is responsible only for the process and not for the content. Mediation
and arbitration may seem to be a similar process but they are different.
mediation places the responsibility of deciding on acceptable solutions in the hands
of the disputants, while arbitration places it on the arbitrator. Negotiation,
mediation and facilitation involve more of individual and community decision-
making, which ultimately aim at the possibility of enhancing relationships
between the contending groups and individuals while arbitration,
adjudication and litigation involve more of legally-enforced decision-making.
Thus, in arbitration, adjudication and litigation the power of the conflicting
groups and individuals to manage their own conflict decreases and they have
less control over the solutions in comparison to the processes of negotiation,
facilitation and mediation.

Dialogue and Facilitation


Relationships are key to human existence. In relationships we
experience differences Differences can be used as dividers to foster hatred, ill-will
and animosity or they can be used as a connector to discover the underlying human
unity, to create new partnerships, and to build peace. If we choose to view
differences as a way to build peace, the medium through which this can be done is
that of dialogue. Simply speaking, dialogue means to sit and talk with each other
especially with those we have differences.
Condition of successful dialog, Creation of a safe space is intrinsic to dialogue-
psychologically as well as physically, Secondly, the purpose of a dialogue is to
learn from each other and to discover each other. usage of appropriate
communication skills is essential in a dialogue. listening carefully and respectfully
to the experiences of other people. dialogue participants must be prepared, for
sometimes hidden things surface—conscious or unconscious beliefs, perceptions,
assumptions, fears—these hidden aspects increase the level of understanding of the
participants. Additionally, there can be several ups and downs in a dialogue. But
most of all, dialogue should not be approached as a means to change others; rather
dialogue participants must be willing to be changed by the whole experience.
The means through which this process is conducted is known as facilitation.
Facilitation is a process of helping a group complete a task, solve a problem or
come to an agreement to the mutual satisfaction of the people participating in the
dialogue or discussion. A facilitator is responsible for conducting the process
2
smoothly but she/he is not responsible for the content or the final product. In most
organisations, people get into conflicts with others not because what decision was
made but how the decision was made Decision-making, thus, lies at the core of
building peace in group, community or organisational settings and facilitators can
help a group make a decision. Example could be the role of Lok Sabha In most
democratic settings, decisions are made by voting. But voting means different
things to different people, so it is important to clarify and agree well in advance on
what percentage is required to pass a vote. The facilitator makes sure that the group
agrees in advance on the percentage of vote. She/he also clarifies the term
‘consensus’ as people have different understandings of it A decision made by
consensus is useful in any group situation, but in situations of conflict, it plays a
crucial role, for people are often unwilling to be bound by a single vote or a single
decision.

Approaches to Negotiation and Mediation


Negotiation and mediation as instruments of peaceful
conflict resolution were institutionalized as means of peaceful resolution of inter-
state conflicts only in the 20th century. The Western approaches to negotiation and
mediation make a distinction between formal actors on the state level
TRACK ONE DIPLOMACY
States mediate with the outcome-oriented approach (traditional diplomacy), which
identifies the representative leaders of the conflicting parties and brings them
together to negotiate or mediate a ceasefire and a peace accord. This approach has
been used as a major instrument in ending a large number of wars but is the focus
of criticism, as it tends to concentrate solely on the top leadership and overlooks
the root causes of conflicts.
TRACK TWO DIPLOMACY
At the Track II level of non-official mediation, the third parties are non-directive
and they try to empower the conflicting parties to find their own solutions. These
approaches are long-term and they aim at rebuilding destroyed relationships
between the conflicting parties. One of the most popular approaches at the Track II
level is the problem-solving workshop. The aim of these workshops is to improve
the relationship between the conflicting parties and to get at the root causes of
conflicts. This is done by having a series of such workshops with the same target
groups and mediators. The mediators here are usually a team of academic
3
professionals with conflict resolution expertise or regional or technical expertise.
The complementary approach aims to integrate Track I and Track II approaches as
both of them make important contributions to conflict resolution. Here it is
necessary to identify the appropriate actor and approach at a certain time in the
conflict. tries to identify the most efficient mediators at different phases of
escalation of the conflict.

Negotiation
It is this simple and widely prevalent skill of negotiation that is used in
conflict resolution as a strategy. Negotiation is a process where individuals with
shared and opposed interests, work out a settlement in order to come to an
agreement. One has two choices while negotiating—go for a win-lose situation —
or go for mutual problem-solving The latter approach is preferable if the disputing
individuals or groups have a stake in maintaining ongoing positive relationships
with each other. Negotiation normally works in the following way: Disputing
individuals and groups share information about the situation they are in, they
express their feelings about the problem at hand, Disputants state their positions
and give reasons that underlie their positions and feelings; They listen and
communicate their understanding of the other individual’s or group’s positions,
Disputants invent three or more possible solutions, They try to find a common
ground that will be acceptable to all and can be sustained, Agree and shake hands
on the solution that maximise mutual benefits and also agree to observe and
monitor commitments and arrangements, In the initial phase of negotiation, parties
maintain their stated positions , But an expert negotiator will shift the disputing
individuals or groups from positions to interests and finally to needs
Certain principles should be followed in the process of negotiation. We must
separate the people from the problem. Mostly, relationships get entangled with
problems. One should thus pay attention to maintaining a long–term positive
relationship between the disputants and try to affirm the same symbolically and
otherwise. Communicating effectively during the course of negotiation is a must
and that involves listening actively and respectfully and speaking for oneself and
not about others. Focusing on interests and not positions is necessary as positions
are more conflicted than interests.
However, the process of generating options should be separated from the process
of evaluating each option, which will be the next step. The idea is to look for an

4
option that meets the interests and needs of the disputants. The final solution must
be legitimate.

Mediation
Sometimes people in conflict find it difficult to negotiate one-on-one. In
such cases, mediation becomes an option for managing conflicts constructively.
Mediation is a process through which a neutral third person facilitates integrative
negotiation between disputing individuals and groups. Although mediation is
facilitated by a third person, it is a voluntary process where the disputing
individuals or groups work out their own solutions, and make informed decisions
to resolve their own disputes; the mediator does not make decisions for them.
Sometimes, it is difficult to find any one person who is trusted as impartial and is
acceptable to both the sides, a team of two or more co-mediators can work well so
long as each of the sides feels that the team is balanced in its totality. Proper
groundwork is a must for successful mediation: selection of a mediator/s; ensuring
the participation of disputing individuals and groups; and preparation by the
mediators. Mediators need to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses as well as
that of their co-mediator, in case there is one. Mediation approaches differ from
one setting to another as each culture and community is different. generally, is a
four-stage process.
STAGE 1: The first step is the introduction stage wherein the mediator provides a
safe place for the conflicting individuals and groups to begin a face-to-face
discussion. emphasises the goal of the meeting as well He/she then describes
his/her role in the process The mediator makes sure to describe the process – each
side will take turns to speak; both will agree on the basic issues and will work with
these one at a time with their suggestions for resolution. The mediator should ask
the conflicting groups and individuals to come up with the ground rules and not
make suggestions initially.
STAGE 2: The second stage is of storytelling, which allows the disputing
individuals and groups to express their concerns, explain the situation as they
understand it, and gain a sense of the other side’s view. The mediator will get the
perspective of each side one at a time and offer his/her paraphrase identifying each
side’s hopes and concerns.
STAGE 3: Problem solving is the third stage of the mediation process. The key
here is to build a sense of joint ownership of the problems by helpingidentify the
5
issues that separate them and generate, evaluate, and negotiate options for
resolution. The mediator will now pick up one issue at a time and get the
conflicting groups and individuals to work on it Here the focus of the mediator
should be on trying to move the conflicting individuals and groups from their
demands (positions) to their underlying interests. She/he should then encourage
them to generate options for resolution.
STAGE 4: The last stage of mediation is that of agreement where the key is to
ensure or seek a sustainable agreement. The mediator should work out the terms of
a fair and sustainable agreement, including ways to deal with the problems or
issues that may arise later during the course of implementation. We need to be
realistic, clear and simple in this stage while maintaining a balance between the
responsibilities given to the disputants.

Arbitration and Adjudication


In arbitration, the disputants take their dispute to an
impartial third party, who provides them with a decision to end their conflict. It
may take varied forms and can be applied to different kinds of circumstances.
Arbitration has some of the advantages of mediation such as privacy and flexibility
while on the other there is a prospect of an authoritative decision. Adjudication
refers to a settlement by a court. In civil cases, one party (petitioner) goes to court
to demand something from another. The court then makes a decision on the issues
in dispute, unless a negotiated settlement occurs first. Moreover, this is an
expensive way of resolving disputes.

Essential Skills for Facilitation, Negotiation and


Mediation
first and foremost, important quality that mediators, negotiators
and facilitators need to possess is to communicate effectively. It is said that
mediators are only as effective as their listening skills. That is why good listening
is at the top of the list of skills needs for mastery in learning mediation. A
negotiator too needs to listen effectively and check for meaning constantly.
Paraphrasing. Through a good paraphrase the mediator communicates
understanding to each of the disputants. It also helps in bringing forth more
reflective responses from the contenders. Besides, it slows down the conversation
between the individuals and groups and serves as a buffer between their

6
statements. A mediator uses summary to review the key points that have been
made by the disputants. This helps in communicating the sense that they
understand the entire situation being presented.
Monitoring body language. Paying attention to the verbal and non-verbal
behaviour makes it possible to watch for contradictions and to discuss them with
the contenders., by learning to observe and understand the body language of others,
mediators can gather useful information about how the participating individuals
and groups are responding. Additionally, intermediaries need to be good at
problem solving. Mediators and negotiators should possess the quality of
generating a variety of possibilities/options/alternatives, picking the best course of
action and developing an implementation.
third party interveners need to be flexible. They should have the capacity to shift
from problem-oriented activities to people-oriented activities to process-oriented
activities and vice-versa, when progress is blocked in one of these areas. This
means that if disputing individuals and groups are stuck on the problem or the
conflict, then the third party should shift the discussion to the people, that is, the
relationship aspect. Thus, one should be flexible enough to go back and forth
between the three aspects of problem, people and process. While undertaking this
course of action, one should be prepared to deal with emotional outbursts and
difficult behaviour.

NON-WESTERN APPROACHES TO CONFLICT


RESOLUTION
A variety of non-western approaches to conflict resolution are
used in different parts of Asia and Africa. In the African country of Rwanda, the
Gacaca is chaired by elders, , who lead group discussions that result in an
arrangement that is acceptable to all the participants. In Burundi, the bushingantahe
or the Council of Notables plays an important role in adjudicating local disputes
and reconciling individual persons or families.
In India, the mediative approach has been the primary means of dispute resolution
at the community level. The Panchayat system in which a respected village elder(s)
assists in resolving community disputes has long been an accepted method of
conflict resolution. The traditional panchayat system comprised of intervention by
third parties unconnected with the conflict, with a view to overcome the
antagonism of the disputants. The aim here was to re-establish communication
7
between them and the conflicting parties were persuaded to talk to each other; the
mediator was only a medium.

Gandhian method of conflict resolution: satyagraha,” which


basically means “a relentless search for truth and a determination to reach truth”. is
a dialectical process that is creative, constructive and centrally concerned with
human needs. Satyagraha implied cooperation with the opponent as a person but
noncooperation with the opponent’s role in the context of the social structure
Gandhi saw conflict as built into social structures and not into people. He made a
clear distinction between the actor and the deed: “Hate the sin and not the sinner.”

Gandhi was willing to compromise when basic principles had not been challenged.
He was thus ready to cooperate with the opponents, whenever possible throughout
the struggle, in order to build relationships and to create the basis for a sound post-
conflict life. Third, Gandhi sought synthesis or transcendence that was mutually
agreeable and satisfactory to all the parties and superior to any one of the original
positions with the aim of creating new choices and restructuring the opposing
elements of a conflict.
The aim of Gandhian Satyagraha is neither to harm the opponent nor to impose on
them a solution against their will; it seeks to help the parties achieve a more secure,
creative and truthful relationship. Besides, Satyagraha is not used against someone;
it is done with someone. The central idea being that moral appeal to the heart and
conscience are much more effective than violence or pain. In Gandhi’s view,
conflict is the result of structural denial of human needs and conflict resolution
thus requires a method of struggle that satisfies three conditions: it must destroy
need-denying structures, create need- satisfying structures and respect the needs of
the conflicting parties during the struggle itself.

CONCLUSION
Both western and the Gandhian approach to conflict
resolution believe that the denial of human needs causes conflict and damages
relationships. Both agree that restoring relationships through facilitated methods of
problem-solving is thus the main aim of conflict resolution. The conflict resolution
process must target a change in the attitude, behaviour and the structure.

You might also like