• Thursday, 28 March 2024
logo

Professor Daniel Druckman: [Peace-building activity] is an interplay among peace-making, peacekeeping, and peace-building that creates the conditions for transforming societal institutions.

Professor Daniel Druckman: [Peace-building activity] is an interplay among peace-making, peacekeeping, and peace-building that creates the conditions for transforming societal institutions.
Gulan: Do conflict management strategies provide lasting peace? In your opinion, how is it possible to transform conflict to a kind of overall peace?
Gulan: Do conflict management strategies provide lasting peace? In your opinion, how is it possible to transform conflict to a kind of overall peace?

Druckman: This is good question at the center of our research. We distinguish between managing and resolving conflicts. When a conflict is managed, that is when the violence stops, the underlying problems which caused the conflict often remain. So there may be a disconnect between trying to manage a conflict and trying to resolve it in order to bring about lasting peace. There are many examples around the world of successfully managed conflicts that have not been resolved. One example is the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan. A successful ceasefire was negotiated in 1994 and yet the two countries remain hostile toward each other and unwilling to discuss the issues that divide them. Many efforts have been made by third parties to encourage them to talk with few positive results. A looming question is why this conflict has not evolved from effective management to resolution. This transition is a major challenge, and a defining feature, of intractable conflicts.

Cease fire agreements often contain provisions for peacekeepers. The record of peacekeeping effectiveness is impressive. Less well understood is a side effect of these missions, which emanates from the need to keep the parties apart. By doing so, peacekeepers reduce the chances that conflict resolution activities will occur. Without frequent direct communication between former combatants, it is unlikely that progress toward resolution will occur. Thus, the essential function of peacekeeping missions, which is to prevent the recurrence of violence, serves to reinforce the disconnect between management and resolution.

Yet, we also find examples of cases where settlements develop into resolutions. Our statistical research on terminating civil wars shows a substantial relationship (correlation) between adhering to the terms of the agreement, which includes provisions for managing a conflict, and lasting peace. A key discovery in the research is the importance of the principle of equality in the agreement and during the post-agreement phases. Examples of cases that succeeded in making the transition from managing to resolving the conflict are Mozambique (1992), Namibia (1992), Guatemala (1996), El Salvador (1992), South Africa (1993), and Zimbabwe (1979). In each of these cases, the equality principle was central in the agreement provisions. However, all problems are rarely resolved, even in the “best” cases, as evidenced by the recent rekindling of tensions and fighting in Mozambique. Although equality plays an important role in emerging peace, there are no doubt other factors that prevent progress from management to resolution as in the cases of Nagorno-Karabakh (1994), Senegal (2004), and Liberia (1995). The lessons learned from these cases should have implications for the seemingly intractable conflicts in the Middle East.

Gulan: Experts also think that conflict transformation is different from conflict management, just as you have mentioned, because the former covers several aspects of the society. In you view, to what extent, can conflict transformation have impact on the level of social peace?

Druckman: This is also a good question. The word “transformation” has become very popular in the literature and also in the popular press. We do not however have a clear understanding of what it means. Peace-building activities may be instrumental in a transforming process. Indeed, it is an interplay among (rather than a linear progression of) peace-making, peacekeeping, and peace-building that creates the conditions for transforming societal institutions. First and foremost, perhaps, is a need for citizens to understand that institutional change is a long-term process. Developing long-term perspectives on change and thinking in complex ways about how they are likely to occur are helpful. Considerable social-psychological research shows that cognitive and motivational change does occur, particularly when training sessions are repeated on a regular basis. But the research also shows that changing individuals is only part of the transformation challenge. It is also necessary to change public awareness about the need for change and the steps to be taken to accomplish the goal. In theoretical terms, the challenge is to bridge micro-level (individuals, small groups) and macro-level (societal) processes, which is a key issue in the field of political psychology. Successful conflict transformation depends on joining psychological with structural change.

Changing individuals may be the easier part of the transformation challenge. Changing institutional structures is likely to be the larger challenge. Educational campaigns in conjunction with workshops among small groups are useful. Part of the campaign should be devoted to discussions of strategies for reform which, in the case of emerging democracies, consist of electoral reform and a willingness to shift from competitive to cooperative word views. And, with regard to decision-making elites, the transition consists of a willingness to exchange power and control vested in previous leaders for power that is vested in citizens. This exchange of one idea for another is facilitated by new ways of thinking about ownership: societal institutions are “owned” by citizens, not elites. The Mozambique case illustrates the progress that can be made when a rebellious group is transformed into a political party with full rights of participation and opportunities to influence policies. Participation in the politics of a society reinforces the legitimacy of the group and its perception of justice, contributing to lasting peace.

Gulan: Can third parties play useful roles in transforming institutions and insuring a durable peace?

Druckman: The record of third-party intervention in intra- or inter-national conflict is not impressive. Statistical research on mediation has shown that considerably less than half of the cases over the course of a century have been effective in producing durable agreements. A host of factors have been found to account for these outcomes. Rarely is the competence of the mediation team at issue. Rather, the problems reside in structural factors such as the pull of sovereignty or the push from generally weak international conflict-resolving institutions. Much has been written about the bureaucratic inefficiencies of the United Nations and the OSCE. The recent awarding of the Nobel peace prize to the European Union is instructive. The prize was given in recognition of the EU’s work on instilling a larger European identity in historically fractious nations. By creating an economic union, the EU fostered conditions for peace among its member nations. This is an example of how change in economics and trade can have far-reaching implications for political change, a key topic in the field of political economy. Mediation has a better chance of succeeding when the conflicting parties share values or larger identities. Moreover, mediators are likely to have a stronger incentive to intervene when the parties are amenable to a possible resolution. Successful mediation brings credibility to the mediator’s skills and enhances his or her reputation.

Gulan: Is the role played by third parties more difficult in religious or ethnic conflicts?

Druckman: I read an interview in your magazine with Anna Geifman. She says that: “All fundamentalist ideologies have been extremely attractive in the countries of their origin and in foreign cultures around the globe—but only so long as the totalitarian regimes remained strong.” Her point is that ideological conflicts may be more about state control than about the conflicting worldviews. The ideologies or doctrines may serve more as window dressing to the interests of the movement leaders. Although research has shown that negotiated settlements are more difficult to achieve when conflicting ideologies are salient, the source of the difficulty may reside more in the quest for power than in the beliefs per se. If so, then my discussion above is relevant. A change of perspective from ownership by a few decision makers to ownership by the many voices of citizens is needed. A pluralistic society where many religious and ethnic ideologies can flourish is a goal of transformation. Then back to your question: Process-focused mediation is indeed more difficult for resolving religious or ethic-based conflicts. The mediation is more likely to succeed in these types of conflicts if it helps parties develop strategies for macro-level institutional change.

Gulan: Why do some conflicts that are successfully mediated by the United Nations or other third parties resume, and even become more intense when the mediator leaves? An example is the territorial conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.
Druckman: This happens when the disputing parties become increasingly dependent on the mediator. Often progress during the mediation is not a barometer of lasting peace. Rather the progress reflects the dynamic (in a bilateral conflict) of three parties. Preparing the parties for the post-mediator period would seem to be critical for sustaining the progress made. Mediators should develop a sense of responsibility or ownership by the disputing parties. Upon exiting, mediators seem to lose interest in the conflict and do not stake their reputations on the future – at least until they are needed once again! A suggestion is to provide incentives that encourage mediators to approach their intervention with forward-looking or long term perspectives on the conflict.

Gulan: We see that Germany and France were able to overcome obstacles to cooperation after a century of bitter conflict. How have these nations been able to transform their relationship?

Druckman: I agree that this is an interesting development in international relations. My remarks above about the role of the European Union in forging peaceful relations among its members are relevant. Developing a larger European identity has helped to alter historical relationships. But, it is also the case that Germany has changed in two waves. One was the post WWII period of occupation, serving, at least in part, to move the nation from the ashes of dictatorship to the birth of participatory democracy, similar to other European nations who were victims of German occupation. The other was the ascent of a unified Germany following the Cold War. The lessons learned from these experiences have served Germany well. They became part of the world, rejecting the legacy of conquests for the rewards of international cooperation.

Gulan: Please help us to understand why people in this part of the world are reluctant to compromise.

Druckman: There are probably many reasons for the observed shunning compromise solutions. One resides perhaps in political socialization. Children in some cultures learn that social life is competitive. Survival depends on winning the competitions at school, on the playground, and in professional life. Another is related to the intensity of religious or ethnic identifications. Social life in many Eastern European and former Soviet nations is organized around clan-like groups. Penalties for heretical behavior can be severe. A third is normative. Accepted notions of compromise equate the idea with losses rather than gains. Indeed, compromise involves losses. But the key is perceived equal losses for both (all) parties. Many attractive ideas about equilibrium solutions, log rolling (trading on different preferences), and preserving long-term friendships at the expense of short-term agreements are essential to negotiation success. These advantages of compromise are offset by the disadvantage of sub-optimal agreements (all negotiators lose something). Compromise solutions may be regarded as being fair, which sustains relationships. Better solutions, referred to as integrative (all parties win), are understood in relation to compromise outcomes. A challenge that I mentioned earlier is to develop an appreciation for these solutions. The challenge is magnified in societies wedded to totalistic belief systems.

Gulan: What might be some implications of failed conflict management?

Druckman: One implication is continued (or escalated) violence. Another is the dissolution of the state. A third is the possible spread of violence across borders as allies are sought by both (all) sides. And, a fourth, is a loss of confidence by the disputing parties in the peace process and by the mediators or peacekeepers who suffer a loss of reputation. Managing a conflict is an essential step along the course to lasting peace. Durable peace contributes in important ways to the quality of life. It is not essential to survival. Containing and abating the violence that accompanies conflict is essential to survival and, thus perhaps, the more basic goal.

Gulan: Do you have anything to add?

Druckman: Thanks for inviting me to share my views with your readership. I do hope that research-based knowledge is sought as a guide to policy. A wealth of social science knowledge has accumulated over the last several decades. It is a source of valuable insights that would contribute to informed policies for preventing, managing, and resolving a variety of types of conflicts.
Top