Politacal conflicts

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Conflict

3. Political conflict

4. Conflict resolution techniques

5. Conflict resolution in politics: strategies, tactics and techniques. Cooperative negotiation

Summary

References

Terminology

cooperative negotiation conflict resolution

1. Introduction

Conflict can be defined as the existence of non-compatibility or disagreements between two actors (Individuals, groups, organisations or nations) in their interaction over the issues of interests, values, beliefs, emotions, goals, space, positions, scarce resources etc.

This broad conception of conflict and of conflict resolution through analytical problem solving implies that a wide range of current social problems are resolvable. Deviant behavior of all kinds, drug addictions and their related problems, street violence, spouse abuse, terrorism, and arms control are all problems which can be thoroughly dealt with by conflict resolution.

The goal of this paper is to describe possible ways of conflict resolution in politics. The objectives of this paper are:

? to give a notion of conflict and political conflict

? to get basic understanding of conflict resolution techniques

? to find strategies, tactics and techniques of resolving political conflict.

The research is relevant due to the fact that political negotiation is often essential to democratic rule, yet negotiating is difficult to do.

Political, economic, and social differences inevitably create conflict, as do differences in ethnicity, gender, religion, personality, and style. What would it take to successfully mediate these conflicts? If time, money, laws, bureaucracy, expertise, and willingness to participate were not obstacles, what methods and programs might we employ to reduce the bloodshed and recover peace and social unity once the upheavals subside? What might the United Nations, national governments, or non-governmental organizations do to discourage evil, war, and terrorism before they begin. All this questions illustrate the relevance of the paper.

The material of the paper can be useful for students and professors who are interested and study politics and conflict logy. The material can be used during lecture and practical classes.

2. Conflict

Conflict is defined in many ways; there is no unanimity among the scholars about what constitute a conflict. One school, dominant in North America, defines conflict in terms of clash of interest between two parties. Kenneth Building for instance, states: "Conflicts over interests are situations in which some change makes at least one party better off and the other party worse off, each in their own estimation...A fight is a situation in which each party to a Perceived conflict over interests acts to reduce the welfare of the other" johan Galtung, who represents another school, maintains that "injustice and structural violence" mark a conflict situation.

According to him, absence of physical violence and direct confrontation between actors does not necessary mean that structural violence is totally absent. Adam Curie presents a broader definition. For him, conflict is a situation where "potential development" of one party is "impeded" by another. However, the most widely used definition links a conflict situation with "incompatible goals" of parties.

According to Michel Nicholson, "a conflict exists when two people wish to carry out acts which are mutually inconsistent. The definition of conflict can be extended from single people to groups and more than two parties can be involved in a conflict.

The principles remain the same. A common element found in all definitions is the divergent goals and interest of two actors or parties who resort to various means in pursuit of achieving their objectives.

Conflict is classified into the following four types:

· Interpersonal conflict refers to a conflict between two individuals. This occurs typically due to how people are different from one another. We have varied personalities which usually results to incompatible choices and opinions. Apparently, it is a natural occurrence which can eventually help in personal growth or developing your relationships with others. In addition, coming up with adjustments is necessary for managing this type of conflict. However, when interpersonal conflict gets too destructive, calling in a mediator would help so as to have it resolved.

· Intrapersonal conflict occurs within an individual. The experience takes place in the person's mind. Hence, it is a type of conflict that is psychological involving the individual's thoughts, values, principles and emotions. Interpersonal conflict may come in different scales, from the simpler mundane ones like deciding whether or not to go organic for lunch to ones that can affect major decisions such as choosing a career path. Furthermore, this type of conflict can be quite difficult to handle if you find it hard to decipher your inner struggles. It leads to restlessness and uneasiness, or can even cause depression. In such occasions, it would be best to seek a way to let go of the anxiety through communicating with other people. Eventually, when you find yourself out of the situation, you can become more empowered as a person. Thus, the experience evoked a positive change which will help you in your own personal growth.

· Intragroup conflict is a type of conflict that happens among individuals within a team. The incompatibilities and misunderstandings among these individuals lead to an intragroup conflict. It is arises from interpersonal disagreements (e.g. team members have different personalities which may lead to tension) or differences in views and ideas (e.g. in a presentation, members of the team might find the notions presented by the one presiding to be erroneous due to their differences in opinion). Within a team, conflict can be helpful in coming up with decisions which will eventually allow them to reach their objectives as a team. However, if the degree of conflict disrupts harmony among the members, then some serious guidance from a different party will be needed for it to be settled.

· Intergroup conflict takes place when a misunderstanding arises among different teams within an organization. For instance, the salesdepartment of an organization can come in conflict with the customer support department. This is due to the varied sets of goals and interests of these different groups. In addition, competition alsocontributes for intergroup conflict to arise. There are other factors which fuel this type of conflict. Some of these factors may include a rivalry in resources or the boundaries set by a group to others which establishes their own identity as a team.

Conflict may seem to be a problem to some, but this isn't how conflict should be perceived. On the other hand, it is an opportunity for growth and can be an effective means of opening up among groups or individuals. However, when conflict begins to draws back productivity and gives way to more conflicts, then conflict management would be needed to come up with a resolution.

3. Political Conflict

A political conflict is a positional difference between at least two assertive and directly involved actors regarding values relevant to a society (the conflict items including (territory,secession, decolonization, autonomy, system/ideology, national power, regional predominance, international power, resources, other)) which is carried out using observable and interrelated conflict measures that lie outside established regulatory procedures and threaten core state functions, the international order, or hold the prospect of doing so. According to the Heidelberg methodology, the essence of a political conflict lies in a contradiction, adequately represented by the concept of a “positional difference”: a positional difference is a perceived incompatibility of ideas and beliefs. It presupposes the presence of the following elements:

(1) There must be at least two entities possessing intellectual capacity and vision, and who are capable of communicating. Such an entity is called an actor.

(2) In order for the actors to sense incompatibility between their ideas and beliefs, there must be reciprocal actions and acts of communication between said actors. These actions and acts of communication are called measures.

(3) A communicating act always refers to a specific issue, an action always refers to a certain object. The subject behind a measure is called item. For the purpose of defining the term political conflict more precisely, the three elements aforementioned shall be further defined. These elements are necessary requirements for the existence of a political conflict.

Political conflict intensities

4. Conflict Resolution Techniques

When there are multiple people involved, there are bound to be conflicts. In virtually all aspects of life, such as within families and friend circles, within organisations and countries conflicts either exist or have the potential of existing.

Conflicts are usually taken in a negative connotation. This is inaccurate as conflicts are necessary for healthy relationships. It all depends on the approach you use to resolve the conflict. If the conflict resolution technique is not optimal, then it'll begin impacting other parts of the project. If the conflict is ignored, the situation will simply get worse.

There are the following conflict resolution techniques:

· Problem Solving: Involves the use of logical thinking to understand the problem. In this conflict resolution technique, you will need to understand the view point of all conflicting parties. The problem-solving technique is the best for conflict resolution. It also helps in developing trust in the team, since each party collaboratively tries to explore possible solutions. By using the problem-solving technique, you can achieve a win-win situation for all conflicting parties.

· Compromise: This technique involves reaching an agreement by each of the conflicting parties giving something. Therefore, both parties don't get exactly what they want. Hence, compromise is sometimes also known as a lose-lose solution. However, in some cultures compromise is perceived as a win-win solution. These cultures, such as Asian and African, value the relationship between the parties more than the outcome. Compromise is very useful when you have not succeeded with the problem-solving conflict resolution technique. Note that humans do notcompromise on values and basic needs.

· Forcing: Forcing, a win-lose situation, involves using your authority or power to decide on the outcome of a conflict regardless of the opinion of the participants. In project management, forcing can lead to low morale and low ownership. However, forcing is very useful when you need to resolve a conflict in the shortest possible time. If you use forcing, make sure you discuss the reasoning with the team at a later team meeting, such as in the Daily Team Meeting. You can also use the Daily Team Meeting to gauge the morale of the team.

· Smoothing: This conflict resolution technique involves playing down the issue. The key focus is simply on the positive aspects. By using the Smoothing technique, a party would not confront the issue; rather the party will treat the problem like it never exists. Avoid using this conflict resolution technique.

· Withdrawal: This technique is actually not a conflict resolution technique. Withdrawal simply means to avoid the problem altogether. It is an escapist's approach to conflicts. Though it doesn't solve the problem, Withdrawal is useful when there is a heated conflict resolution session on and all parties need some time out to gather their senses.

5. Conflict Resolution in Politics: Strategies, Tactics and Techniques. Cooperative Negotiation

Con?icts are dynamic and can develop and change at astonishing speed. They can also take long periods of time to gestate unnoticed before they suddenly erupt into overt violence. The process of con?ict escalation is complex and unpredictable. New issues and con?ict parties can emerge, internal power struggles can alter tactics and goals, and secondary con?icts and spirals can further complicate the situation. The same is true of de- escalation, with unexpected breakthroughs and setbacks changing the dynamics, with advances in one area or at one level being offset by relapses at others, and with the actions of third parties in?uencing the outcome in unforeseen ways. Here we offer the simplest model in which escalation phases move along a normal distribution curve, from the initial differences that are part of all social developments, through the emergence of an original contradiction that may or may not remain latent, on up through the process of polarization in which antagonistic parties form and the con?ict becomes manifest, and culminating in the outbreak of direct violence and war.

Another in?uential framework model is the `con?ict tree', as developed and applied in particular in the Responding to Con?ict Programme at Birmingham.

How can the parties reframe their positions if they are diametrically opposed, as they often are? One of the classical ideas in con?ict resolution is to distinguish between the positions held by the parties and their underlying interests and needs. For example, Egypt and Israel quarrel over Sinai. Each claims sovereignty and their positions seem incompatible. But in negotiations it turns out that Egypt's main interest is in national territorial integrity and Israel's main interest is in security. So the political space is found for what came to be the Camp David settlement. Interests are often easier to reconcile than positions, since there are usually several positions that might satisfy them. Matters may be more dif?cult if the con?ict is over values (which are often non- negotiable) or relationships, which may need to be changed to resolve the con?ict, although the same principle of looking for a deeper level of compatible underlying motives applies. Some analysts take this to the limit by identifying basic human needs (for example, identity, security, survival) as lying at the roots of other motives. Intractable con?icts are seen to result from the denial of such needs, and con?ict can only be resolved when such needs are satis?ed. Basic human needs are seen to be generic and non- negotiable. But the hopeful argument of these analysts is that, whereas interests may be subject to relative scarcity, basic needs are not (for example, security for one party is reinforced by security for the other). As long as the con?ict is translated into the language of needs, an outcome that satis?es both sides' needs can be found.

When individuals or parties enter into a negotiation process to resolve conflict, they will bring a certain orientation to the table in their effort to settle the conflict. The two most basic orientations people adhere to when entering into negotiations are cooperative or competitive. A cooperative approach aligns with the process of interest-based or integrative bargaining, which leads parties to seek win-win solutions. Disputants that work cooperatively to negotiate a solution are more likely to develop a relationship of trust and come up with mutually beneficial options for settlement. The mutual gains approach is considered a constructive resolution process.

At its core, negotiation involves a fundamental tension between whether parties feel they need to cooperate or compete in order to achieve their goals. It is important to remember though, that negotiating an acceptable agreement always includes common and conflicting goals. Therefore both cooperation and competition are necessary to some extent in order to reach resolution. In other words, "[n]egotiators must learn, in part from each other, what is jointly possible and desirable. To do so requires some degree of cooperation. But, at the same time, they seek to advance their individual interests. This involves some degree of competition." Finding a balance between these two approaches is the key to successful negotiation. This basic tension between cooperation and competition in negotiation is known as, "The Negotiator's Dilemma.

How a party approaches resolving a conflict depends on many factors. Scholars in the field of social psychology, particularly Morton Deutsch, have developed theories about factors that influence whether a person approaches a conflict cooperatively or competitively. The most important factors are the nature of the dispute and the goals each side seeks to achieve as a result of it. Deutsch's theory centers on the relationship between the two sides' goals, which he calls interdependence. According to his theory, the type of interdependence existing between negotiating parties will largely guide how they interact.

Deutsch identifies two basic types of goal interdependence -- positive and negative. Positive interdependence means that each side's goals are tied together in such a way that the chance of one side attaining its goal is increased by the probability of the other side successfully attaining its goal. Positively interdependent goals normally result in cooperative situations because any participant can "attain his goal if, and only if, the others with whom he is linked can attain their goals." On the other hand, negative interdependence means that each side's goals are tied together in such a way that the probability of one side attaining its goal is decreased by the probability of the other side successfully attaining its goal. Negatively interdependent goals force competitive situations because the only way for one side to achieve its goals is for the other side not to.

Morton Deutsch's theory of cooperation and competition includes predictions about what sort of interactions will occur between negotiating parties as a result of their disputing style.

Cooperative styles are characterized by:

1. "Effective communication" where ideas are verbalized, group members pay attention to one another and accept their ideas and are influenced by them. These groups have less problems communicating with and understanding others.

2. "Friendliness, helpfulness, and less obstructiveness" is expressed in conversations. Members tend to be generally more satisfied with the group and its solutions as well as being impressed by the contributions of other group members.

3. "Coordination of effort, division of labor, orientation to task achievement, orderliness in discussion, and high productivity" tend to exist in cooperative groups.

4. "Feeling of agreement with the ideas of others and a sense of basic similarity in beliefs and values, as well as confidence in one's own ideas and in the value that other members attach to those ideas, are obtained in cooperative groups."

5. "Willingness to enhance the other's power" to achieve the other's goals increases. As other's capabilities are strengthened in a cooperative relationship, you are strengthened and vice versa.

6. "Defining conflicting interests as a mutual problem to be solved by collaborative effort facilitates recognizing the legitimacy of each other's interests and the necessity to search for a solution responsive to the needs of all." This tends to limit the scope of conflicting interests and keep attempts to influence each other to decent forms of persuasion.

Summary

Conflict is the principal means by which significant social and political changes have taken place throughout history. Wars and revolutions can be understood as efforts to resolve deep-seated political, economic, and social conflicts for which no other means of resolution was understood or acceptable to either or both sides, blocking evolutionary change.

Whether our conflicts are intensely personal and between private individuals, or intensely political and between nations and cultures, three critical areas require on-going improvement and transformation. These are: our personal capacity for introspection, integrity, and spiritual growth; our interpersonal capacity for egalitarian, collaborative, heartfelt communication and relationships; and our social, economic, and political capacity for designing preventative, systemic, strategic approaches to conflict resolution, community, and change.

By creatively combining conflict resolution systems design principles with strategic planning, team building, meditation and spiritual practices, community organizing, and heart-based conflict resolution techniques, we can significantly improve our ability to resolve international political and cross-cultural disputes before they become needlessly destructive. Yet conflict resolution carries a price in the form of our willingness to listen to ideas we dislike and share power and control over outcomes with people different from ourselves.

Ultimately, transcending conflict means giving up unjust, unequal power- and rights-based systems, and seeking instead to satisfy interests, which is why we seek power and rights in the first place. This means surrendering our power to take from others what does not belong to us, and right to coerce them into giving what they are otherwise unwilling to give. Accepting this price allows us to achieve a higher value and right, merge peace with justice, and immensely improve our personal and political lives.

References

1. Cloke, Kenneth. "Mediating Evil, War, and Terrorism: The Politics of Conflict." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: December 2005 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/mediating-evil>.

2. Gelfand, M.J. Handbook of negotiation and culture [Text]/ M.J. Gelfand, J.M. Brett. Stanford University Press, 2004. Режим доступа: http://www.sub.org.book/ - Загл. с экрана.

3. Moore, Ch.W. Negotiation [Электронный ресурс]/ Ch.W. Moore. Режим доступа: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/usace/negotiation.htrr. Загл. с экрана

4. Van Kleef, G.A. The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations [Text]/ G.A. Van Kleef, C.K.W. De Dreu, A.S.R. Manstead // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004. Vol. 86. P. 57 - 76. Режим доступа: http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/ Загл. с экрана.

Terminology

By con?ict we mean the pursuit of incompatible goals by different groups. This suggests a broader span of time and a wider class of struggle than armed con?ict.

Armed con?ict is a narrower category denoting a con?ict where parties on both sides resort to the use of force. It is notoriously dif?cult to de?ne, since it can encompass a continuum of situations ranging from a military over?ight or an attack on a civilian by a single soldier to an all- out war with massive casualties.

Violent con?ict, or deadly con?ict, is similar to armed con?ict, but also includes one- sided violence such as genocides against unarmed civilians. We mean direct, physical violence.

Contemporary con?ict refers to the prevailing pattern of political and violent con?icts at the beginning of the twenty- ?rst century; contemporary armed con?ict refers only to those that involve the use of force.

Con?ict settlement means the reaching of an agreement between the parties to settle a political con?ict, so forestalling or ending an armed con?ict.

Con?ict management, like the associated term `con?ict regulation', has been used as a generic term to cover the whole gamut of positive con?ict handling.

Con?ict resolution is a more comprehensive term, which implies that the deeprooted sources of con?ict are addressed and transformed. This implies that behaviour is no longer violent, attitudes are no longer hostile, and the structure of the con?ict has been changed.

Negotiation is the process whereby parties seek to settle or resolve their con?icts.

Mediation involves the intervention of a third party; it is a voluntary process in which the parties retain control over the outcome (pure mediation), although it is sometimes combined with positive and negative inducements (mediation with muscle). Conciliation or facilitation is close in meaning to pure mediation, and refers to intermediary efforts to encourage the parties to move towards negotiations, as does the more minimalist role of providing good of?ces.

Размещено на Allbest.ru