Home / English / Topics of the I... / Peace Education... / Basic Course 4 / SOLUTION
Frequent attempts are made to solve or settle conflicts using 'traditional’ methods that have long been seen to be ineffective. This includes strategies based on force, intimidation and threat which are designed to coerce the parties to the conflict to end their hostilities. Even a call for ethical values and convictions aims to avoid an escalation of the conflict.
Separating the conflicting parties or even performing joint tasks is often used as a way to establish a new viewpoint concerning the conflict. These strategies may affect a situative break with settling conflicts in the open, but fail to make a central contribution to the sustained analysis of the causes of a conflict or pave the way for constructive solutions.
The potential for constructively dealing with conflicts depends on the type of conflict and its present stage of development or escalation. What also has to be taken into consideration is whether a conflict between individuals, groups or institutions in close social proximity to one another is being dealt with, or one on a national-social or even international level, and whether it is merely latent or whether violence has already broken out.
Dealing with conflicts can be a preventative strategy in an attempt to avoid manifest conflicts developing, or it can relate to activity in situations of conflict. The final point can mean defusing a conflict in such as way that the process of the conflict is pursued without violence, or even that the consequences of the conflict are made more mitigating for the participants.
One of the most difficult tasks is to remove the structural causes of a conflict, which means achieving a final resolution to the differences and tensions between the conflicting parties. This only takes place in very few cases. What appears to be of central importance is that the (basic) needs of the conflicting parties are taken sufficiently into account in the solution.
Johan Galtung emphasizes that it would be naive to believe it possible to solve all conflicts satisfactorily. Instead, many conflicts need to be transformed (transition) into structures that stop new violence breaking out if violence has already settled it:
"The occidental way of thinking makes us believe that a final state exists in which a conflict is either settled or given up as being hopeless, protracted, and everlasting. One can define solving conflicts as a creating a new formation, which (1) is acceptable for all and (2) and can be borne by all protagonists. Following on from this, the most naive way of viewing conflicts would be to think that a conflict has been solved when the elites of the conflicting parties reach agreement, and place their names at the bottom of a piece of paper. (...). It is not without reason that 'diplomatic' documents of this kind are referred to as 'scraps of paper'. But the question is why?
First, it might be feasible that the person signing the document does not mean it seriously. Secondly, even if they mean it seriously, where are the other protagonists; where are the masses. Thirdly, even if the population were in agreement, where is the support and energy with the potential for calling forth a less conflicting formation (and not the same old regime). (...)
Unfortunately naivety of this kind is widespread, particularly amongst diplomats (...). However, the contrasting naivety, namely that of assuming that 'the masses' alone are capable of settling conflicts (...) provides no solution. Double-track diplomacy (elite track and population track with reciprocal interaction ) would be a much better solution here. (...)
There is not doubt that phases exist which could be called 'solutions' In the life-cycle of a conflict, if they come close to fulfilling these criteria. However, in principle, conflict transformation is a never ending process. Old contradictions might raise their ugly heads again, a new ones originate. (...) A solution that takes on a stable and permanent form is at best an aim with periodic character. What is much more important is to achieve a capacity for transformation, i.e. the ability to deal with transformation in such a away that it is sustained and acceptable. Or as Gandhi said, 'the path is the goal.' In this case we might say: 'the process in the goal' in the sense of a stable solution no longer being stable from the moment we think we have found it."
[Taken from: Johan Galtung: Frieden mit friedlichen Mitteln, Fernuniversität Hagen 1997, Kurseinheit 3, p. 38]
Define the conflict precisely!
State your aims clearly!
Try to understand your opponent's aims!
Emphasize common and agreed aims!
State the facts decisive to the conflict objectively!
Take a positive approach to the conflict!
Place positive emphasis on the conflict!
View the conflict as a chance to encounter the opponent!
View the conflict as a chance to reshape society!
View the conflict as a chance to change yourself!
Settling Conflicts
Adopt a policy of non-violence during conflicts!
Refrain from taking action that injures or damages!
Refrain from using words that injure or damage!
Refrain from thinking thoughts that injure or damage!
Do not damage your opponent’s property!
Do good to those who do evil!
Act in a manner appropriate to your aims/purpose!
Be prepared to make sacrifices!
Avoid putting up artificial fronts!
Avoid useless fights!
Solving Conflicts
Find a solution to the conflict!
Stick to essential and not non-essential matters!
Consider yourself imperfect as a being!
Demonstrate a generous attitude to your opponent!
Persuade, do not coerce!
[Taken from: Johan Galtung. Der Weg ist das Ziel, Wuppertal 1987, S. 125-128, Auszüge]
[Author: Günther Gugel, Tübingen Institute for Peace Education; Editor: Ragnar Müller]
Further Articles on Dealing with Conflict Constructively: