CONF 803: MACRO THEORIES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Professor Ho-Won Jeong
George Mason University
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Papers
CONFLICT PROVENTION AS A POLITICAL SYSTEM
John W. Burton
Introduction
For those of us who identify with the dispute or conflict fields,
and their theories and practices, the pressing question is: "Where do
we go from here?"
I wish to argue that the future of problem solving conflict resolution, perhaps
unlike dispute settlement, lies not in remaining just an interactive process,
but in establishing the basis of an alternative to the adversarial procedures
in the legal and political systems that Western societies have inherited and
promoted. Interactive problem solving conflict resolution can deal only with
a few special cases, and can make little contribution to reducing the escalating
levels of conflict and violence now associated with developed societies. It
is primarily a research tool, for the facilitated process gives important
insights into human behaviour, human relationships and problems associated
with existing institutions.
The significant and historical contribution that the theory of conflict resolution
can make is to decision making - that is to the provention of conflict - and
ultimately to providing a philosophy and a political social system that could
replace those presently dominant. Indeed, taking account of the magnitude
of environmental problems, increasing levels of deprivation and violence at
all social levels, and dramatically the falling quality of life, civilizations
have no option but to substitute long term problem solving for their traditional
short term policies of interest group expediency.
It follows that research needs to be directed towards improved decision making
(in all organizations including industry, and at all societal levels from
the community to the international), rather than have an exclusive focus on
interactive processes. Teaching needs to be directed towards potential and
practising decision makers rather than having a concentration on students
who seek conflict resolution careers. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that
greater insights into decision making and into necessary institutional changes
lead to more analytical and constructive facilitations.
Going one step further, it could reasonably be argued that the final aim of
conflict resolution studies is so to alter the philosophies that govern all
existing behavioural disciplines that separate conflict studies would no longer
be required.
Our Inheritance
Throughout the history of Western societies, the prime concern
of national authorities has been the promotion of the interests of the groups
they represent, initially land owners, then industrialists and other organized
pressure groups, and, where it has had some influence, little by-little, a
wider section of the total society. Political institutions have evolved accordingly,
resulting in party political systems that are adversarial and promote competition.
Throughout, the goals have been "law and order" and interventions
into the prevailing economic and social systems of the day designed to preserve
those systems, and to promote further the immediate concerns of influential
interests.
Political systems, accordingly, have bee preoccupied with increasing benefits
for only some sections of the community, have been concerned with real income
distribution only to the extent that it is politically necessary, and have
given little attention to the longer term consequences of policies on the
social and environmental future. Currently there is an increasing social demand
for political decision-making processes at both national and community levels
that will give less attention to special interests, and more attention to
longer term societal concerns. The environmental future is a major worry,
and inherited decision making processes seem incapable of dealing with it.
Past neglect of the social future has led in most societies to high levels
of violence and to conflicts at all societal levels, national and international.
Despite this social concern, however, the focus of authorities remains on
the present. Environmental destruction is defended as a means of reducing
unemployment. Attempts are made to suppress violence when it occurs, but little
attention is given to its sources, how it can be avoided, effectively contained,
and better still, resolved rather than just suppressed.
Failure of this power oriented system to respond to social concerns at its
political level is due largely to the absence of any conception of an alternative
system. Fascism, being an extreme form of capitalism, led historically to
resource problems that could be solved only by aggression. Communism, with
its emphasis on equitable distribution, failed because of an absence of sufficient
personal incentive in work, and also because problems of total planning and
management were beyond management capacity. Both factors led this system into
a power political frame that neglected the future. The power political system
of capitalism, undirected in its future and social goals, survives for the
time being only in the absence of a viable alternative.
Traditionally it has been assumed that in the domestic version of this power
political model, a central authority with enforcement powers, is the ideal.
The United Nations Charter was drafted with the domestic model in mind. Chapter
Seven anticipated contributions to a permanent force available to the Security
Council. Aside from the failure of this force to materialize (leading eventually
to some members acting in the name of the United Nations) we now know that
this model has its defects. Domestic violence is at a high level in all societies.
It is clear that it cannot be reduced without dealing with its root causes,
and the political system makes this impossible. So also in international society.
Problems of ethnicity, poverty and exploitation of various kinds are some
of the deep rooted problems that are sources of violence. Indeed, international
conflict is largely a spillover from domestic conflict.
The international system itself, having no effective central authority to
promote special interests, and relying on functional co operation between
nations large and small, is probably less confrontational than the domestic.
If preservation of the environment and protection of societies against self
destructive violence were to become political goals, far reaching changes
would be required. Party political decision making would require radical modification,
if not elimination, rather than be accepted as essential features of "democracy".
Major inequalities of opportunity would require attention. Quality of life
rather than levels of exploitation of resources would need to be the measure
of economic achievement. One has only to ponder the sources and remedies of
specific problems such as street violence or ethnic conflict to be led into
a whole range of questions that come under the heading of political philosophy.
There are no ad hoc solutions to these specific problems. Indeed, for survival
and to promote such long term goals, civilizations would need to seek and
adopt an alternative political philosophy, and an alternative to the confrontational
power political system. Anything less would be a delusion.
The question before us is, therefore, not how can some particular process
be more widely employed to help to settle disputes, but how can societies
at all levels be transformed so as to become less wasteful of resources, more
far sighted and less confrontational in decision making - and, as a consequence,
less violent and self destructive. What kind of system can be an improved
alternative to the interest driven, power political system which Western societies
have inherited and passed on to others?
Our separate academic disciplines have not tackled this question. Each has
had its own human construct designed to fit into the system. There has been,
for example, "economic man" and a conforming "sociological
man".
These convenient inventions have led thought away from human behaviour, and,
therefore, from a holistic approach to problems. The focus has been on some
aspects of these - economic, institutional, legal, social, or political. It
has been as though solving an artificially constructed part of a problem could
lead to its total solution. Employment is a partial solution for street violence,
as is education, ethnicity relationships, perception of social justice, a
sense of participation in decision making and a sense of recognition and identity.
All are relevant and all raise further political and social issues. The total
social political economic legal system must be the frame in which an analysis
is made of the source of the problem and its remedies. As will be seen below,
this is now changing, and broader perspectives are beginning to dominate the
academic literature.
In this paper I argue that the transformations required are within the field
of decision making, a field that, by definition, affects all societal levels,
and touches on all other fields of human relationships, including processes
of intended change. However, the contemporary trend universally is for authorities
and "leaders", especially at the highest level of decision making,
to deny responsibility and to hand everything over to "the market"
in other words, to allow events to take their course, regardless of consequences.
Failed decision making, a failed system, has led to an absence of leadership
and even less concern with the future. To go against this defeatist trend
we must articulate alternative decision-making processes that offer better
prospects for formulating and achieving consensus goals.
The Traditional Power Frame
The history of societies is, as already suggested, a history
of the promotion by dominant groups in their own short term interests. Even
a few decades ago the academic model of decision making demonstrated this.
It showed a set of lines representing power inputs, meeting at a point, and
another set of lines representing distributions of power, seemingly from that
point (Modelski, 1962). The decision-making process itself was of no interest,
represented only by the point at which the power inputs and distribution met.
In more recent years the decision making process has become more sophisticated,
but the power frame remains (Deutsch, 1963; Burton 1990a).
While domestic and international law and politics have traditionally been
studied separately, they have basic power and legal frames in common. There
is little difficulty; therefore, in conceptualising domestic and international
dispute settlement as being similar in principle. Power bargaining and negotiation,
judicial settlements and, in some extreme cases, the employment of force are
common to both.
There have been attempts, particularly at the domestic level, to speed up
legal procedures within this political power system, and to make them more
readily available to the under privileged. "Alternative Dispute Resolution"
(alternatives or supplements to courts) is one such an attempt. But these
procedures do not supply the added dimension required. That is, they do not
seek to reveal the hidden institutional and behavioural causes of conflicts.
They seek mainly to take the burden away from courts. In addition, there are
"peace studies" and movements that seek to reduce means of violence.
There is an approach to disputes that rests on introducing "good will"
into situations that are confrontational. There are community organizations
that seek to deal with many social problems. (Burton & Dukes, 1990). These
are all attempts to modify the dominant power structure of society. They seek
altered attitudes and policies, though societies remain within the adversarial
and confrontational power frame that governs social and political relationships.
They have, therefore, an idealistic ring, and must be regarded as well intentioned
but politically unrealistic.
An Alternative Frame
Obviously many disputes are settled within the existing system:
disputes that are over physical possessions, disputes arising out of agreed
social and legal norms, and others that have little behavioural content. Laws,
conventions, judicial and out of court settlements can be effective in many,
if not most, disputes within a given society and between societies.
No less obviously there are many disputes that cannot be so settled. Despite
legal norms, social pressures and deterrent strategies, murders do occur,
violence is widespread within nations, and wars between and within countries
are frequent. No amount of threat or deterrence prevents this.
In the 1960s an alternative frame emerged in response to failures in deterrent
policies, domestically and internationally. While it emerged out of extensions
to decision making theory, it represented a jump from the power political
frame in which one party could, sometimes at great cost, impose its will on
another, to a problem solving conflict resolution frame. In this, the parties
to a dispute were helped to identify the sources of their problem, revealing
possible options that would satisfy their needs. Applied to decision making
generally, it was a frame in which decision makers assessed the consequences
of policies before decision were taken, rather than relying on coercion in
the event of adverse responses (Burton, 1969; Mitchell 1981).
From the outset it was claimed by those advocating the alternative frame that:
the power political frame, defined as "political realism" by power
theorists such as Hans Morgenthau (1948), was unrealistic, and had been proved
so by failures at the domestic and international levels. Law and order had
not been established domestically, and internationally great powers were being
defeated in their attempts to deter, and wars had followed.
Deterrence does not deter sane behaviours, and the power political frame was
unrealistic because no account was taken of relevant human factors: there
are ontological, inherent human needs that cannot be suppressed, (needs of
identity and recognition that are the bases of relatedness), which make deterrence
sometimes irrelevant at all societal levels. The only option, in politically
realistic terms, was to resolve the social and behavioural problems that led
to specific conflicts, and not try merely to suppress them or to settle them
by coercion.
Let it be noted that there is no normative connotation in this alternative.
There is no moral or idealistic basis. There is, however, the assertion that
there are certain human drives or needs that will be pursued, regardless of
cost and consequences, which, as is argued later, cannot permanently be suppressed.
Hence, in time. institutions must conform to human drives, and not, as has
been assumed to be the case, the other way around.
In the light of these political and behavioural realities we have no analytical
option but to differentiate between "disputes" that can be "settled"
and "conflicts" that arise out of problems that must be "resolved"
and to find the means or processes by which those situations that cannot be
settled can be analysed and resolved by the parties concerned.
The questions being posed in this article are what are these processes, what
is the system these processes would imply, and whether such processes are
applicable at all societal levels, from the family to the international.
Attempts to merge the two approaches
There is a reluctance by some scholars and practitioners to
make a sharp distinction between disputes and conflicts, and to separate the
negotiating process from the problem solving one. This may be a mistake. Mixing
the two processes, negotiating compromises, or appealing to good will and
to social responsibility to observe legal and social norms, can lead to outcomes
that do not reflect behavioural needs, and, therefore, to agreements which
are only temporary.
Furthermore, practitioners in negotiation and legal processes may be tempted
to apply their techniques to situations that have their source in basic human
needs and thus require an analytical process. At least at the present stage
of thinking, the less confusion there is about appropriate processes the better.
Perhaps at some later stage when the two different frames are part of general
knowledge, and training in both is readily available, practitioners may be
able to shift from one to the other as situations require. For the present
it is better to allocate situations that seem to be disputes to persons trained
in negotiation, and situations that are likely to have deep rooted elements
to others with relevant analytical and facilitation training. Ideally all
"third parties" would have experience with both kinds of situations,
as situations are rarely what they seem to be before intervention, and usually
have elements of both disputes and conflicts.
The nature of the alternative frame
The idea that threat and deterrence do not deter was very upsetting
to scholars and practitioners back in the 1960s. International Relations in
particular had been taught within the Morgenthau-ian "Power Political
Realism" approach, making power balances and deterrence the central themes.
Decision making was studied within this power frame. There was no behavioural
content other than the assumption that deterrence deters. The fear was that
the study of International Relations would fall apart if "the person"
assumed within the power frame turned out not to resemble any real person
at all. Indeed, if deterrence did not deter, then the whole law and order
system would be undermined.
History was, of course, full of cases in which threat had not deterred. There
being no conceptual alternative, rationalizations were the way out. Insufficient
force was employed, or there were false communications. Korea and Vietnam
came as a shock to power theorists as well as to the US Administration, and
gave support for a search for an alternative theory by undermining power theory.
A small group of scholars in London brought together parties to conflicts
in a neutral, academic setting (Burton, 1969), and were able to see at first
hand that there were influences on decision making far greater than deterrent
threats. They gained insights during their facilitation processes that disturbed
their thinking and their teaching. It was felt necessary to withdraw from
this applied side until there could be rethinking. Many subsequent publications
helped rethinking and were evidence of it (Burton 1979; Burton, 1984).
Since then an extensive literature has emerged (Burton, 1990b; Dukes, 1992).
This includes consideration of human behaviours under the heading of "Needs
Theory" and practical applications of analytical problem solving conflict
resolution. The separation of dispute settlement and conflict resolution,
referred to above, was a logical development. This change was not just a transition
or a development in thinking within an existing frame. It was a paradigm shift
from one approach to a quite different one. Now there are many universities
offering courses and degrees in conflict analysis and resolution attracting
students who have had experience in negotiation and management but who are
aware of limitations in these fields. A new a disciplinary discipline has
emerged.
Needs Theory
Such a conceptual alternative would, clearly, have to include
the creation of less confrontational institutions that would be able to tackle
thoughtfully and constructively problems such as environmental destruction
and increasing violence within and between societies. It is not sufficient,
however, to have means of suppressing, or even resolving conflicts, and picking
up the pieces afterwards. They must be provented. (Prevention implies suppression:
provention is intended to imply anticipation and avoidance). But unless and
until the costs and consequences of decisions can be assessed accurately before
they are made, conflicts cannot be avoided. This calls for an adequate theory
of human behaviour, and processes by which the consequence of decisions can
be assessed.
The theoretical basis of this alternative problem-solving approach is "Needs
Theory" or what purports to be a holistic theory of human behaviour.
It so happened that quite outside the conflict resolution or decision making
fields, a conference on Human Needs was convened in Berlin in 1979. An international
group of scholars, dissatisfied with current thinking on social problems,
came together to share ideas, and a year later brought out a book containing
their papers (Lederer 1980). Many of these same scholars were brought together
in 1988 by the Center for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University,
with the help of the German Marshall Fund, to meet with scholars concerned
with conflict resolution. All participants arrived with prepared papers. The
connection between conflict resolution and human needs had not previously
been made, and the effects on all concerned were clear when all participants,
those on the conflict side and those concerned with human needs, felt impelled
to reconsider their papers before they were published (Burton, 1990b).
The concept of human needs went beyond that advanced by Maslow (1954). The
focus was far less on wants, and far more on inherent needs that would be
pursued in all circumstances, except total individual despair and apathy.
At the same time all concerned were aware that we do not have any clear language
or definition of "human needs" reference being made most often to
identity, recognition and security. The latter implied not simply physical
security so much as security of the other needs. It is as though the existence
of the particles of the atom had been discovered by deductive processes before
there was empirical evidence of their existence. However, there is within
this thinking an explanation of many problems, including political protest,
"aggression", violence, and protracted conflict. Contemporary events
are more readily understood within this ontological human needs frame than
within a power political one. The framework helps to explain why the international
system based on nation-states is in decline; why former colonial boundaries
cannot be maintained; why minority ethnic communities are demanding increasing
degrees of autonomy; and why there is widespread and protracted violence wherever
nation state authorities seek to suppress secessionist movements.
Similarly, the problem of inner city violence and unrest can be explained
not just by the break down of family values, not just by unemployment, not
just by the absence of educational opportunities, but also by the lack of
recognition and identity that these conditions promote.
Process
A theory of human needs suggests the facilitation process that is required to analyse and resolve conflicts. The word "analyse" has become important in any description of process. The Centre in London was called the Centre for the Analysis of Conflict. There is an Institute at George Mason University called the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. The facilitation process (Burton & Dukes 1990) is essentially non bargaining, non negotiating, at least until the analysis of the situation is complete, until there is agreement on the nature and sources of the conflict, and until details of options have been discussed.
Provention
As has already been pointed out, however, conflict resolution
is not the most important contribution to be made by this analytical and problem
solving approach to conflicts. Decision making to provent conflict is the
main focus.
True the starting point was resolution, and many university courses continue
to respond to student demand for skills that they can offer the market. Resolution
has been important in research, for it is the interaction of parties in a
facilitated setting that gives insights into the nature of conflict, and the
deep rooted causes of it. It is these insights that feed back into decision
making. It is these insights that enable decision- makers to assess the costs
and consequences of their policies in the longer term, thus encouraging them
to take those steps that will provent conflict.
Problem solving institutions
But even decision making is not the final outcome of this problem
solving approach to conflicts. The ultimate challenge is the establishment
of social and political institutions that are problem solving, and not adversarial
or confrontational. If street violence or ethnic conflict is to be avoided,
then party political and ideological approaches must give place to interactive
analysis, even at a political level.
In some administrations there are processes by which public servants can interact
freely in search of solutions to problems. In some political systems there
have been moves toward parliamentary committees that represent all parties,
and there is consultation with specialists. But within the traditional political
frame, deliberations at both political and public service decision-making
levels have imposed constraints. The shared political philosophy gives priority
to the enforcement of law and order by coercive means, rather than by getting
to the roots of the problem that gives rise to disorder. As yet the alternative
is not part of conventional wisdom or consensus thinking. Parliaments, courts,
industrial relations, ethnic relations, and every aspect of contemporary societies
remain interest driven and adversarial.
Is a Problem Solving Philosophy and System Practical?
Is analytical problem solving conflict provention a practical
alternative to the inherited power political system?
It is now apparent that there is a popular reaction against the confrontational
party political system, and against leaders whose only leadership is to appear
to be tough domestically and internationally, leaving underlying problems
unresolved. Intuitively, people are seeking institutional change that would
make decision making focus on the long term and orientate it towards problem
solving.
What are sought are leaders who do not have a defined political program which
they seek to promote, but capabilities not unlike those of a facilitator whose
prime function is to bring different view points and interests together, and
to help an analysis that can suggest constructive outcomes.
Domestic politics are universally undergoing change at an exponential rate,
as are international relations. The drive for recognition and identity has
affected both. Within nation states and between them there are demands for
autonomy, sometimes taking the form of movements for secession. The contemporary
interest driven party political system is a major source of this unrest. It
is not perceived as being either representative or problem solving.
Many scholars are now trying to explain contemporary disquiet, its sources
and its future consequences. One group of authors (Dotson et al. 1989) refers
to more active interest groups; greater legal scrutiny of public actions;
increased scarcity of government resources; higher public awareness of planning
impacts, and more complex planning problems. Another group (Susskind &
Cruikshank, 1987) refers to the tyranny of the majority; short term political
solutions for long term problems; weaknesses of voting as a decision making
process; technical complexity; and winner take all thinking.
Yet another scholar (Gray, 1989) points to the growing inter dependence that
forces more cooperative and less confrontational behaviours in all segments
of society, private and official: economic and technical change; declining
productivity growth and increased competitive pressures; global interdependence;
blurring of boundaries between business, government and labour; shrinking
government revenues for social programs; and dissatisfaction with the judicial
process for solving problems.
In reporting these and other academic responses, one conflict resolution scholar
(Dukes, 1992) takes a broader view, and recognizes the inability of the existing
order to satisfy conflicting wants and needs within the context of environmental,
resource and population problems.
This scholarly questioning of traditional consensus beliefs is an important
step in, first, pointing first to the need for an alternative system, and
second to the directions of socially demanded and required change.
The task of those who are concerned primarily with conflict resolution and
provention is to articulate alternatives, to set out precisely tested processes
and procedures, and generally to provide options to societies desperately
in need of then, but which have no clear indications of where to go from here.
Then, but only then, is there any prospect of conflict provention becoming
a political system that can replace what is proving to be destructive of the
global environment and of civilizations.
References
Burton, John W. 1990a. Conflict: Resolution and Provention.
New York: St Martins Press.
Burton, John W. 1990b. Conflict Human Needs Theory New York: St Martins Press.
Burton, John W. & F Dukes. 1990. Conflict: Practices in Management, Settlement
and Resolution. New York: St Martins Press.
Burton, John W. 1984. Global Conflict. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
Burton, John W. 1969. Conflict and Communication. London: Macmillan.
Deutsch, Karl W. 1963. The Nerves of Government New York Free Press.
Dotson, A.B., D Godschalk and J,Kaufman. 1989. The Planner as Dispute Resolver:
Concepts and Teaching Materials. Washington DC National Institute for Dispute
Resolution.
Dukes, Franklyn. 1992. The Development of Public Conflict Resolution: A Transformation
Approach. George Mason University. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems
San Francisco Jossey Bass.
Maslow, Abraham. 1954. Motivation and Personality. Reading: Addison Wesley.
Mitchell, C.R. 1981. Peacemaking and the Consultant's Role Aldershot: Gower
Press.
Modelski, George. 1962. A Theory of Foreign Policy London: Pall Mall Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1948. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace 1st ed. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Susskind, L. and J. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches
to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE ?
John W. Burton
Most peoples in the world today, whatever their age, position
or nation, suffer high levels of anxiety. Governments are failing to provide
living conditions which are reasonably free of poverty, injustice, violence
and crime, or a physical environment which provides for future generations.
This is the case whether governments are, in Australian terms, Labor or Liberal,
capitalist or communist. Despite significant organizational differences, all
authorities operate within basically the same traditional power-elite structure.
The party parliamentary system, introduced in many Western European nations
to give a voice to the previously alienated and underprivileged, established
an adversarial system, and from the perspective of those who are expected
to conform, the traditional power structure remains. Even major alterations
in institutions leave the existing we-they structure in place. When a communist
government was introduced into Russia, it retained a similar power-elite structure.1
All political systems being of this power-elite structure, it follows that
throughout the ages, and in all societies, the individual citizen has been
required to adjust to existing institutions and norms. We have always assumed
that a human being is wholly malleable, and that compliance is always possible,
either because individuals have a sense of social responsibility or because
they can be compelled by rewards and punishments. For example, we have assumed
that young people can accept being unemployed and deprived of a social role,
that people generally can accept gross inequalities of income and opportunities,
that they can accept sex, class and race discriminations, without reacting
anti-socially to their sense of deprivation.
Reactions Against Traditional Power Structures
But now we must question this basic assumption for civilisation
is in a crisis situation. Our experience is that individuals are subject to
the effects of "structural violence" that is that they are hurt
by the institutions and norms of society, including such inequalities and
discriminations. Furthermore, sooner or later they respond accordingly. Frustration
behaviours include drug usage, domestic violence, youth suicide, gang violence,
robberies and school violence. Even in the work place and in other relationships
which fail to recognize the individual as more than a robot, we see negative
behaviour such as lack of cooperation and absenteeism.
In the same way at the international level it has been assumed that we can
deter any movements for independence or ethnic identity. Economic and military
power have been regarded traditionally as reliable means of preventing challenges
to power elites. The failure of a great power and the UN to defeat independence
movements in Vietnam and North Korea should have demolished this belief.2
Within a power-elite frame, failure to coerce successfully is explained by
the insufficient use of coercive power. Military governments obstruct any
movement towards democracy, and great powers have relied on thermonuclear
threats, or more recently economic muscle, to maintain their interests. Forms
of slavery and colonialism, once so widespread, still exist. But what is different
today -- and why I believe that civilization is in crisis -- is that new weapons
are now readily available to any protestor. Moreover, communications make
possible mass protest in many places at the same time, and there are substantial
minorities, such as trade unions, religious organizations and small political
parties, able to voice protest.3
The Market as "Solution"
Faced with these unprecedented challenges governments, almost
universally and in desperation, are handing over the future management of
much of the society to the "market". The usual justification for
this abdication is that, in competitive global conditions, the economic management,
and even administration of essential services such as education, health, communications
and energy services, law and order and the administration of prisons, is best
left to the judgment and competitive incentive of private enterprise.
But clearly it is hiding the source of this contemporary crisis to argue that
a government and its public servants have less intellectual or administrative
capabilities to deal with the ever-emerging economic, social and environmental
problems than the impersonal "market". The reality is that the problems
of any society must be the consequence of the way in which elites and leaderships
have responded to interest pressures, including self-interest, usually by
taking a short-term perspective. Now faced with the uncomfortable political
implications of confronting a demand for decreased income inequalities (which
imply taxes on the richer) and to provide a better quality of life, withdrawal
seems the best tactic.
The market comprises the same interests which historically have brought about
the problems now faced: the domination of workers by the powerful; the increasing
gap between the wealthy and the poor; the growing accumulation of privilege.
The less that governments intervene to curb this now almost universal trend,
the more we will see an increase in social problems.
This abdication of responsibility inevitably neglects many in need, because
of their special individual and community circumstances. No less importantly,
it brushes aside problems of population control and destruction of the environment
by the "market". The expected costs of this alternative competitive,
"market" approach are beginning to emerge.
The major change in handing over to the "market" is that the source
of social problems will no longer be attributable to identifiable political
parties, persons or processes. Instead of youth unemployment being dealt with
as a social and personal problem it will be left to the "market"
to offer less pay than it takes a person to live on, and trade union bargaining
power will be curbed.
But these politically unpopular measures can be pursued by the "market"
anonymously, outside political decision making.4
An Alternative Approach
In the interest of all peoples, rich and poor, there is now
no sensible option but to explore whether there are significant changes that
can be made, consensually. These would need to provide conditions, even within
this continuing power-elite structure, that would help to reduce anxiety,
that would promote less anti-social behaviour and greater security and, perhaps
most important and pressing of all, that would avoid continuing class, ethnic,
and (possibly) global conflict.
It is important in policy making and promoting change to realize that the
widespread consequences of change cannot always be anticipated. This rules
out revolutionary change as a solution. Even step-by-step change in institutions
requires constant reconsideration. Unfortunately, problems emerge unnecessarily
because there is a reluctance by leaders and governments to admit error or
to alter declared policies. Political ideologies control thinking amongst
all politicians.
It is unreasonable to assume that, if there were a widespread understanding
of the nature of our structural problems, there could be consensual agreement
to take a long-term view and to alter existing institutions that are fundamentally
adversarial. Far more bottom-up decision making could be introduced by encouraging
local community consultation and activities. Industrial relations in a capitalistic
society could, with advantage to all concerned, become more collaborative.
The parliamentary party system could become less debative and involve more
problem-solving. 'Democracy' could be made more representative: presently
so-called "democracies" are ruled by elite minorities, with many
other minorities and view-points not represented in the legislative process.
A gradual breakdown of political parties and the election of more independents
and members of small parties could provide wider representation. Such members,
working together in an atmosphere of dialogue rather than debate, could create
a political decision-making institution that was also a public service.
Given the fundamental importance of satisfying human needs, of the endangerment
of our fragile planet, and of the inevitable failure of coercive policies,
there is a call for altered legal process, so that the sources of conflicts
are treated. Conflict analysis and resolution, problem solving practices,
rather than legal processes, are required.5
Conclusion
These are all steps which can be initiated without threatening
our basic structure. None would interfere with the essentials of the power-elite
system. On the contrary, it would be made more acceptable. Nor would the market
system be threatened, although its destructive practices would be controlled.
These steps are being advocated by observers and writers in Britain and in
other places where the same anxieties generated by the market system are being
experienced.
There is an additional and important observation to be made. These anxieties
will, in the course of time, also be experienced by those directly involved
in the market system and now doing well out of it. They, too, will find that
the societies they are creating will ultimately threaten them, their offspring
and the system itself. The abdication of government to control them is not
in their interest either. Indeed, some of the most powerful statements of
support for contemporary trends towards "market" control are coming
from successful industrialists, such as the Canadian, John Ralston Saul (1993).
Let us no longer go along with the escapist policies which are being pursued.
Let us, of course, focus on help for those who desperately need it, but not
without also dealing with the sources of their problems. Let us no longer
leave policies solely to party politics or to their market forces. The needs
of peoples must be acknowledged.
Anti-social behaviour, violence and crime, sources of our insecurities, require
society, not people, to be "punished" by altering its institutions,
and people to be rehabilitated in changed circumstances.6
Notes
1. It is not surprising that this is so. In any adversarial
structure there are always those who have personal, job and status interests
in maintaining the status quo. In industries such as coal mining or timber,
the environment is of little concern. Dominant today are arms industries,
national defence forces and intelligence agencies, the members of which have
a personal interest in defending the conflict generating status quo, and the
continuing tensions associated with it (See Timberg,1996).
2. In 1979 a group of scholars, reacting to these realities, met in Berlin
and put forward the view that there could be development in individuals only
if certain human needs - not confined to physical needs such as food or housing
- were met. (Lederer, 1980). In 1988, this group and others interested in
the sources and resolution of conflict met in Virginia and arrived at conclusions
which explain why individuals, in some circumstances, defy social conventions
to the extent of confronting great powers. (Burton, 1990) The traditional
assumption that a human being is malleable and can be coerced into desired
behaviours was challenged as false if a human being has inherent needs (perhaps
shared by other species). In particular, these include the need for social
recognition through a social role and the need for personal identity. If,
as has been argued by many who have researched this area, these needs will
be pursued, regardless of costs, then punishments and other deterrent strategies
must fail.
3. Indeed, contemporary studies show how the demands of adolescence, of parenting
and partnering, of workers in relation with their employers, and of people
generally for rewarding work opportunities, for development, for educational
and health services, for greater equality in quality of life, are challenging
governments in the most developed of economies (See Kegan, 1994).
4. Writers today deplore what appears to be an acceptance of these trends,
as they did of past ideologies. "In reality we are today in the midst
of a theology of pure power - power born of structure not dynasty or arms.
The new holy trinity is organization, technology and information. The new
priest is the technocrat." They urge a far greater questioning by the
public. "To govern a democracy, you require constant vibrations from
the population" (See Saul, 1993).
5. Looking to the future, more attention needs to be given to childhood education.
At present, all children are educated within adversarial institutions, including
schools and the family and, later in life, in politics, industry and global
relations. Even physically aggressive sports need to be reassessed and much
more attention given to those in which there is competition in skills but
no aggressive physical contact. Movement in this direction is becoming more
and more important. See Kegan (1994) for an outline of the main challenges
to traditional norms and Burton (1997) on contemporary adversarial institutions
and possible changes and (1996) on means of handling specific conflict situations
outside legal processes.
6. If anyone should wish to pursue the quest for sources of our social problems,
the books referred to below provide a holistic background. Regular, informal
dialogue in groups of seven or so in communities could help to provide the
insights now needed.
References
Burton, John W. 1997. Violence Explained; The Sources of Conflict,
Violence and Crime, and their Provention. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Burton, John W. 1996. Conflict Resolution; Its Language and Processes. Lanham:
Scarecrow Press.
Burton, John W., ed. 1990. Conflict: Human Needs Theory. New York: St Martins
Press.
Kegan, Robert. 1994. In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lederer, Katrin, ed. 1980. Human Needs. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn
and Hain.
Saul, J.R. 1993. Voltaire's Bastards; The Dictatorship of Reason in the West.
London: Penguin Books.
Timberg, Robert. 1996. The Nightingale's Song. New York Simon and Schuster.