Conflict Analysis Tools (Paul Clifford, Consultant for CARE SS, March 2010)

Conflict analysis tools (paul Clifford, consultant for CARE SS, March 2010)

1.1 The Conflict Square

Participants were asked to come up with examples of latent, surface and open conflicts from their work and life experiences. One of the interesting things they observed that there were a number of latent organisational conflicts that were not being addressed by the organisation. There were also latent community conflicts. One of the learnings was that sometimes it can be beneficial for latent conflicts to be brought out into the open, where they can be addressed. This can be preferential to them remaining latent, as there is always the possibility that one day they will ‘explode’ and become open conflicts, which can be much harder to deal with.

1.2 The Violence Triangle

Participants were asked to come up with examples of Attitudinal, Behavioural and Structural Violence from their work and life experiences. This was an interesting exercise for many of the participants. They were all familiar with the concept of physical violence but for many the concepts of attitudinal violence, e.g., discrimination was not something they had thought of as being violent. Similarly, structural violence was a new concept for many who had not considered the ways that societies are structured can be violent, e.g, the way that young girls and women can be denied education and the right to self- development. One of the learnings from this was the impact this could have on the UCPV analysis. If it is to be truly conflict sensitive, then it would be important to explain to participants what we mean by conflict and violence. Otherwise they might simply come up with examples of physical conflict and violence, without thinking about attitudinal and structural conflict and violence.

1.3 The Timeline

The timeline is a simple tool that asks people to consider the key events in the history of a conflict. What is interesting is that it is very unusual for two conflicting parties to agree on the history of their conflict. They will often have different interpretations of what happened and have different ideas about what constitute the key events. It helps to remind us that there is very rarely one history that everyone agrees on; rather there are various ‘histories’ which different groups would have concerning particular events. One of the learnings from this is that when considering the history of a particular conflict, that it is important not to simply accept the first version of events that we are offered. It is important to get as many different perspectives as possible and build a picture of the conflict from these. This tool is often used in conjunction with the Stages of conflict (see below).

1.4 Conflict Stages Participants were asked to combine the timeline with Stages of conflict and to choose a conflict they knew well to look at the history of a conflict, its key events and the different stages (pre-conflict; confrontation; crisis; outcome and post conflict) that it has gone through. Interestingly all three groups independently chose to look at the North South conflict in Sudan. One of the interesting points to emerge was that while the 3 timelines had similarities, there were also differences. This was partly due to the level of knowledge that participants had and partly due to their perspective of the conflict. A number of the participants remarked that they were surprised to have learned something new about this conflict even though they previously thought that they understood it well. One of the learnings for the UCPV survey was that this approach can be useful in improving understanding of a conflict amongst the community and it may be possible to correct misconceptions and create a better shared understanding of why the conflict situation is the way it is today.

1.5 Conflict Mapping

Participants were asked to consider a conflict they knew well (not the north south conflict but a community level conflict) and to draw a conflict map that showed the key parties involved, their relative power, the relationships between them, the level of communication between them and the key issues of the conflict. This time the participants chose to look at three quite different conflicts.

1.5.1 A conflict between Mundari and Bari pastoralists

The central conflict was between Mundari and Bari pastoralists over cattle raiding; land ownership and boundary disputes. The conflict did not only affect the key groups above. Key roles were also identified for the Central Equatorial State Governor; the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS); Bari political elites; Mundari political elites; other Bari speakers and Mundari militia. There was thus quite a complex interplay between different parties at different levels, all with interests in this particular conflict.

1.5.2 The Korflus crisis between the Shilluk and Dinka tribes

The central conflict was between the Shilluk and Dinka tribes over issues to do with land; administrative boundaries and high potential agricultural land. The conflict did not only affect the key groups above. Key roles were also identified for the GoSS, the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) and the UN. This was a highly political dispute with potential ramifications for other conflicts in southern Sudan between the influential Dinka tribe, which is very influential within GoSS and other tribes. Thus the way that this conflict would be resolved could have implications for other similar conflicts.

1.5.3 A domestic conflict between husband and wife

While this focussed on a particular conflict between a husband and a wife, it was seen as being representative of the conflicts in many marriages, particularly concerning the role of women. The key conflict was between the husband and the wife. The husband is seen as a much more powerful figure than the wife, as this is the custom in the south. The key issues in the conflict were about the wife wanting more education, freedom and participation in decision-making while the husband did not want her to have any of these for fear of losing his authority. Other key players in this conflict were the friends of each spouse; the in-laws, the pastor and also a peripheral role for the GoSS Ministry of Justice.

*********************

The learning from the mapping exercises were that conflicts are almost invariably more complex than first meets the eye and that if they are to be resolved then the interests of other interested parties as well as the key players, need to be taken into account. A key party who is not involved in the conflict resolution process can easily sabotage a potential resolution if they consider that their interests have not been taken into account.

1.6 The ABC Triangle

Participants were asked to return to the same groups as for the conflict mapping exercise and to focus on the two key conflicting parties. They would look at the Attitudes, Behaviour and Context for each of the 2 parties and to also consider their key needs and fears.

1.6.1 Mundari and Bari Pastoralists

The group decided to put the attitudes, behaviour, context, needs and fears on one diagram. It was clear that the attitudes held by both parties linked directly to the way that they behaved towards each other. The behaviour of both parties was to participate in cattle raiding and killing, while the context was seen by both as GoSS wanting to divide and rule. The needs of the Bari were seen as being farming land; an alternative income from land and leadership while those of the Mundari were seen as land for grazing and water and maintaining leadership. The fears of the Bari were seen as being dispossessed of their land by the Mundari and GoSS while those of the Mundari were seen as losing grazing land and access to water, as well as a fear of losing leadership.

1.6.2 The Shilluk and Dinka tribes

The group decided to draw separate diagrams for the two tribes. Again it could be seen how the attitudes of each side led directly to the way they behaved towards each other. Both sides were seen as arming themselves and engaging in ambushes and revenge attacks. The Dinka were pressuring their allies in the SPLA to intervene while the Shilluk were moving away from the conflict area. The key needs of the Shilluk were seen as being land rights; demarcation of borders; for the SPLA to move out and for the resettlement of IDPs, while the key need of the Dinkas was seen as the Shilluk to move away. The key fears of the Shilluk were seen as being that the Government was supporting the Dinkas; the loss of land and precedents being set by land claims while the key fear of the Dinkas was seen as being lack of access to a new bridge. 1.6.3 Husband and wife

The group decided to draw separate diagrams for the husband and wife. The disparity in power between the husband and wife, the attitude and behaviour of the husband, combined with the context had a direct bearing on the behaviour of the wife. Her behaviour was also directly influenced by her own attitudes. Her need was for education, freedom, respect, recognition and having a voice, while her husband’s refusal to countenance any of this, backed up by the context of the wife having no rights in marriage, was leading her to withdraw and feel depressed. The husband’s need was seen as being absolute control over his wife. Her fear was seen as not being able to achieve her full potential. His fears were seen as his wife becoming more educated and successful than him, and that this could lead to divorce and separation.

****************************

The learning from this exercise was the importance of looking at the attitudes and behaviour of both parties and the context in which they are operating if we are to truly understand the conflict dynamics. If we are going to intervene in a conflict situation, then it is possible to intervene to try and bring about a change in the attitudes and behaviour of both parties and/or to try and bring about a change in the context of the situation. An example of the latter would be to try and bring about a change in customs and in law that would allow girls to be educated and to give them equal rights in marriage.

1.7 P-I-N Triangles

Participants were asked to return to the same groups, look at the same two key protagonists and consider what their Positions, Interests and Needs might be (the needs would be much the same as identified in the previous exercise though could be expanded upon). Having done this, they were asked to see if there was any common ground between the two parties. If there was, this could be the starting point for an intervention to try and resolve the conflict.

The Mundari and Bari Pastoralists

The opening positions of the two sides were seen as being completely opposed to each other with, for example, the Mundari saying they would retain their militia whilst the Bari demanded that the militia be integrated into the SPLA within their community. At the level of ‘interests’, there was still no common ground, but when needs were looked at, there was common ground in the need of both sides for land, cattle and social services.

1.7.2 The Shilluk and the Dinka Again, the positions of both sides were diametrically opposed. The Shilluk, for example, saw the land on both sides as being theirs while the Dinka saw the land on the west bank as being theirs. Also at the ‘interests’ level, there was no common ground. However, at the ‘needs’ level, there was common ground with both sides wanting access to land on both sides of the river and both sides wanting to live in peace.

1.7.3 Husband and wife

Again at the positions level, they were diametrically opposed. The wife was determined to pursue her own development goals whilst the husband viewed his wife as his property and therefore she should not pursue her aspirations. Here there was common ground at the ‘interests’ level – both wanted what was best for their childrens’ welfare. However there was no agreement on what was in the childrens’ best interests. The husband wanted his wife to be at home to look after the children while she wanted to be able to work and develop herself. Thus, in this situation, it seemed as though there might not be much hope of resolving the conflict and that, perhaps, divorce or separation would be inevitable if neither were willing to change.

*****************************

The learning from this exercise was that though the opening positions of the parties could be diametrically opposed, when their real interests and needs were examined, there was often common ground. Where the two parties had these interests and/or needs in common, this could be the starting point for negotiations to try and resolve the conflict.

1.8 The Conflict Tree

The conflict tree was introduced as a tool that could be very helpful in carrying out the UCPV survey, especially when conducting community consultations, using Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). It is also especially useful when working with people who are illiterate and/or have very little formal education. The participants were asked to work in their geographical area groups and to work on one of CARE’s target groups: rural women of reproductive age; rural adolescent girls and rural male youth. A number of the participants were familiar with a similar tool: the Problem Tree, which is used in Development work. The idea was to provide a learning opportunity for those not familiar with the tool and to consider how it could be used with the three target groups in the upcoming UPCV survey. The three groups found it to be a useful tool, both to help with their own thinking about the target groups, and they could readily see how it could be used in community consultations. Participants then went on to plan a possible FGD in their locality, including the use of appropriate conflict analysis tools.