CONFLICT AS A SOCIO-POLITICAL NOTION Ymer Ismaili, Ph. D.* UDK 341.31(497.17) 323.15:323.22(497.17) 323.22:323.15(497.17) Pregledni znanstveni rad Primljeno: studeni 2006. The confl ict of 2001 in the Republic of Macedonia between Albanian uprisers of the NLA (National Liberation Army) and the Macedonian police and army contains all proportions of theoretical and scientifi c interpretation with respect to political juridical terminology, verifi ed scientifi c terms for similar usage in objective circumstances. Confusion in the interpretation of the 2001 confl ict also derives from disrespect for political juridical terminology and objective reality of subjective events. This confusion ocurs in scientifi c surroundings in Macedonia and as such continues to “function” within mass communication as well. This paper aims to provide a more real and objective image in the interpretation of the confl ict in 2001, by emphasizing disrespect for political termoinoligy by the actors of the 2001 events. Key words: confl ict (violent - non-violent), confl ict as a process, political system, war, crisis, violence, ethnic confl ict, extremism, uprising INTRODUCTION The confl ict of 2001 in the Republic of Macedonia between Albanian upri- sers of the NLA (National Liberation Army) and the Macedonian police and army contains all proportions of theoretical and scientifi c interpretation with respect to political juridical terminology, verifi ed scientifi c terms for similar usage in objective circumstances. * Ymer Ismaili, Ph. D., Associate professor, South East European University Tetovo, Ilin- denska p.n., 1200 Tetovo 382 Ymer Ismaili: Confl ict as a socio-political notion Confusion in the interpretation of the 2001 confl ict also derives from disrespect for political juridical terminology and objective reality of subjective events. This confusion occurs in scientifi c surroundings in Macedonia and as such continues to “function” within mass communication as well. This paper aims to provide a more real and objective image in the interpreta- tion of the confl ict in 2001, by emphasizing disrespect for political terminology by the actors of the 2001 events. There are many attempts to defi ne the notion of confl ict. Taking into consi- deration the frequent use of the term in many social sciences such as economics, sociology, social psychology, political science, etc., the existence of different methodological approaches to defi ne the notion of confl ict is common. In reality, by trying to defi ne the notion of confl ict, we encounter a confl ict1 situation. However, we will indicate some of the notions to defi ne the term. Some authors defi ne confl ict as a form of interaction where the subject attempting to fulfi ll its personal interests by its actions makes it impossible for the other subject to fulfi ll its interests or, on the other hand, by its actions wishes to destroy the other subject.2 Peaceful Research Centers3 distinguish two different beliefs on the notion of confl ict. The fi rst one begins by perceiving A and B like actors who have conscious purposes, and the confl ict takes place only - and to the point - when the needs fulfi llment of A deprives B of fulfi lling its needs. According to the second belief, instead of conscious purposes, between the actors A and B there are objective interests, independent of the individual state of the brain and the confl ict derives from interrelations of objective in- terests that are often built as systems. Marxist tradition with the working theory of values sees the objective interest as the interest of the class in the control of the added value. Other traditions focus on national interest rather than the interest of classes.4 1 Bonacker, Thorsten/Imbusch, Peter (2005), “Zentrale Begriffe der Friedens-und Kon- fl iktforschung: Konfl ikt, Gewalt, Krieg, Frieden”, in Peter Imbusch/Ralf Zoll (eds.), Frie- dens-und Konfl iktforschung. Eine Einfuhrung, Wiesbaden, p. 6. 2 Enciklopedija politiËke kulture (1993), grupa autora, Savremena administracija, str. 513-514. 3 IPRA Studies in Peace Research, (1970), Proceedings of the International Peace Re- search Association Third Conference, Vol. 1: Philosophy of Peace Research, Assen: van Gorcum. 4 Frankel, Joseph, (1970), National Interest, London: Macmillan. Zbornik PFZ, 57, (2) 381-403 (2007) 383 This can be perceived in many ways. Some of them deal with the intention of individual decision carriers or they are a result of negotiations between dif- ferent decision carriers. On the other hand, others perceive national interest as long-term intention which surpasses governments, such as geographic, strategic or economic factors. Other defi nitions supported by interest focus on natural rights, basic needs and living conditions5. Heidelberg’s institute for international research on confl icts6 defi nes confl ict as the war of interests (differences in positions) at the national level with a defi ned longitude and magnitude between at least two sides (organized groups, states, group states, organizations) who are determined to go through with their interests and win the case. The Correlates-of-War-Project initiated by Singer & Small, defi nes confl ict as violent behavior where at least one of the sides involves the state and there are at least 100 victims in the battle7. Among quantitative-empirical defi nitions there is also Stockholm International Peace8 telling that armed confl ict is defi ned as a need of force between armed forces of two or more governments, or one state and at least one armed organized group, resulting in at least 1000 dead each calendar year and where incompatibility deals with the control of power or territory. Confl ict defi nition given by the Upsala Confl ict Database (USPD)9 defi nes armed confl ict like: racing incompatibility related to power or territory or both, where the use of armed forces between both sides results in at least 25 war victims. One of these two sides has to be the Government of the state. 5 Galtung, Johan, (1971), “A Structural Theory of Imperialism”, Journal of Peace Research 8:2, pp. 81-117. 6 HIIK (2005), “Confl ict barometer”,Heidelberg,http://www.rzuser.uniheidelberg.de/~Ischeith /CoBa05.pdf 7 Singer, D. Joel/Small, Melvin (1972), “The Wages of War 1816-1965, A statistical hand- book”, New York, p. 8. 8 Dwan, Renata/Holmqvist, Caroline (n.d), “Patterns of major armed confl icts”, Stock- holm, http:/www.sipri.org/contents/confl ict/MAC patterns.html 9 Wallensteen, Peter/Sollenberg, Margareta (2005), “Armed confl ict and its international dimensions, 1946-2004”, in Journal of Peace Research, 42/5, pp.6 23-635. 384 Ymer Ismaili: Confl ict as a socio-political notion 1. KINDS OF CONFLICTS There are a great number of divisions of social confl icts. Among others, as criteria for typology are used: the kind of the social group participant in the confl ict, circumstances of the confl ict seen as alternative means to reach the goal, articulation ways of incompatible interests of the sides, force use, dyna- mics of confl ict escalation etc. Based on this criterion, confl icts are divided into class confl icts, national confl icts, racial confl icts and religious confl icts. Since social classes are enga- ged in competitive productive rapports, confl ict of the production system is classifi ed as class confl ict. Also, national, racial and religious groups can be represented as confl ict subjects. There is a difference between class confl icts and confl icts that have as sides other social groups. The difference derives from radicalization of the purpose for which the confl ict is taking place. Class confl icts very often attempt towards radical change of a given political system, through change of the ways of production and consumption. On the other hand, confl icts of other social groups contest a given political system by wanting to change some parts of it, or by refusing the acceptance of the system’s rules, or by presenting demands for forming personal political units (states) that in a socio-economic perspective do not differ from the pre- vious10. Many authors assess that different language and cultural tradition of religious and racial groups who live within the same society stress the possibi- lity of a social confl ict escalation in the sense of higher intensity of insolence and change of its nature. This would cause it to develop from a real confl ict into an unreal one, the purpose of which will later become destruction of the social group itself.11 Robert Dahl12 assesses the ways of reaching tolerance among racial, national and religious confl icts, i.e. obstacles to their escalation: 1. if ethnic, religious and racial subcultures are not denied participation in power; 10 Enciklopedija politiËke kulture (1993), grupa autora, Savremena administracija, str. 517. 11 Ibid. 12 Dahl, Robert (1967), Democracy in the United States, Confl ict and consent, Rand Mc Nelly, Chicago, p. 239. Zbornik PFZ, 57, (2) 381-403 (2007) 385 2. if there is agreement within society (it does not necessarily have to be coded) which ensures security of different subcultures; 3. if people within the country believe that the system ( polyarchy ) can re- spond to the country’s needs. Based on this criterion, confl icts are divided into retained and systemic confl icts. In the fi rst case, the subjects of social confl ict contest the basis of the socio-political system. On the other hand, systemic confl icts deal with interests which are the essence of the confl ict and in concordance with the basic princi- ples of this system. Based on this classifi cation, many authors divide political parties into retained and anti-systemic ones. The anti-systemic parties include those parties whose political doctrines fi ght against the representative democratic system and demand its radical transformation, including here communist parties.