The causes of violent conflict

The events leading to violent conflicts may be varied and complex, and may evolve over a long period of time. However the conditions, which allow our all too human misperceptions to develop into hatred and hostility, can be summed up succinctly:

Conflict develops where there is an absence or the denial of the ability to access, to analyse, to synthesise, and to disseminate information freely. (An indication of this is where there is a lack of academic, judicial or media independence.)

The absence or the denial of social progress, either for individuals, or for groups, or for society as a whole, can also lead to violence. (Social progress can be perceived as attaining material wealth or professional status, above all, unbiased access to education.)

Apartheid era South Africa was a classic example that was ripe for violent conflict. Education, the police, even the seats on public transport were restricted to the majority living there.

Let us examine another, less well known, recent conflict - the sad events that befell the Balkans - and see if one can discern these conditions prior to the eruption of violence.

The origins of the conflict in the Balkans were probably set in motion in 1919, soon after the formation of the state of Yugoslavia. The land reforms introduced in that year benefited mainly the Serbs. The gendarmerie, a Serbian military force, employed 12,000 men to carry out civilian police duties. The Serbs, in effect, appropriated all the levers of power and administration to themselves.

Unfortunately, the Serbian bureaucracy was corrupt, inefficient and riddled with political clientism. Not only were the Muslims and the Kosovars largely excluded from exercising any power, they also had to take second place in the job market. Many of the better-paid jobs in the large important state enterprises, such as electric power plants, employed Serbs only, or at least, all the managerial positions were allocated to Serbs.

Hence, the Bosnian Muslims and the Kosovars were clearly denied, or were greatly hindered in their goal to achieve social progress, let alone parity and fairness vis à vis the Serbs.

As to the denial of access to information, this was largely the result of the communist regime’s penchant for centralised control. The newspapers, the radio and television networks were rigidly controlled by the state, dutifully churning out propaganda that suited the regime. One did not seek information. It was given, and what was given, was considered enough.

Equally, the judiciary were the servants of the state. No question of them having the independence to interpret the law themselves. The state did not tolerate any interference from academic circles either. They all had to toe the line and, needless to say, as they were all good Serbians, they did just that.

Unfortunately, one of the side effects of this centralised control of information is, that the number of people who depend on a free flow of information is relatively small. What is euphemistically called “the chattering classes” was not sufficiently influential in Serbia to make an impression on the policies of their government.

This, relatively brief exposition, illustrates that the two salient conditions in which violent conflicts occur was present in the former Yugoslavia. These conditions can also be observed in all the other trouble spots, like Kashmir for example.

At this stage one may ask, “If we know the causes of violent conflicts, why isn’t something being done about trying to eradicate those conditions which lead to violence?”

Although much of the research is relatively recent the good news is that these ideas are being put into practice already. It is a little known fact that about 5,000 mediators facilitated the transition between the Apartheid regime and majority rule in South Africa. The task of the mediators, who were engaged by the UN (and all of whom had some expertise of law) was to ease the integration of traditional community justice with the national system of law. Was the exercise of benefit? All one can say is that it is most likely to have contributed to a peaceful transition. The South Africans may have a lot of problems but, at least, they did not suffer the fate of the Balkans.

We should also remember that, like all research carried out in universities, it takes time before the effect of that research percolates down to the public domain. It is like the radiated warmth that gradually thaws the frozen recesses of a room. Those who are involved in the various peace movements will no doubt help to further that process. It is not a question of “whether” the ideas about the causes of violent conflict will be widely accepted and acted upon, but “when”.