Conflict transformation as a contributor to understanding peace processes. (Tariro Gwete)

It is clearly open that conflict transformation as a concept gives an understanding to the peace process through the stages they go through that compliments each other. Peace process also involves systemic transformation that is the process of increasing justice and equality in the social system as a whole. The principles of conflict transformation go further in helping define conflict transformation which helps in understanding the peace process. Many scholars are of the view that conflict should not be regarded as an isolated event that can be resolved or managed but as an integral part of society’s ongoing evolution and development. As well as that conflict should not be understood solely as an inherently negative and destructive occurrence, but rather as a potentially positive and productive force for change if harnessed constructively. To add more, conflict transformation goes beyond merely seeking to contain and manage conflict and also seeks to transform the root causes of a particular conflict and conflict transformation is a long-term, gradual and complex process requiring sustained engagement and interaction thus helping to understand also the peace process.

Conflict transformation is the process by which conflicts such as ethnic conflicts are transformed into peaceful outcomes addressing the root causes of a particular conflict over the long term.  Lederach (1998) It recognises that contemporary conflicts require more than the reframing of positions and the identification of win-win outcomes. The structure of parties and relationships may be embedded in a pattern of conflictual relationships that extend beyond the particular site of a conflict. Conflict transformation is therefore a process of engaging with and transforming the relationships that supports violence, interests, discourses and the constitution of society that supports the continuation of violent conflict to merely manage and contain the conflict. Miall (2004) It aims to transform negative destructive conflict into positive constructive conflict and deals with structural, behavioural and attitudinal aspects of conflict. The term refers to both the process and the completion of the process. As such, it incorporates the activities of processes such as conflict prevention and conflict resolution and goes further than conflict settlement or conflict management. Lederach (1998)

A number of conflict theorists and practitioners including Lederach (1998), advocate the pursuit of conflict transformation. Conflict transformation reflects a better understanding of the nature of conflict itself thereby it helps in understanding the peace process. Conflict transformation as described by Lederach (1998), does not suggest that eliminate or control conflict but rather recognize and work with its "dialectic nature." By this he means that social conflict is naturally created by humans who are involved in relationships, once it occurs it changes those events, people and relationships that created the initial conflict. Thus, the cause and effect relationship goes both ways from the people and the relationships to the conflict and back to the people and relationships. In this sense, "conflict transformation" is a term that describes a natural occurrence. Lederach (1998) Conflicts change relationships in predictable ways, altering communication and social organization patterns.

On the one hand, this phrase suggests that life gives us conflict, and that conflict is a natural part of human experience and relationships. Rather than viewing conflict as a threat, the transformative view sees conflict as a valuable opportunity to grow and increases our understanding of ourselves and others. Conflict helps us stop, assess and take notice. Without it, life would be a monotonous flat topography of sameness and our relationships would be woefully superficial. This phrase also suggests that conflict creates life and keeps everything moving. It can be understood as a motor of change that keeps relationships and social structures dynamically responsive to human needs. Kriesberg (1997)

Although the definition is relatively short, its various components lend it a degree of complexity. To better understand conflict transformation, an explanation of each component is needed. Together, these components attempt to capture the attitudes and orientations we bring to creative conflict transformation, the starting point of such an approach, and the various change processes involved in such an approach. A transformational approach begins with two pro-active foundations, a positive orientation toward conflict and a willingness to engage in the conflict in an effort to produce constructive change or growth. Lund (2001) While conflict often produces long-standing cycles of hurt and destruction, the key to transformation is the capacity to envision conflict as having the potential for constructive change. Response, on the other hand, suggests a bias toward direct involvement and an increased understanding that comes from real-life experience. Both "envision" and "respond" represent the ways we orient ourselves toward the presence of conflict in our lives, relationships and communities. Lederach (1995)

Conflict transformation begins with a central goal, to build constructive change out of the energy created by conflict. By focusing this energy on the underlying relationships and social structures, constructive changes can be brought about. The key here is to move conflict away from destructive processes and toward constructive ones. The primary task of conflict transformation is not to find quick solutions to immediate problems, but rather to generate creative platforms that can simultaneously address surface issues and change underlying social structures and relationship patterns.Miall (2004)

Conflict transformation views peace as centered and rooted in the quality of relationships. This includes both face-to-face interactions and the ways in which we structure our social, political, economic, and cultural relationships. In this sense, peace is a "process-structure," a phenomenon that is simultaneously dynamic, adaptive, and changing. In essence, rather than seeing peace as a static "end-state," conflict transformation views peace as a continuously evolving and developing quality of relationship. Lund (2001) It is defined by intentional efforts to address the natural rise of human conflict through nonviolent approaches that address issues and increase understanding, equality, and respect in relationships.

Conflict transformation is also a prescriptive concept it suggests that left alone conflict can have destructive consequences. However, the consequences can be modified or transformed so that self-images, relationships and social structures improve as a result of conflict instead of being harmed by it. Usually this involves transforming perceptions of issues, actions and other people or groups. Since conflict usually transforms perceptions by accentuating the differences between people and positions, effective conflict transformation can work to improve mutual understanding. Mayer (2000) Even when people's interests, values and needs are different even non- reconcilable, progress is made if each group gains a relatively accurate understanding of the other.

Conflict transformation also involves transforming the way conflict is expressed. It may be expressed competitively, aggressively, violently or it may be expressed through nonviolent advocacy, conciliation or attempted cooperation. Diamond (1994) Unlike many conflict theorists and activists, who perceive mediation and advocacy as being in opposition to each other, Lederach (1995) sees advocacy and mediation as being different stages of the conflict transformation process. Activism is important in early stages of a conflict to raise people's awareness of an issue. Thus activism uses nonviolent advocacy to escalate and confront the conflict which means people are involved in the transformation process in order to reach a consensus between two parties thus engaging in the peace process called mapping the relationship together. The central task is to engage two parties into exploring each party's interests, defining the context and scope of the relationship and understanding how specific problems and underlying interests can be dealt with for effective change.

Once awareness and concern is generated, then mediation can be used to transform the expression of conflict from "mutually destructive modes toward dialogue and itnerdependence." Lederach (1998) Such transformation, Lederach (1998), suggests that it must take place at both the personal and the systemic level. At the personal level, conflict transformation involves the pursuit of awareness, growth and commitment to change which may occur through the recognition of fear, anger, grief and bitterness. These emotions must be outwardly acknowledged and dealt with in order for effective conflict transformation to occur thus conflict transformation gives a light in that people are involved thereby understanding the peace process that dialogue is important between two parties to bring change and peace at large.

Peace process also involves systemic transformation that is the process of increasing justice and equality in the social system as a whole. This may involve the elimination of oppression, improved sharing of resources and the non-violent resolution of conflict between groups of people. Each of these actions reinforces the other in other words, transformation of personal relationships facilitates the transformation of social systems and systemic changes facilitate personal transformation. Key to both kinds of transformation are truth, justice, and mercy, as well as empowerment and interdependence. These concepts are frequently seen to be in opposition to each other however, they must come together for reconciliation or "peace" to occur, Lederach (1995) asserts.

Conflict transformation has been described in the context of a continuum, generally beginning with ‘conflict settlement,’ then ‘conflict management,’ to ‘conflict resolution,’ and ending with ‘conflict transformation’ Diamond (1994) Not everyone agrees that the term conflict transformation necessarily falls on a continuum. While some analysts see it as a significant departure from conflict resolution, others like Miall (1999) view conflict transformation as a further development of conflict resolution. For them the aim of conflict resolution is to transform conflict. Perhaps more importantly they also suggest that the transformation concept provides some utility regarding our understanding of peace processes in the sense that transformation denotes a sequence of necessary transitional steps. Such a transformation represents not only removing the sources and causes of the situation that brought about the conflict but also necessitates a psychic transformation in the attitudes and relationship between the parties. This underlying assumption that conflict transformation provides for a transformation of the parties and their relationships and structural changes that conflict resolution methodologies do not render is obviously a part of the semantic subtleties and maybe also operational differences of opinion with regards to these terms and their practical application. Miall (1999)

Consequently, conflict transformation processes are seen more in terms of nation building, national reconciliation and healing, change agentry, and social transformation. Chadwick (1988) The notion of conflict transformation is simply a further extension of conflict resolution seems to be in contrast with some of the strongest proponents of the term. In their view conflict transformation is a conceptual departure in theory and practice from conflict resolution. For these forerunners among the ‘transformers’ of conflict Curle (1990) and Kriesberg (1997) Rupesinghe (1994) and Lederach (1995) are of the view that the term conflict transformation emerged from a search for a more precise term to describe the overall peacemaking and peacebuilding venture. In this concept they believe to have found a more holistic approach and understanding of their work that extends beyond the management or resolution of conflict. Moreover, for Lederach (1995), conflict transformation offers more than the mere elimination or control of conflict as is promised by the resolution or management of conflict. It points to the inherent dialectical process, the ability to transform the dynamic of the conflict and the relationship between the parties indeed to transform the creators of the conflict.

Conflict transformation refers to the process of moving from conflict-habituated systems to peace systems.Vayrynen (1991) This process is distinguished from the more common term of conflict resolution because of its focus on systems of change. Lederach (1998) In referring to both micro and macro transformations, Väyrynen (1991) charts four ways in which transformations happen, firstly, actor transformation refers to the internal changes in major parties to the conflict or the appearance of new actors. Secondly, issue transformation alters the political agenda of the conflict, in essence, altering what the conflict is about. Thirdly, rule transformation redefines the norms that the actors follow in their interactions with each other and demarcates the boundaries of their relationship. Lastly, the structural transformation alludes to changes that may transpire in the system or structure within which the conflict occurs which is more than just the limited changes among actors, issues and roles.Väyrynen (1991) adds that while conflict transformation happens intentionally, it can also happen unintentionally. This unintended transformation process is normally a by product of the broader social and economic changes that the actors within a conflict neither planned nor could avoid, but to which they have to adjust.

In yet another version of the circumstances under which conflict transformation transpires, Chadwick (1988) claims that conflict transformation as opposed to conflict management or conflict resolution occurs when there is a metamorphosis or at least considerable change in one of three different elements. The process of transformation first transforms attitudes by changing and redirecting negative perceptions. Secondly, it transforms behavior and lastly transforms the conflict itself by seeking to discover, define and remove incompatibilities between the parties. Northrup (1989), in turn contends that the contrast between settlement and transformation is best explained through the proximity of change to core identity constructs. Transformation has a better prognosis of occurring when there are specific modifications in the identities of the parties, the nature of their relationship is redefined and changes in their core sense of self are possible. Such changes, as Northrup (1989) points out, take considerable time because of the rigid attitudes and behaviors among parties that set in over time in intractable conflicts.

Creating an infrastructure or method of approaching conflict transformation not only legitimizes the process but also integrates multiple levels of the population affected, both in terms of the input in the peace process as well as in its implementation. Lederach (1998) He also identifies three levels that need to be impacted within his ‘holistic’ approach to conflict transformation within the affected population, the top leadership, or the level at which negotiations to end conflict normally take place; national leaders such as professionals and intellectuals from sectors where problem solving workshops or training in conflict resolution would be appropriate and local leaders in indigenous non-government organizations  and grassroots organizations where the impact would be on local peace commissions and grassroots training.

Lederach (1998) has since greatly augmented his framework for transformation processes. In one of these works, Lederach (1998) advocates for a post-conflict phase where the peace-building system is not driven by a hierarchical (top down) focus, but by an organic political process, which “envisions peace-building as a web of interdependent activities and people.” In this vision of transformational peace-building, the inter-party or inter-group politics of the post-conflict phase occur within an open system that encourages participation from a broad base of participants from all levels of the affected societies and not only from a narrow group of leaders at the official bargaining table. To this end Lederach (1998) expounds on a nested paradigm of peace-building activities. This includes immediate actions such as “defining the agenda” of tasks that need to be addressed. These tasks may range from demobilization and disarmament to governance and employment activities and affect various people, structures and processes. The “transition” activity as part of this nested paradigm identifies taking agenda tasks to implementation for example, providing transport and relocation facilities for repatriating refugees. This transition phase is embedded in “transformative processes” that have to deal with more pertinent issues such as the role of the military in newly formed structure of governments. These peace-building activities are nested within a “search for relational reconciliation” in which issues are not merely resolved but relationships are restored. Lederach (1998)

One other model of conflict transformation that warrants mentioning is dialogue as forms of conflict transformation, as is evidenced by the work of Rothman (1998) Negotiations between disputing parties often take the form of polarized debates where neither side tries very hard to gain insight or understanding into the beliefs and concerns of the other side. Facilitated dialogues where third parties encourage the parties to deal with the concerns of the opposing party can create moments of transition or become vehicles for transformative insights and actions by the participants. Such endeavors have the potential of being catalysts for change by furnishing transitional moments that unlock or dissolve polarized positions. They are by their very nature forums that encourage parties to move beyond the status quo and as such dialogues are important in the transformational processes. Whether they occur in private or in public, the major goal of dialogue processes is to change conflictual relationships. Rothman (1998) As such one understands that to bring about peace there is need of a dialogue between two parties thus there is a nexus between the concept of conflict transformation and the peace process.

Moreso, systemic change according to transformationalists, is the most critical element that needs to be addressed for the transformation process to be completed. In providing “post-conflict reconstruction”, conflict transformation is often defined in terms of economic and social reconstruction projects that are crucial to the success of the peace process. Curle(1990) Economic and social transformation, according to Curle (1990), take months to plan, years to implement and requires a level of resources that most NGOs cannot provide. They point to the role of the World Bank to provide loans and credit lines in order to coordinate reconstruction aid. Conflict transformation theorists seemingly do not connect systemic change directly with the minutiae of economic and social transformation. Historically there has also been a reluctance from many ‘conflict resolution’ practitioners in the field not to want to connect too closely to governmental or international actors who perform such roles in order not to compromise their own independence and neutrality in the eyes of conflictants.

Relationships are at the heart of conflict transformation. Yarn (1999) Rather than concentrating exclusively on the content and substance of the dispute, the transformational approach suggests that the key to understanding conflict and developing creative change processes lies in seeing the less visible aspects of relationship. Yarn (1999) While the issues over which people fight are important and require creative response, relationships represent a web of connections that form the broader context of the conflict. It is out of this relationship context that particular issues arise and either become volatile or get quickly resolved. In other words, a conflict-transformation platform must be short-term responsive and long-term strategic. The defining characteristic of such a platform is the capacity to generate and re-generate change processes responsive to both immediate episodes and the relational context. It is in this way an adaptive process-structure one that can produce creative solutions to a variety of problems. To conclude, conflict transformation as a concept gives an understanding to the peace process through the stages they go through that compliments each other. Peace process also involves systemic transformation that is the process of increasing justice and equality in the social system as a whole. The principles of conflict transformation go further in helping define conflict transformation which helps in understanding the peace process. Conflict transformation go through various stages that is making two parties resolve their relationships, engaging into dialogues and encouraging affected people to participate in the transition process thus giving a light on how conflicts are transformed for a change thereby making it easier for one to understand the peace process as well.