CONFLICTPROVENTIONASAPOLITICALSYSTEM

JohnW.Burton
Introduction

Forthoseofuswhoidentifywiththedisputeorconflictfields,andtheirtheories
andpractices,thepressingquestionis:"Wheredowegofromhere?"Iwishto
arguethatthefutureofproblemsolvingconflictresolution,perhapsunlikedispute
settlement,liesnotinremainingjustaninteractiveprocess,butinestablishingthe
basisofanalternativetotheadversarialproceduresinthelegalandpolitical
systemsthatWesternsocietieshaveinheritedandpromoted.Interactiveproblem
solvingconflictresolutioncandealonlywithafewspecialcases,andcanmake
littlecontributiontoreducingtheescalatinglevelsofconflictandviolencenow
associatedwithdevelopedsocieties.Itisprimarilyaresearchtool,forthefacilitated
processgivesimportantinsightsintohumanbehaviour,humanrelationshipsand
problemsassociatedwithexistinginstitutions.
Thesignificantandhistoricalcontributionthatthetheoryofconflictresolutioncan
makeistodecisionmakingthatistotheproventionofconflictandultimatelyto
providingaphilosophyandapoliticalsocialsystemthatcouldreplacethose
presentlydominant.Indeed,takingaccountofthemagnitudeofenvironmental
problems,increasinglevelsofdeprivationandviolenceatallsociallevels,and
dramaticallythefallingqualityoflife,civilizationshavenooptionbuttosubstitute
longtermproblemsolvingfortheirtraditionalshorttermpoliciesofinterestgroup
expediency.
Itfollowsthatresearchneedstobedirectedtowardsimproveddecisionmaking(in
allorganizationsincludingindustry,andatallsocietallevelsfromthecommunityto
theinternational),ratherthanhaveanexclusivefocusoninteractiveprocesses.
Teachingneedstobedirectedtowardspotentialandpractisingdecisionmakers
ratherthanhavingaconcentrationonstudentswhoseekconflictresolutioncareers.
Furthermore,itneedstobenotedthatgreaterinsightsintodecisionmakingandinto
necessaryinstitutionalchangesleadtomoreanalyticalandconstructive
facilitations.
Goingonestepfurther,itcouldreasonablybearguedthatthefinalaimofconflict
resolutionstudiesissotoalterthephilosophiesthatgovernallexistingbehavioural
disciplinesthatseparateconflictstudieswouldnolongerberequired.
OurInheritance
ThroughoutthehistoryofWesternsocieties,theprimeconcernofnational
authoritieshasbeenthepromotionoftheinterestsofthegroupstheyrepresent,
initiallylandowners,thenindustrialistsandotherorganizedpressuregroups,and,
whereithashadsomeinfluence,littlebylittle,awidersectionofthetotalsociety.
Politicalinstitutionshaveevolvedaccordingly,resultinginpartypoliticalsystems
thatareadversarialandpromotecompetition.Throughout,thegoalshavebeen"law
andorder"andinterventionsintotheprevailingeconomicandsocialsystemsofthe
daydesignedtopreservethosesystems,andtopromotefurthertheimmediate
concernsofinfluentialinterests.
Politicalsystems,accordingly,havebeepreoccupiedwithincreasingbenefitsfor
onlysomesectionsofthecommunity,havebeenconcernedwithrealincome
distributiononlytotheextentthatitispoliticallynecessary,andhavegivenlittle
attentiontothelongertermconsequencesofpoliciesonthesocialand
environmentalfuture.Currentlythereisanincreasingsocialdemandforpolitical
decisionmakingprocessesatbothnationalandcommunitylevelsthatwillgiveless
attentiontospecialinterests,andmoreattentiontolongertermsocietalconcerns.

Theenvironmentalfutureisamajorworry,andinheriteddecisionmakingprocesses
seemincapableofdealingwithit.Pastneglectofthesocialfuturehasledinmost
societiestohighlevelsofviolenceandtoconflictsatallsocietallevels,nationaland
international.Despitethissocialconcern,however,thefocusofauthoritiesremains
onthepresent.Environmentaldestructionisdefendedasameansofreducing
unemployment.Attemptsaremadetosuppressviolencewhenitoccurs,butlittle
attentionisgiventoitssources,howitcanbeavoided,effectivelycontained,and
betterstill,resolvedratherthanjustsuppressed.
Failureofthispowerorientedsystemtorespondtosocialconcernsatitspolitical
levelisduelargelytotheabsenceofanyconceptionofanalternativesystem.
Fascism,beinganextremeformofcapitalism,ledhistoricallytoresourceproblems
thatcouldbesolvedonlybyaggression.Communism,withitsemphasison
equitabledistribution,failedbecauseofanabsenceofsufficientpersonalincentive
inwork,andalsobecauseproblemsoftotalplanningandmanagementwerebeyond
managementcapacity.Bothfactorsledthissystemintoapowerpoliticalframethat
neglectedthefuture.Thepowerpoliticalsystemofcapitalism,undirectedinits
futureandsocialgoals,survivesforthetimebeingonlyintheabsenceofaviable
alternative.
Traditionallyithasbeenassumedthatinthedomesticversionofthispowerpolitical
model,acentralauthoritywithenforcementpowers,istheideal.TheUnited
NationsCharterwasdraftedwiththedomesticmodelinmind.ChapterSeven
anticipatedcontributionstoapermanentforceavailabletotheSecurityCouncil.
Asidefromthefailureofthisforcetomaterialize(leadingeventuallytosome
membersactinginthenameoftheUnitedNations)wenowknowthatthismodel
hasitsdefects.Domesticviolenceisatahighlevelinallsocieties.Itisclearthatit
cannotbereducedwithoutdealingwithitsrootcauses,andthepoliticalsystem
makesthisimpossible.Soalsoininternationalsociety.Problemsofethnicity,
povertyandexploitationofvariouskindsaresomeofthedeeprootedproblemsthat
aresourcesofviolence.Indeed,internationalconflictislargelyaspilloverfrom
domesticconflict.
Theinternationalsystemitself,havingnoeffectivecentralauthoritytopromote
specialinterests,andrelyingonfunctionalcooperationbetweennationslargeand
small,isprobablylessconfrontationalthanthedomestic.Ifpreservationofthe
environmentandprotectionofsocietiesagainstselfdestructiveviolencewereto
becomepoliticalgoals,farreachingchangeswouldberequired.Partypolitical
decisionmakingwouldrequireradicalmodification,ifnotelimination,ratherthan
beacceptedasessentialfeaturesof"democracy".Majorinequalitiesofopportunity
wouldrequireattention.Qualityofliferatherthanlevelsofexploitationof
resourceswouldneedtobethemeasureofeconomicachievement.Onehasonlyto
ponderthesourcesandremediesofspecificproblemssuchasstreetviolenceor
ethnicconflicttobeledintoawholerangeofquestionsthatcomeundertheheading
ofpoliticalphilosophy.Therearenoadhocsolutionstothesespecificproblems.
Indeed,forsurvivalandtopromotesuchlongtermgoals,civilizationswouldneed
toseekandadoptanalternativepoliticalphilosophy,andanalternativetothe
confrontationalpowerpoliticalsystem.Anythinglesswouldbeadelusion.
Thequestionbeforeusis,therefore,nothowcansomeparticularprocessbemore
widelyemployedtohelptosettledisputes,buthowcansocietiesatalllevelsbe
transformedsoastobecomelesswastefulofresources,morefarsightedandless
confrontationalindecisionmakingand,asaconsequence,lessviolentandself
destructive.Whatkindofsystemcanbeanimprovedalternativetotheinterest
driven,powerpoliticalsystemwhichWesternsocietieshaveinheritedandpassedon
toothers?

Ourseparateacademicdisciplineshavenottackledthisquestion.Eachhashadits
ownhumanconstructdesignedtofitintothesystem.Therehasbeen,forexample,
"economicman"andaconforming"sociologicalman".
Theseconvenientinventionshaveledthoughtawayfromhumanbehaviour,and,
therefore,fromaholisticapproachtoproblems.Thefocushasbeenonsomeaspects
oftheseeconomic,institutional,legal,social,orpolitical.Ithasbeenasthough
solvinganartificiallyconstructedpartofaproblemcouldleadtoitstotalsolution.
Employmentisapartialsolutionforstreetviolence,asiseducation,ethnicity
relationships,perceptionofsocialjustice,asenseofparticipationindecision
makingandasenseofrecognitionandidentity.Allarerelevantandallraisefurther
politicalandsocialissues.Thetotalsocialpoliticaleconomiclegalsystemmustbe
theframeinwhichananalysisismadeofthesourceoftheproblemandits
remedies.Aswillbeseenbelow,thisisnowchanging,andbroaderperspectivesare
beginningtodominatetheacademicliterature.
InthispaperIarguethatthetransformationsrequiredarewithinthefieldof
decisionmaking,afieldthat,bydefinition,affectsallsocietallevels,andtoucheson
allotherfieldsofhumanrelationships,includingprocessesofintendedchange.
However,thecontemporarytrenduniversallyisforauthoritiesand"leaders",
especiallyatthehighestlevelofdecisionmaking,todenyresponsibilityandtohand
everythingoverto"themarket"inotherwords,toalloweventstotaketheir
course,regardlessofconsequences.Faileddecisionmaking,afailedsystem,hasled
toanabsenceofleadershipandevenlessconcernwiththefuture.Togoagainstthis
defeatisttrendwemustarticulatealternativedecisionmakingprocessesthatoffer
betterprospectsforformulatingandachievingconsensusgoals.
TheTraditionalPowerFrame
Thehistoryofsocietiesis,asalreadysuggested,ahistoryofthepromotionby
dominantgroupsintheirownshortterminterests.Evenafewdecadesagothe
academicmodelofdecisionmakingdemonstratedthis.Itshowedasetoflines
representingpowerinputs,meetingatapoint,andanothersetoflinesrepresenting
distributionsofpower,seeminglyfromthatpoint(Modelski,1962).Thedecision
makingprocessitselfwasofnointerest,representedonlybythepointatwhichthe
powerinputsanddistributionmet.Inmorerecentyearsthedecisionmaking
processhasbecomemoresophisticated,butthepowerframeremains(Deutsch,
1963Burton1990a).
Whiledomesticandinternationallawandpoliticshavetraditionallybeenstudied
separately,theyhavebasicpowerandlegalframesincommon.Thereislittle
difficultytherefore,inconceptualisingdomesticandinternationaldispute
settlementasbeingsimilarinprinciple.Powerbargainingandnegotiation,judicial
settlementsand,insomeextremecases,theemploymentofforcearecommonto
both.
Therehavebeenattempts,particularlyatthedomesticlevel,tospeeduplegal
procedureswithinthispoliticalpowersystem,andtomakethemmorereadily
availabletotheunderprivileged."AlternativeDisputeResolution"(alternativesor
supplementstocourts)isonesuchanattempt.Buttheseproceduresdonotsupply
theaddeddimensionrequired.Thatis,theydonotseektorevealthehidden
institutionalandbehaviouralcausesofconflicts.Theyseekmainlytotakethe
burdenawayfromcourts.Inaddition,thereare"peacestudies"andmovementsthat
seektoreducemeansofviolence.Thereisanapproachtodisputesthatrestson
introducing"goodwill"intosituationsthatareconfrontational.Thereare
communityorganizationsthatseektodealwithmanysocialproblems.(Burton&
Dukes,1990).Theseareallattemptstomodifythedominantpowerstructureof
society.Theyseekalteredattitudesandpolicies,thoughsocietiesremainwithinthe
adversarialandconfrontationalpowerframethatgovernssocialandpolitical

relationships.Theyhave,therefore,anidealisticring,andmustberegardedaswell
intentionedbutpoliticallyunrealistic.
AnAlternativeFrame
Obviouslymanydisputesaresettledwithintheexistingsystem:disputesthatare
overphysicalpossessions,disputesarisingoutofagreedsocialandlegalnorms,and
othersthathavelittlebehaviouralcontent.Laws,conventions,judicialandoutof
courtsettlementscanbeeffectiveinmany,ifnotmost,disputeswithinagiven
societyandbetweensocieties.
Nolessobviouslytherearemanydisputesthatcannotbesosettled.Despitelegal
norms,socialpressuresanddeterrentstrategies,murdersdooccur,violenceis
widespreadwithinnations,andwarsbetweenandwithincountriesarefrequent.No
amountofthreatordeterrencepreventsthis.
Inthe1960sanalternativeframeemergedinresponsetofailuresindeterrent
policies,domesticallyandinternationally.Whileitemergedoutofextensionsto
decisionmakingtheory,itrepresentedajumpfromthepowerpoliticalframein
whichonepartycould,sometimesatgreatcost,imposeitswillonanother,toa
problemsolvingconflictresolutionframe.Inthis,thepartiestoadisputewere
helpedtoidentifythesourcesoftheirproblem,revealingpossibleoptionsthat
wouldsatisfytheirneeds.Appliedtodecisionmakinggenerally,itwasaframein
whichdecisionmakersassessedtheconsequencesofpoliciesbeforedecisionwere
taken,ratherthanrelyingoncoercionintheeventofadverseresponses(Burton,
1969Mitchell1981).
Fromtheoutsetitwasclaimedbythoseadvocatingthealternativeframethat:the
powerpoliticalframe,definedas"politicalrealism"bypowertheoristssuchas
HansMorgenthau(1948),wasunrealistic,andhadbeenprovedsobyfailuresatthe
domesticandinternationallevels.Lawandorderhadnotbeenestablished
domestically,andinternationallygreatpowerswerebeingdefeatedintheirattempts
todeter,andwarshadfollowed.
Deterrencedoesnotdetersanebehaviours,andthepowerpoliticalframewas
unrealisticbecausenoaccountwastakenofrelevanthumanfactors:thereare
ontological,inherenthumanneedsthatcannotbesuppressed,(needsofidentityand
recognitionthatarethebasesofrelatedness),whichmakedeterrencesometimes
irrelevantatallsocietallevels.Theonlyoption,inpoliticallyrealisticterms,wasto
resolvethesocialandbehaviouralproblemsthatledtospecificconflicts,andnottry
merelytosuppressthemortosettlethembycoercion.
Letitbenotedthatthereisnonormativeconnotationinthisalternative.Thereisno
moraloridealisticbasis.Thereis,however,theassertionthattherearecertain
humandrivesorneedsthatwillbepursued,regardlessofcostandconsequences,
which,asisarguedlater,cannotpermanentlybesuppressed.Hence,intime.
institutionsmustconformtohumandrives,andnot,ashasbeenassumedtobethe
case,theotherwayaround.
Inthelightofthesepoliticalandbehaviouralrealitieswehavenoanalyticaloption
buttodifferentiatebetween"disputes"thatcanbe"settled"and"conflicts"thatarise
outofproblemsthatmustbe"resolved"andtofindthemeansorprocessesby
whichthosesituationsthatcannotbesettledcanbeanalysedandresolvedbythe
partiesconcerned.
Thequestionsbeingposedinthisarticlearewhataretheseprocesses,whatisthe
systemtheseprocesseswouldimply,andwhethersuchprocessesareapplicableat
allsocietallevels,fromthefamilytotheinternational.

Attemptstomergethetwoapproaches
Thereisareluctancebysomescholarsandpractitionerstomakeasharpdistinction
betweendisputesandconflicts,andtoseparatethenegotiatingprocessfromthe
problemsolvingone.Thismaybeamistake.Mixingthetwoprocesses,negotiating
compromises,orappealingtogoodwillandtosocialresponsibilitytoobservelegal
andsocialnorms,canleadtooutcomesthatdonotreflectbehaviouralneeds,and,
therefore,toagreementswhichareonlytemporary.
Furthermore,practitionersinnegotiationandlegalprocessesmaybetemptedto
applytheirtechniquestosituationsthathavetheirsourceinbasichumanneedsand
thusrequireananalyticalprocess.Atleastatthepresentstageofthinking,theless
confusionthereisaboutappropriateprocessesthebetter.Perhapsatsomelaterstage
whenthetwodifferentframesarepartofgeneralknowledge,andtraininginbothis
readilyavailable,practitionersmaybeabletoshiftfromonetotheotheras
situationsrequire.Forthepresentitisbettertoallocatesituationsthatseemtobe
disputestopersonstrainedinnegotiation,andsituationsthatarelikelytohave
deeprootedelementstootherswithrelevantanalyticalandfacilitationtraining.
Ideallyall"thirdparties"wouldhaveexperiencewithbothkindsofsituations,as
situationsarerarelywhattheyseemtobebeforeintervention,andusuallyhave
elementsofbothdisputesandconflicts.
Thenatureofthealternativeframe
Theideathatthreatanddeterrencedonotdeterwasveryupsettingtoscholarsand
practitionersbackinthe1960s.InternationalRelationsinparticularhadbeentaught
withintheMorgenthauian"PowerPoliticalRealism"approach,makingpower
balancesanddeterrencethecentralthemes.Decisionmakingwasstudiedwithin
thispowerframe.Therewasnobehaviouralcontentotherthantheassumptionthat
deterrencedeters.ThefearwasthatthestudyofInternationalRelationswouldfall
apartif"theperson"assumedwithinthepowerframeturnedoutnottoresembleany
realpersonatall.Indeed,ifdeterrencedidnotdeter,thenthewholelawand
ordersystemwouldbeundermined.
Historywas,ofcourse,fullofcasesinwhichthreathadnotdeterred.Therebeing
noconceptualalternative,rationalizationswerethewayout.Insufficientforcewas
employed,ortherewerefalsecommunications.KoreaandVietnamcameasashock
topowertheoristsaswellastotheUSAdministration,andgavesupportfora
searchforanalternativetheorybyunderminingpowertheory.
AsmallgroupofscholarsinLondonbroughttogetherpartiestoconflictsina
neutral,academicsetting(Burton,1969),andwereabletoseeatfirsthandthatthere
wereinfluencesondecisionmakingfargreaterthandeterrentthreats.Theygained
insightsduringtheirfacilitationprocessesthatdisturbedtheirthinkingandtheir
teaching.Itwasfeltnecessarytowithdrawfromthisappliedsideuntiltherecould
berethinking.Manysubsequentpublicationshelpedrethinkingandwereevidence
ofit(Burton1979Burton,1984).
Sincethenanextensiveliteraturehasemerged(Burton,1990bDukes,1992).This
includesconsiderationofhumanbehavioursundertheheadingof"NeedsTheory"
andpracticalapplicationsofanalyticalproblemsolvingconflictresolution.The
separationofdisputesettlementandconflictresolution,referredtoabove,wasa
logicaldevelopment.Thischangewasnotjustatransitionoradevelopmentin
thinkingwithinanexistingframe.Itwasaparadigmshiftfromoneapproachtoa
quitedifferentone.Nowtherearemanyuniversitiesofferingcoursesanddegreesin
conflictanalysisandresolutionattractingstudentswhohavehadexperiencein
negotiationandmanagementbutwhoareawareoflimitationsinthesefields.Anew
adisciplinarydisciplinehasemerged.

NeedsTheory
Suchaconceptualalternativewould,clearly,havetoincludethecreationofless
confrontationalinstitutionsthatwouldbeabletotacklethoughtfullyand
constructivelyproblemssuchasenvironmentaldestructionandincreasingviolence
withinandbetweensocieties.Itisnotsufficient,however,tohavemeansof
suppressing,orevenresolvingconflicts,andpickingupthepiecesafterwards.They
mustbeprovented.(Preventionimpliessuppression:proventionisintendedtoimply
anticipationandavoidance).Butunlessanduntilthecostsandconsequencesof
decisionscanbeassessedaccuratelybeforetheyaremade,conflictscannotbe
avoided.Thiscallsforanadequatetheoryofhumanbehaviour,andprocessesby
whichtheconsequenceofdecisionscanbeassessed.
Thetheoreticalbasisofthisalternativeproblemsolvingapproachis"Needs
Theory"orwhatpurportstobeaholistictheoryofhumanbehaviour.Itsohappened
thatquiteoutsidetheconflictresolutionordecisionmakingfields,aconferenceon
HumanNeedswasconvenedinBerlinin1979.Aninternationalgroupofscholars,
dissatisfiedwithcurrentthinkingonsocialproblems,cametogethertoshareideas,
andayearlaterbroughtoutabookcontainingtheirpapers(Lederer1980).Manyof
thesesamescholarswerebroughttogetherin1988bytheCenterforConflict
AnalysisandResolution,GeorgeMasonUniversity,withthehelpoftheGerman
MarshallFund,tomeetwithscholarsconcernedwithconflictresolution.All
participantsarrivedwithpreparedpapers.Theconnectionbetweenconflict
resolutionandhumanneedshadnotpreviouslybeenmade,andtheeffectsonall
concernedwereclearwhenallparticipants,thoseontheconflictsideandthose
concernedwithhumanneeds,feltimpelledtoreconsidertheirpapersbeforethey
werepublished(Burton,1990b).
TheconceptofhumanneedswentbeyondthatadvancedbyMaslow(1954).The
focuswasfarlessonwants,andfarmoreoninherentneedsthatwouldbepursued
inallcircumstances,excepttotalindividualdespairandapathy.
Atthesametimeallconcernedwereawarethatwedonothaveanyclearlanguage
ordefinitionof"humanneeds"referencebeingmademostoftentoidentity,
recognitionandsecurity.Thelatterimpliednotsimplyphysicalsecuritysomuchas
securityoftheotherneeds.Itisasthoughtheexistenceoftheparticlesoftheatom
hadbeendiscoveredbydeductiveprocessesbeforetherewasempiricalevidenceof
theirexistence.However,thereiswithinthisthinkinganexplanationofmany
problems,includingpoliticalprotest,"aggression",violence,andprotractedconflict.
Contemporaryeventsaremorereadilyunderstoodwithinthisontologicalhuman
needsframethanwithinapowerpoliticalone.Theframeworkhelpstoexplainwhy
theinternationalsystembasedonnationstatesisindeclinewhyformercolonial
boundariescannotbemaintainedwhyminorityethniccommunitiesaredemanding
increasingdegreesofautonomyandwhythereiswidespreadandprotracted
violencewherevernationstateauthoritiesseektosuppresssecessionistmovements.
Similarly,theproblemofinnercityviolenceandunrestcanbeexplainednotjustby
thebreakdownoffamilyvalues,notjustbyunemployment,notjustbytheabsence
ofeducationalopportunities,butalsobythelackofrecognitionandidentitythat
theseconditionspromote.
Process
Atheoryofhumanneedssuggeststhefacilitationprocessthatisrequiredtoanalyse
andresolveconflicts.Theword"analyse"hasbecomeimportantinanydescription
ofprocess.TheCentreinLondonwascalledtheCentrefortheAnalysisofConflict.
ThereisanInstituteatGeorgeMasonUniversitycalledtheInstituteforConflict
AnalysisandResolution.Thefacilitationprocess(Burton&Dukes1990)is

essentiallynonbargaining,nonnegotiating,atleastuntiltheanalysisofthe
situationiscomplete,untilthereisagreementonthenatureandsourcesofthe
conflict,anduntildetailsofoptionshavebeendiscussed.
Provention
Ashasalreadybeenpointedout,however,conflictresolutionisnotthemost
importantcontributiontobemadebythisanalyticalandproblemsolvingapproach
toconflicts.Decisionmakingtoproventconflictisthemainfocus.
Truethestartingpointwasresolution,andmanyuniversitycoursescontinueto
respondtostudentdemandforskillsthattheycanofferthemarket.Resolutionhas
beenimportantinresearch,foritistheinteractionofpartiesinafacilitatedsetting
thatgivesinsightsintothenatureofconflict,andthedeeprootedcausesofit.Itis
theseinsightsthatfeedbackintodecisionmaking.Itistheseinsightsthatenable
decisionmakerstoassessthecostsandconsequencesoftheirpoliciesinthelonger
term,thusencouragingthemtotakethosestepsthatwillproventconflict.
Problemsolvinginstitutions
Butevendecisionmakingisnotthefinaloutcomeofthisproblemsolvingapproach
toconflicts.Theultimatechallengeistheestablishmentofsocialandpolitical
institutionsthatareproblemsolving,andnotadversarialorconfrontational.Ifstreet
violenceorethnicconflictistobeavoided,thenpartypoliticalandideological
approachesmustgiveplacetointeractiveanalysis,evenatapoliticallevel.
Insomeadministrationsthereareprocessesbywhichpublicservantscaninteract
freelyinsearchofsolutionstoproblems.Insomepoliticalsystemstherehavebeen
movestowardparliamentarycommitteesthatrepresentallparties,andthereis
consultationwithspecialists.Butwithinthetraditionalpoliticalframe,deliberations
atbothpoliticalandpublicservicedecisionmakinglevelshaveimposed
constraints.Thesharedpoliticalphilosophygivesprioritytotheenforcementoflaw
andorderbycoercivemeans,ratherthanbygettingtotherootsoftheproblemthat
givesrisetodisorder.Asyetthealternativeisnotpartofconventionalwisdomor
consensusthinking.Parliaments,courts,industrialrelations,ethnicrelations,and
everyaspectofcontemporarysocietiesremaininterestdrivenandadversarial.
IsaProblemSolvingPhilosophyandSystemPractical?
Isanalyticalproblemsolvingconflictproventionapracticalalternativetothe
inheritedpowerpoliticalsystem?
Itisnowapparentthatthereisapopularreactionagainsttheconfrontationalparty
politicalsystem,andagainstleaderswhoseonlyleadershipistoappeartobetough
domesticallyandinternationally,leavingunderlyingproblemsunresolved.
Intuitively,peopleareseekinginstitutionalchangethatwouldmakedecision
makingfocusonthelongtermandorientateittowardsproblemsolving.
Whataresoughtareleaderswhodonothaveadefinedpoliticalprogramwhichthey
seektopromote,butcapabilitiesnotunlikethoseofafacilitatorwhoseprime
functionistobringdifferentviewpointsandintereststogether,andtohelpan
analysisthatcansuggestconstructiveoutcomes.
Domesticpoliticsareuniversallyundergoingchangeatanexponentialrate,asare
internationalrelations.Thedriveforrecognitionandidentityhasaffectedboth.
Withinnationstatesandbetweenthemtherearedemandsforautonomy,sometimes
takingtheformofmovementsforsecession.Thecontemporaryinterestdrivenparty

politicalsystemisamajorsourceofthisunrest.Itisnotperceivedasbeingeither
representativeorproblemsolving.
Manyscholarsarenowtryingtoexplaincontemporarydisquiet,itssourcesandits
futureconsequences.Onegroupofauthors(Dotsonetal.1989)referstomore
activeinterestgroupsgreaterlegalscrutinyofpublicactionsincreasedscarcityof
governmentresourceshigherpublicawarenessofplanningimpacts,andmore
complexplanningproblems.Anothergroup(Susskind&Cruikshank,1987)refers
tothetyrannyofthemajorityshorttermpoliticalsolutionsforlongtermproblems
weaknessesofvotingasadecisionmakingprocesstechnicalcomplexityand
winnertakeallthinking.
Yetanotherscholar(Gray,1989)pointstothegrowinginterdependencethatforces
morecooperativeandlessconfrontationalbehavioursinallsegmentsofsociety,
privateandofficial:economicandtechnicalchangedecliningproductivitygrowth
andincreasedcompetitivepressuresglobalinterdependenceblurringofboundaries
betweenbusiness,governmentandlabourshrinkinggovernmentrevenuesfor
socialprogramsanddissatisfactionwiththejudicialprocessforsolvingproblems.
Inreportingtheseandotheracademicresponses,oneconflictresolutionscholar
(Dukes,1992)takesabroaderview,andrecognizestheinabilityoftheexisting
ordertosatisfyconflictingwantsandneedswithinthecontextofenvironmental,
resourceandpopulationproblems.
Thisscholarlyquestioningoftraditionalconsensusbeliefsisanimportantstepin,
first,pointingfirsttotheneedforanalternativesystem,andsecondtothedirections
ofsociallydemandedandrequiredchange.
Thetaskofthosewhoareconcernedprimarilywithconflictresolutionand
proventionistoarticulatealternatives,tosetoutpreciselytestedprocessesand
procedures,andgenerallytoprovideoptionstosocietiesdesperatelyinneedof
then,butwhichhavenoclearindicationsofwheretogofromhere.Then,butonly
then,isthereanyprospectofconflictproventionbecomingapoliticalsystemthat
canreplacewhatisprovingtobedestructiveoftheglobalenvironmentandof
civilizations.
References
Burton,JohnW.1990a.Conflict:ResolutionandProvention.NewYork:StMartins
Press.
Burton,JohnW.1990b.ConflictHumanNeedsTheoryNewYork:StMartinsPress.
Burton,JohnW.&FDukes.1990.Conflict:PracticesinManagement,Settlement
andResolution.NewYork:StMartinsPress.
Burton,JohnW.1984.GlobalConflict.Brighton:Wheatsheaf.
Burton,JohnW.1969.ConflictandCommunication.London:Macmillan.
Deutsch,KarlW.1963.TheNervesofGovernmentNewYorkFreePress.
Dotson,A.B.,DGodschalkandJ,Kaufman.1989.ThePlannerasDisputeResolver:
ConceptsandTeachingMaterials.WashingtonDCNationalInstituteforDispute
Resolution.
Dukes,Franklyn.1992.TheDevelopmentofPublicConflictResolution:A
TransformationApproach.GeorgeMasonUniversity.Ph.D.Dissertation.

Gray,B.1989.Collaborating:FindingCommonGroundforMultipartyProblems
SanFranciscoJosseyBass.

Maslow,Abraham.1954.MotivationandPersonality.Reading:AddisonWesley.

Mitchell,C.R.1981.PeacemakingandtheConsultant'sRoleAldershot:Gower
Press.

Modelski,George.1962.ATheoryofForeignPolicyLondon:PallMallPress.

Morgenthau,HansJ.1948.PoliticsAmongNations:TheStruggleforPowerand
Peace1sted.NewYork:AlfredKnopf.

Susskind,L.andJ.Cruikshank.1987.BreakingtheImpasse:Consensual
ApproachestoResolvingPublicDisputes.NewYork:BasicBooks.