"In the lexicon of most foreign affairs professionals, reconciliation is a soft word. It has a religious flavour. In fact, one of its early definitions was the restoration of a penitent sinner to the church. Reconciliation is not the word ordinarily used by diplomats, journalists or professors of international relations when plans are discussed to deal with the enduring crises between Greece and Turkey, the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, Israelis and Palestinians, even Quebeckers and Anglophones in Canada. The professionals work first to prevent violence and then patch together a deal that get the adversaries - and the mediators -through the short term until, they hope, some unforeseen actor or even comes along to resolve the conflict once and for all" ( Reconciliation as Realpolitk, Joseph V Montevile.)
The parties to the conflict need to be led to accept moral responsibility for their behaviour and that of their predecessors. Only then will some sense of justice begin to emerge among the people who suffered. And when a sense of justice emerges, so too, will the possibility for real peace. For, there is an inescapable link between justice and peace embedded in human psychology but to date eludes professional diplomacy and statecraft which tend to cling nostalgically to a scientifically unjustifiable concept of power politics and cynicism -- the traditional realpolitik.
"Today there is now, much more realistic, realpolitk based on new knowledge acquired through the synthesis of political analysis that recognises that conflict resolution and peace building can succeed only if the circumstances that originally produced people's sense of victimhood are dealt with. There is a need for healing process that goes far beyond training in problem-solving skills.
"Because of its deep-roots, moral conflicts tend to be intractable and long-lasting. Parties to such conflict often have great difficulty in describing the substantive issues in shared terms. Because they are arguing from different moral positions, they disagree about the meaning and significance of the important issues. This makes negotiation or compromise extremely difficult in and of itself." (Moral or value conflicts, Michelle Maise)
Resolution becomes even more difficult when parties disagree not only about substantive issues, but also about which forms of conflict resolution are morally right, aesthetically preferred, and politically prudent. Parties may have very different ideas about how to gather information, arrive at a conclusion, make a decision and deal with uncertainty.
Over the course of conflict, the original issues often become irrelevant and new causes for conflict are generated by actions within the conflict itself. This is because in moral conflict, when groups try to act consistently with what they believe is morally good and just, they "prove" to the other side that they are fools or villains. Thus, the means by which the parties seek resolution often just provoke further conflict. As the conflict continues, substantive issues are largely forgotten and "the other side's means of dealing with the conflict is itself the force that drives the interactions among the various conflicted parties.
Parties involved in moral conflict also tend to have great difficulty in imagining a win-win resolution of the conflict at hand. The substantive issues are often a matter of rigidly held moral beliefs, based in fundamental assumptions that cannot be proved wrong. These fundamental moral, religious and personal values are not easily changed, and people who adhere to a particular ideology may very well be unwilling to compromise their world-view. Instead, as noted earlier, they may engage in diatribe, a rhetorical strategy that discredits adversaries by characterising them as evil or morally inferior. Such characterisation often leads to subversion, repression and violence. Because rational discourse has become useless, each party may try to force the other side into compliance. The conflict is likely to escalate and become more protracted as a result.
Also, those involved in conflict may regard perpetuation of the conflict as virtuous or necessary. They may derive part of their identity from being warriors or opponents of their enemy and have a stake in the continuation of the conflict because it provides them with a highly desirable role. In addition, because struggles over values often involve claims to status and power, parties may have a great stake in neutralising, injuring or eliminating their rivals. They may view any compromise about their most cherished values as a threat to their very identity and a grave evil. Indeed, moral conflicts often stem from a desire to safeguard basic human needs such as security and social recognition of identity. On some occasions, the continuation of a conflict may seem preferable to what would have to be given up if the other party were accommodated.
Unfortunately, those enmeshed in moral conflict may be unable to discern the effects of conflict, even if those effects themselves threaten the basic human needs that were at issue. Because moral conflicts tend to be intractable and have great potential for violence, we must search for new ways to manage them.
Similar to story-telling, dialogue is a process of in-depth communication that allows parties to get to know each other better and to find commonalities with the other side. Although there are many forms and contexts of dialogue, all seek to replace the ubiquitous "diatribe" of moral conflicts with respectful communication, empathic listening, improved understanding, and respect. In some cases, these new forms of communication may help parties to see that their moral disagreements are less deep and fundamental than they previously thought. However, in other cases, the substantive issues will truly be beyond compromise.
Some suggest that in these sorts of cases, parties must strive to develop a space for public discourse. Even though the parties have radically different world-views and do not agree about the relevant issues, they can nevertheless reach an agreement about how to contend with moral and political differences in a constructive way. In other words, they can come to an agreement about how to disagree. They can, thereby, manage their conflict in a way that minimises the costs to both parties.
Political compromise is difficult in Bangladesh democracy even though no one doubts it is necessary. It is difficult for many reasons, including the recent increase in political polarisation that has been widely criticised. We argue that the resistance to compromise cannot be fully appreciated without understanding its source in the democratic process itself. The incursion of campaigning into governing in Bangladesh's democracy-that encourages political attitudes and arguments only will make compromise more difficult. These constitute what we call the uncompromising mindset, characterised by politicians' standing on principle and mistrusting opponents. This mindset is conducive to campaigning, but not to governing, because it stands in the way of necessary change and thereby biases the democratic process in favour of the status quo. The uncompromising mindset can be kept in check by an opposite cluster of attitudes and arguments--the compromising mindset--that inclines politicians to adapt their principles and respect their opponents. This mindset is more appropriate for governing, because it enables politicians more readily to recognise and act on opportunities for desirable compromise.
Compromise is usually necessary in a democracy to accomplish anything of significance. But it amounts to more than making a virtue out of the necessity of compromise. It has a moral component that stands as a reminder that to fail to compromise is to privilege the status quo. If a compromise really is an improvement, then the compromising mindset opens up opportunities for achieving greater justice.
Political leaders and ordinary citizens alike could benefit from seeing more clearly the strengths and weaknesses of the compromising and uncompromising mindsets, and how they interact in the democratic process. The ways that the mindsets frame disagreements are sometimes latent and often unrecognised. By more fully appreciating the very different mindsets required by campaigning and by governing, leaders and citizens are more likely to recognise opportunities to craft compromises that could make better laws for all.
kbahmed1@gmail.com
Dialogue is a process of in-depth communication
K. B. Ahmed | Published: February 19, 2015 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00
Share if you like