11.1 The concept of a political conflict
To date, the world community is constantly undergoing certain metamorphosis. Globalization is the main lever for the development of modern society. In contrast, there is such a thing as “anti-globalization”, accordingly, society is constantly in a state of conflict. Consequently, conflict is a natural form of interaction between individuals and social groups in society as well. A German sociologist G. Simmel expressed the idea of the naturalness of the conflict back in the middle of the XIX century, and introduced the concept of «social conflict» into scientific circulation. He also stressed the functionality of the conflict, believing that this is how the atmosphere of society is purified.
The most important type of social conflict is a political conflict. Its main feature is that it originates and functions in a specific sphere of human life – political. Specificity of this sphere lies in its almost constant conflict. Conflicts are an integral part of political life, one of the main forms of the political process. In political science, interest in conflicts never weakened. Conflict as a social phenomenon was first investigated in the writings of G. Simmel, G. Hegel, K. Marx, A. Smith, A. Tocqueville. The separation of political conflicts into an independent problem of world political science falls on the middle of the XX century. Formation of the theory of political conflict is associated with the names of scientists V. Pareto, R. Darendorf, L. Kozer and many others. The definition of political conflict is most clearly presented in the encyclopaedic dictionary; “political conflict” (Latin conflictus – clash) can be defined as a form of political process characterized by a clash of differently directed political forces with the aim of realizing their interests in the face of opposition.
Conflicts stimulate the formation of political coalitions, unions, agreements. It is assumed that the positions of the forces participating in the political game are clearly formulated.
The conflict thus signals to the society and the authorities about the presence of contradictions. It stimulates actions that can put a situation under control. Only certain types of political conflicts are devastating to society.
Political conflict is one of the forms of interaction between subjects, subjects and objects in politics, the essence of which is the clash of their conflicting, mutually exclusive interests.
Political conflicts arise when the opposing interests of the subjects of politics (or subjects and objects of politics) not only confront each other, but also mutually exclude each other, and at the same time the social status of these subjects.
To summarize, we would like to emphasize that the political conflict is, firstly, a clash of political interests of subjects (or subjects and objects), which result in a confrontation between these subjects (or subjects and objects). Secondly, it is such a degree of development of opposite political interests of subjects, which requires mandatory decision.
Conflicts, of course, are in one way or another connected with the consciousness of people. However, their reasons lay in reality. In most cases, this is an unequal position occupied by people, where some control and command, while others are compelled to obey and follow directions. In other words, conflicts are taking place on issues of power.
The reasons may be, in particular:
1) incorrect actions of the main political parties, organizations, movements, heads of state bodies;
2) the presence of individuals, social groups, among the subjects of politics, opposing their interests;
3) excessive radicalism or conservatism of the policy;
4) breaking the connection of the subjects of politics with their social base and many others.
In a number of reasons that have caused a specific political conflict, there may be the desires of some political leaders, social groups, i.e. some conflicts can be created artificially, however within certain limits.
The poorer the society and the more scarce commodities, the more often conflicts arise there.
We would like to dwell on the structure of the conflict in more detail.
The conflict has its own specifics: its dominance is the struggle for power. At the same time, the power struggle is almost never declared openly. The object and subject of political conflicts are political state power, the possession of it, the organization of power institutions, the political status of social groups, values and symbols that are the basis of the political power of a given society.
Individuals, small and large social groups (including ethnic groups – clan, tribe, nation), states and their coalitions can act as subjects of a political conflict.
At the same time, the political conflict does not represent a unique phenomenon of public life.
Objective contradictions are those that really exist in society, regardless of the will and desire of the subjects. For example, the contradictions between labour and capital, between governors and subordinates, the contradictions of “fathers” and “children”.
In addition to the objectively existing contradictions in the imagination of the subject, imaginary contradictions can arise when there are no objective reasons for the conflict, but the subject realizes the situation as conflicting.
Contradictions can exist for a rather long period of time and do not grow into conflict. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that at the heart of the conflict there are only those contradictions that are caused by incompatible interests, needs and values. Such contradictions, as a rule, are transformed into an open struggle of the parties, into a real confrontation.
The collisions may be caused by the most diverse problems of our life. For example, the conflict over material resources, values and important life attitudes, power, status-role differences in social structure, personal differences, etc. Thus, conflicts cover all spheres of human activity, the whole aggregate of social relations, social interaction. Conflict in fact is one of the types of social interaction, their subjects and participants are individuals, large and small social groups and organizations. However, conflictual interaction presupposes a confrontation between the parties, that is, actions directed against each other.
Confrontation can be more or less intense and violent. “Intensity”, according to R. Darendorf, “means energy invested by participants. And at the same time, the social importance of individual conflicts”. The form of clashes – violent or nonviolent – depends on many factors, including on whether there are real conditions and opportunities for non-violent conflict resolution and what objectives are pursued by confrontation actors.
So, a social conflict is an open confrontation, a clash of two or more subjects (parties) of social interaction, caused by incompatible needs, interests and values.
The function of political conflictology is to investigate, identify, prevent and resolve political conflicts.
The main functions of political conflictology:
1) Cognitive. This is a certain way of knowing (studying) the nature of the political conflict, its structure and laws of development in order to prevent, resolve and manage the political conflict.
2) Diagnostic. The analysis (monitoring) of political reality is carried out with the purpose of revealing potential conflicts and the analysis of a conflict situation with the purpose of its resolution.
3) Prognostic. Scientifically substantiated forecasts about trends (prospects) of development of political contradictions and prevention of possible negative phenomena are developed.
4) Organizational and technological. Technologies and organizational structures are created to prevent and resolve conflict situations in the political sphere.
5) Management. Conflict studies are used to develop and make management decisions.
6) Instrumental. It manifests itself in improving existing and developing new methods for investigating political conflicts.
7) Ideological. Consists of using conflictology knowledge and research results in the interests of society, social community.
8) Pragmatic (applied). Theoretical and applied methods of conflictology are used to solve the contradictions that arise in a society.
11.2 Typology of political conflicts and the reasons for their occurrence
All political conflicts are divided into international (external) and internal. Internal, in turn, can be divided into two main types: horizontal and vertical. Vertical are also divided into two types: status-role and regime (opposition). The following types of political conflicts can be distinguished in the area of the dispute (the sphere of life activity): socio-political, political-economic, ethnopolitical, confessional-political, political-legal, institutional-political, ideological (including religious ones) and others.
Horizontal political conflicts. The struggle for power and authority is conducted within the existing regime. For example, between the government and the parliament, various political groups in the ruling elite, etc.
The goals and causes of the horizontal conflicts are the improvement of the existing system of power. For example, the replacement of unwanted leaders or the ruling elite, etc.
In a democratic political system, horizontal political conflicts are mostly institutionalized and programmed to a certain extent. Most of them are open, public in nature, for example, parliamentary debates, a vote of no confidence in the government. But there are also political secrets hidden from the public, which only a narrow circle of the political elite knows about.
Vertical political conflicts can be divided into two subspecies: status-role and regime.
Status-role conflicts are used in the struggle to raise personal and group status (role) in the political structure of society (for a position in the hierarchy of political power, for the totality and scope of political rights and freedoms, for the opportunity to participate in politics and influence it, for compliance of status and roles, and others). Examples of such conflicts are conflicts between the centre and regions, between the ruling and opposition elites, etc.
The regime political conflicts pursue the goal of overthrowing the existing political system or radical change in the political course.
The following types of political conflicts stand out: conflicts of values, interests, political cultures, political identification. In the conflict of values, contradictions lie in different perceptions of the political system itself, the political course of the country and the rules of the political game.
In the conflict of interests, the struggle is in the sphere of distribution and redistribution of various resources (power, material wealth, spiritual values, etc.).
Like other social conflicts, political conflicts may be local, general, short-term, long-term, subjective, objective, violent, peaceful, constructive and destructive. They can occur at the level of the centre, a region, a separate city and district.
No matter what type of political conflicts arise in the society and whatever the reasons for them are, each of them signals about existing contradictions that need to be resolved.
Conflict of political interests. Interest is one of the main factors motivating any kind of political activity. Interests serve as a source, motive for certain specific actions, for example, participation in elections, organization and holding of a rally, etc.
Interests unite and disconnect social groups and institutions, peoples and countries, «force» them to cooperate and conflict. Some interests express long-term trends and perspectives of society, nation, class and political party. Other more particular interests express the specific character of political relations between social groups and political institutions in the process of their interaction. The next group of interests has a cyclical, temporary nature, for example, an election campaign, which takes place within the statutory deadlines.
Interests can be personal (individual), group and public. But in order to defend their interests, people must unite in “groups of interests”: political parties, social movements, etc. A single leader in politics has no chance of success unless certain political forces support him.
Political interests unite people with communities of value orientations, needs, views, goals, and disconnect those who have incompatible interests. Their special political interests can be found in state institutions, political parties, socio-political organizations and movements, interest groups and others.
Interest groups are mainly voluntary organizations and associations that seek to realize special corporate interests, through state institutions and indirectly through parties, parliamentary factions and the media.
One of the varieties of political conflict is the conflict of political cultures. In this conflict there is a clash of different political values, norms, customs and traditions, methods of political behaviour, value orientations and goals of political development. These conflicts are especially noticeable during periods of radical reforms in society, when old and new political cultures are confronted. For example, the struggle of the old totalitarian (subordinate) political culture with a new liberal-democratic (activist) culture in modern society.
Conflict lies in the very nature of political power, designed to conform, coordinate the various interests of people. There are the following sources of political conflict:
The authors of the book «Political Conflictology» believe that the political conflict is based on political crises, and distinguish their types:
1) the crisis of identity, coming with the breakdown of ideals and values;
2) the crisis of distribution of material and cultural goods;
3) the crisis of participation, related to the level of citizens’ involvement in governance;
4) the crisis of «penetration» is expressed in the desire of the ruling class to implement their decisions in all spheres of public life;
5) the crisis of legitimacy is expressed in the discrepancy between the goals of the regime and mass views about the norms of its functioning.
3rd question: The authors of the book “Political Conflictology” believe that the political conflict is based on political crises, and distinguish their types:
1) the crisis of identity, coming with the breakdown of ideals and values that dominate the political culture of the given society;
2) the crisis of distribution of material and cultural goods, consisting in the inability of power structures to ensure a steady increase in the material well-being of the population;
3) the crisis of participation associated with the level of citizens’ involvement in governance.
Whatever the reasons for the infringement of basic human needs, if a significant part of the country’s population does not find its place in the existing socio-political structure of society and is unable to meet its basic needs within the existing socio-political institutions, it will seek to destroy or radically change these institutions.
Differences in assessments, value orientations, goals, perceptions of the necessary structure of society and the state can cause ideological political conflict of values. Such political conflicts are called conflicts of political cultures. The struggle between different interest groups (clans, elites) for power and resources is the most spread out basis for political conflict, and in the absence of civil society – the main one. Such conflicts occur within the framework of the existing political system. Their causes, goals and tasks are not very clear to the majority of citizens. The victory of a political grouping in such a conflict, as a rule, does not change anything in the conditions of the life of ordinary citizens.
11.3 The forms of manifestation of political conflict
Forms of social (including political) conflict: verbal aggression, physical aggression, scandal, boycott, sabotage, strike, harassment, protest, rebellion, terrorism, war and revolution.
All of the above (and other) forms of social conflict are, to a certain extent, also inherent in a political conflict. But if war and revolution are a purely political problem, other forms of social conflict, manifested in the political struggle, acquire their “political” specificity.
Boycott is a method, a means, a form of political and economic struggle that involves a complete or partial cessation of relations with a potential or real adversary, blocking his actions, connections and relations.
Sabotage is a deliberate non-fulfilment or careless (inaccurate) execution of the immediate duties by the subjects and participants of the political (social) process.
Strike is collective termination of work or refusal to participate in regulated work, organized by employees in order to protect their economic, socio-political and other interests.
Rebellion is an acute form of open protest behaviour, which is a spontaneous, unorganized action of the masses in defence of their interests.
In political theory and in the theory of political conflict, there are two main points of view on the place of war in politics. Some researchers believe that war is not a political phenomenon; others adhere to the opposite point of view.
Conflict (including war) arises when there is confrontation, in which each of the parties to the conflict hopes to win. Politics is a relationship between allies, opponents, adversaries, enemies, which involve the search for compromises, but do not exclude war. These arguments, in our opinion, give us grounds to assert that war (the threat of war) continues to be one of the means of politics and one of the forms of political conflict. The danger of a world thermonuclear war and the threat of the death of all mankind “force” the nuclear powers to observe a moratorium on the use of nuclear weapons. However, the nuclear potential of the countries that have them is a weighty “argument” in their policies.
There are five distinctive features between the war and the military conflict:
1) war as a social phenomenon is always a consequence of the long-term preparation of the interested social forces. A military conflict can happen accidentally, intentionally, as a result of a confluence of circumstances;
2) war, unlike military conflict, fundamentally changes the situation in the country as a whole, for example, a wartime regime is introduced. The latter may affect only a particular region;
3) military conflict, as a rule, does not destroy the existing international relations. The war leads to significant changes in military-political relations;
4) war is usually officially declared. The military conflict is simply registered by the parties;
5) war involves the introduction of martial law, conflict – does not require this measure.
In our opinion, the similarity and difference between the war and the military conflict is as follows:
1) In a broad sense (when significant forces and means are involved in a conflict), a military conflict can be treated as a war or as an “undeclared” war. In a narrow sense, the military conflict is a confrontation (combat actions) of military formations, limited by the purposes, means and scale, for example, an armed incident between the border guards of the two countries.
2) A military conflict can occur accidentally or intentionally and may be seen as an incident that will be the reason for full-scale military actions, or may not have a “military” continuation, when the parties find other ways of settling a military conflict that has arisen.
The war, unlike the military conflict, suggests:
– certain preparations for large-scale military operations, the restructuring of the economy in connection with the military situation, the mobilization of forces and means, i.e., real readiness for warfare (real conduct of hostilities);
– the institutionalization of a military conflict, that is, the announcement that the party (state, class, nation) is at war with a certain enemy;
– legitimization of the military conflict, that is, recognition by the surrounding social environment (the world community) that this military conflict is nothing but a war.
3) A military conflict may not have political goals and consequences.
As for the difference between the war and the armed conflict, in our opinion, the latter is a more widespread but less large-scale phenomenon. Depending on the characteristics of the parties involved in the war, the scale and means of fighting, the wars are divided into the following types: world, interstate, civil, partisan, interethnic, religious (inter-confessional), total, limited (local), cold and others. Depending on the number of parties involved – bilateral, coalition, world. An American scientist Hendington introduced the concept of “inter-civilizational wars”, i.e. wars between different civilizations.
At the turn of the XX and XXI centuries, world terrorism started to pose a real threat to the entire international community, which prompted specialists and politicians to conclude that the world community has declared a terrorist war. The main initiators of this war, according to many researchers, are Islamic fundamentalists. Marxism introduced such characteristics of war, as “fair” (“progressive”) and “unfair” (“reactionary”). “Fair” wars include: national liberation (anti-colonial), defensive (domestic), civil (class) (but only from the side of the revolutionary class). The imperialist wars, the wars for the redivision of the world, the wars of aggression and class wars from the exploiters side were treated unfair. In accordance with the existing international law, almost all wars in the modern world are considered illegal, with the exception of liberation wars and wars providing collective security.
So, in our opinion, the whole variety of causes of wars, as well as the emergence of political conflicts, in a generalized form is reduced to the question of power and domination (in the country, region, world). If we consider the immediate causes of different wars, we can distinguish: incompatible political interests and values, sociocultural differences (identity conflict), and others.
The revolution is a rapid fundamental socio-economic and political change, carried out, as a rule, by violent means. It presupposes: the overthrow of the existing political regime, the radical qualitative transformation of the political system, the restructuring of all social and economic relations.
From the conflictology point of view, revolution is the most acute form of manifestation of class conflict (class struggle) between the ruling class and the opposition. The price of victory and defeat in this conflict is incredibly high. Therefore, the revolution is often accompanied by various forms of violence (rebellion, armed insurrection, civil war and others). There are also relatively peaceful forms of revolutions. Some of them are called «velvet» for their “peaceful” character.
It is necessary to distinguish the revolution from a state (military, political) coup. The latter is a form of political conflict within the ruling class itself. It is carried out, as a rule, by a relatively small group of conspirators who are representatives of the ruling class. The main goal of the coup is the seizure of political power, which does not exclude the initiation and larger-scale socio-political transformations. Revolution is a political conflict between the ruling class and the opposition (society and the state). It removes the ruling elite from power, which has proved its inability to rule the society, and forms a new elite, legitimate from the point of view of the majority of citizens, creates a new political and social structure, new political, economic and social relations and institutions.
There are distinguished political and social revolutions. The first are aimed at radical transformation of the political system of the state. The second assumes deep qualitative transformations in all spheres of vital activity of a society and the state. Combining several stages, complementary and explaining each other, we can distinguish four main stages of revolutionary change:
1) The pre-revolutionary stage: the general crisis of the political system; the obvious inability of the authorities to effectively manage the state and the reluctance of most citizens to tolerate the prevailing conditions of life (the upper classes cannot – the lower classes do not want to); the emergence of a revolutionary situation.
2) Stage of revolutionary changes: the overthrow of the old regime of power and the destruction of previous social institutions; the establishment of new forms of government, new economic and socio-cultural relations; general rejoicing and euphoria from victory.
3) The stage of mass violence, terror and civil war between supporters of the old regime, moderate reformers and radicals.
The stage of restoration of “legality” and “order”; consistent reforms and social transformations. At this stage, there is a certain “pullback”, a partial return to the old structures and values.
Lenin worked out a provision on the revolutionary situation, according to which the revolution becomes possible with the simultaneous presence of three main factors: 1) “bottoms” do not want to live the old way; 2) “tops” cannot manage in the old way; 3) the extreme impoverishment of the masses.
Based on the profound sociological analysis of the October Revolution of 1917, P. A. Sorokin concludes that three components are necessary for “every revolutionary explosion”: 1) the growing suppression of basic instincts (needs for food, clothing, housing, etc.) of the majority of the population; 2) their universal character (when not only the poor are traditionally dissatisfied with their position, but also other segments of the population); 3) the powerlessness of groups of order (when the government is not able to effectively manage the society and maintain order.
11.4 Settlement and resolution of political conflicts
Conflict resolution is a fairly broad concept. It implies: prevention of open forms of conflict manifestation, accompanied by violent actions (wars, riots, etc.); resolving conflicts by eliminating their causes; the formation of a new level of the participants’ relations (a decrease in the level of hostility of the conflicting parties, the transfer of the conflict to the search for a joint solution of the problem). Conflict resolution helps to limit its intensity and scale.
Modern theoretical and applied political science reveals a number of methods for resolving political conflicts:
– “Avoiding” the conflict – temporary withdrawal from the political arena, evasion from meetings with the enemy, etc.
– Conflict substitution – moving it to a different plane.
– Confrontation – tough, “revolutionary” solutions.
– Adaptation – actions aimed at independent developing solutions to resolve a conflict by one of the parties, but satisfying both sides.
– Postponement is a temporary assignment to a strong opponent.
– Reconciliation of the parties – the rapprochement of positions through an intermediary.
– Arbitration – appeal to the judiciary.
– Negotiations are the most common and promising way to resolve political conflicts.
– Alternative conflict resolution – the conflict is regulated by the participants themselves through mutual cooperation and agreement.
Resolution of the conflict is expressed in the elimination of the causes that gave rise to it, i.e. in eliminating the opposite interests and goals of the opposing entities.
Methods of conflict resolution:
The method of “smoothing” is based on the belief that the differences between the conflicting parties are not so significant. On the contrary, common interests are emphasized: “We are one common family”, etc.
The method of “quick resolution” is characterized by the fact that measures to resolve the conflict are taken as soon as possible. Its use is justified by the time limit, the desire of opponents to participate in the search for the most effective agreements, the probability of minimizing costs in resolving confrontation in this way.
The method of “hidden actions” is used when the management of a conflict needs, from the point of view of management, hidden means of its regulation (if an open, favourable social conflict is not possible, with an imbalance of forces and lack of partners, etc.).
The “compromise” method is used in a situation when the opposing sides occupy middle positions within the framework of existing discrepancies. The essence of the method is conflict management through agreement in the course of direct participation (negotiations of the parties).
The method of “cooperation” is applicable when the competing parties try to find the optimal solution to the conflict situation. At the same time, the resolution of the conflict often ends with an agreement (consent) on the contentious issue between its participants and can exist in one of three forms:
- the coincidence of the interests of the opposing sides;
- the use of legislation, on the basis of which conciliation takes place;
- the imposition of a compromise by the third parties to the opposing sides. Such an agreement is often temporary.
Forced suppression or the method of violence testifies to a higher degree of readiness to resolve the conflict, at least on one side. Its essence consists in compulsory imposing one of the sides of their position.
The management of conflicts has its own specifics.
Thus, E. M. Babosov outlines the following features of managing social conflicts:
– this is primarily the management of people;
– probabilistic (unpredictable) nature of management;
– management of equal people. Here it is meant that each of the conflicting parties is a subject that has to be considered by the others;
– interest-based management. Only understanding and taking into account the interests of the conflicting parties can make the conflict more or less manageable;
– management should be based on the understanding that it is impossible to completely eliminate conflict contradictions from the socio-economic and political fabric of society. Therefore, it should be aimed at minimizing the destructive consequences of the conflict and on its constructive resolution;
– search for non-confrontational ways of conflict resolution. Here we are talking about preventive methods for managing a conflict situation.
Concerning the problems of conflict management, there are different points of view. Some researchers believe that the conflict, especially at the escalation stage, is an out-of-control process. Therefore, it is possible to talk about the possibility of managing the conflict only at the stage of its settlement. Others endow the qualities of the managing subject to the third party only, which is objectively interested in resolving the conflict. Still, others believe that the conflict can be controlled at any stage of its development, and the subjects of management can be any entities that can influence its dynamics.
Let’s consider the concepts of “conflict management”, “conflict management for the purpose of preventing it”, and “managing the conflict to resolve it”.
Conflict management presupposes the actions of its parties, which can be aimed at achieving their goals, including against each other, and promote both escalation and conflict resolution.
Conflict management for the purpose of preventing it involves taking proactive measures to ensure that any contradictions that have arisen or a conflict situation that has arisen do not escalate into conflict.
Management of the conflict with a view to its settlement takes place in the conditions of the conflict that has arisen.
“Both for the parties to the conflict and for the “third party”, the single goal of the administration are the settlement of the conflict. None of the sensible parties will begin a conflict for the sake of the conflict itself...”, therefore management «is objectively inherent in the essence of the very phenomenon of the conflict».
In our opinion, in each specific case it is necessary to identify who is the subject of conflict management at a particular moment in time, what resources it has, what its goals are and to what extent they have already been achieved. Political conflict does not begin for the sake of the conflict itself, as it is a means, not a goal and, as a rule, is conditioned by the interests of the conflicting parties that pursue specific goals. Therefore, to say that «the single goal of management is the settlement of the conflict» means to simplify the situation. Conflicting parties pursue mostly incompatible goals. If a party seeks to achieve its goal through conflict, then at the development stage, its plans do not include the settlement of the conflict. It can simulate a violent activity to resolve it, but its “management” of the conflict will be reduced to its escalation. It will give the consent to a real settlement of the conflict only in cases when:
– the continuation of the conflict is fraught with a serious complication of the situation;
– achieving the goal will become an obvious fact;
– achieving the goal becomes impossible in principle for one reason or another.
The authors of the book “Political Conflictology” are absolutely right when they write that “the goal (goals) of managing a political conflict depends on the subject of conflict management and is to optimize the current political process in the interests of the subject of management”. But, it follows that it is possible to manage the conflict even in cases when the interests of all the participants do not coincide. And then, the conflict management process will be aimed at protecting the interests of the dominant subject (subjects) of management.
By way of example, the “orange revolution” in Ukraine (late 2004–early 2005) can be mentioned. The “orange” side was well prepared for the political conflict both organizationally and materially. It was this side that initiated the conflict and continued it until their goal was achieved – the post of the president. Would you say that this conflict was controlled? Of course, you would. The main, dominant subject of management of this conflict was the more organized and resource-endowed “orange” side. The pro-government bloc led by Yanukovych tried to seize the initiative, but did not succeed.
Regarding the third party, it is objectively interested in resolving the conflict, in accordance with its status. The problem is that the third party cannot be the subject of conflict management in all cases. For example, if the third party performs intermediary functions in a conflict, then it is not a subject of management, since the final decision on the settlement (resolution) of the conflict remains for the opposing sides.
In the modern world, as already mentioned, states and blocs that are powerful in the economic and military terms are playing a dominant role both in provoking political conflicts and in settling them. In an interstate conflict, as a rule, they play the role of an indirect party and form a third party.
11.5 Negotiations as a way to prevent and resolve a political conflict
Most researchers define the concept of “negotiations” as a way of peaceful (non-violent) resolution of conflicts, others as a means of ending the conflict, when opponents have exhausted the possibilities of resolving the conflict by force, some researchers endow negotiations with broader functions – a way of peaceful resolution of disagreements and conflict resolution. The above points of view and priorities in the definition of the concept of “negotiations” show that the phenomenon being studied is highly ambiguous and multifunctional. But the main purpose of the talks is to prevent the emergence of political conflicts and their settlement in case of emergence. Proceeding from this, it is possible to formulate the concept of “negotiations”.
Negotiations are a way of peaceful resolution of the conflicts that have arisen and resolving conflicts through interaction of the parties with a view to finding mutually acceptable solutions and writing out the agreements reached.
One of the features of the negotiations is that their participants act in direct interaction with each other and in mutual dependence.
There are different types of political negotiations:
1) by the number of participants – bilateral and multilateral;
2) on the basis of attraction (non-attraction) of a third party – direct and indirect;
3) depending on the scale of the problems to be solved – domestic and international;
4) depending on the status of participants – high-level talks (heads of state and government), high-level talks (for example, foreign ministers), negotiations in the working order (between representatives of various political parties and organizations).
1) the solution of joint problems is the main function of most negotiations;
2) communicative – the establishment of mutual communication (dialogue), the identification of points of view of the opposite side, the joint search for solutions to problems;
3) regulatory – coordination and control of joint activities;
4) the solution of their own internal political and foreign policy tasks – this function involves solving a variety of tasks that are covered by negotiations, for example, distraction. Disorientation of the enemy, neutralization of the internal opposition;
5) propaganda – influence on public opinion in order to explain its position, justify its actions, influence opponents and receive additional support.
The main function of a third party is to help resolve the conflict. It can offer its services in resolving the conflict itself, can intervene in the conflict at the request of the conflicting parties or its participation in the conflict resolution can be initiated by the public. The functions and significance of the third party in the negotiation process are largely due to its status in the negotiations. The following functions and statuses of the third party stand out:
1) mediation – participation in the negotiation process in order to optimize the process of finding a mutually acceptable solution. It is carried out with the mutual consent of the negotiating parties;
2) provision of “good offices” – this function is less significant and binding than mediation. It can confine itself, for example, by providing its territory for negotiations or facilitating the establishment of communications. Providing good offices is possible with the consent of only one party;
3) monitoring the progress of the negotiations – by the very fact of their presence at the talks, the observers create conditions for reducing tensions between the parties and promote constructive dialogue. But the observers themselves are not involved directly in the negotiation process.
4) arbitration – its main difference from all of the above is that decisions taken by the arbitrator become binding for each party.
The third party must have certain qualities and characteristics:
1) political capital – experience in the development and adoption of important political decisions, in the successful resolution of complex political contradictions;
2) competence – the knowledge and skills necessary for the successful resolution of specific (typical) conflicts;
3) the authority and confidence of the contracting parties and the public;
4) impartiality – the position of the third party in the negotiation process should be maximally neutral.
Usually one of the conditions for starting a negotiation process is a temporary truce. But there are possible options when, at the stage of preliminary agreements, the parties not only do not stop «fighting», but they are exacerbating the conflict, trying to strengthen their positions in the negotiations.
The process of preparing and holding negotiations can be divided into four successive stages: preparatory, search for mutually acceptable solutions, signing of a peace treaty, control over the fulfilment of the obligations assumed.
The negotiating strategies selected by its participants have a significant impact on the negotiation process. There are three main strategies, each of which sets its own line of behaviour for its participants:
1) “hard pressure” – one or both parties will choose an unconditional win strategy. Such a tough stance, even on the one hand, can provoke a counter ally a tough reaction, and negotiations can come to a standstill.
2) “mutual compromise” – involves mutual concessions and compromises. At the same time, strong and weak positions of each other and mutual interests are taken into account;
3) “protracted negotiations and dishonest games” – one or both sides are delaying the negotiations, seeking to gain time and use it to obtain one-sided gains.
Of all the proposed strategies, the most effective is the strategy of mutual compromises.
Negotiations suggest a mutual search for a compromise between the conflicting sides and include the following possible procedures:
1) Recognition of the existing conflict. If at least one of the parties does not recognize the existence of a conflict, then there is nothing to negotiate.
2) Approval of procedural rules and norms. This condition involves the determination (approval) of such formalities. As: the determination of the place and time of the negotiations, the composition of delegations and others.
3) Identification of the main contentious issues (registration of the “protocol of disagreement”). Each of the parties presents its “list of claims” for mutual agreement.
4) Study of possible solutions to the problems.
5) Search for agreements on each controversial issue and on conflict resolution in general. In the search for agreements it is necessary to go from simple to complex. In other words, it’s less difficult to start solving problems. Their decision will contribute to strengthening mutual trust of the parties and will inspire hope for the solution of more complex problems.
6) Documentation of all agreements reached. The implementation of this principle is key in the entire negotiation process, since the post-conflict situation and further prospects depend on the conditions that will be fixed in the signed agreement.
7) Fulfilment of all accepted mutual obligations.
Negotiations can differ from each other both by the level of the contracting parties, and by the disagreements that exist between them. But the basic procedures (elements) of negotiations remain largely unchanged.
The method of compromise can be based on a constructive negotiation process. Based on mutual concessions of the parties, or a method of consensus, focused on the joint solution of existing problems.
The methods of negotiation and their results depend not only on the relations between the opposing sides, but also on the alignment of forces, the internal situation of each of the parties, relations with allies, the presence of a third party and the effectiveness of its actions, the personal characteristics of the contracting parties emerging around public opinion polls and from other factors and conditions.
Control questions
Self-control questions