Conflict Transformation Theory

Essentially then, taking a peacebuilding approach to any conflict would require, at the onset, an acknowledgment of the need to carefully study the different conflict actors, as well as the causes and factors driving a c.onflict, and how these elements interact with each other as well as the contexts they are operating. By recognising the complexity and nuance of all violent conflicts, peacebuilding approaches can provide a conceptual and operational framework that could take into account not only the symptoms of armed social violence, but the structural factors that lie at the heart of violent conflict. As the lead article notes, “[i]nstead of reliance on theoretically grounded conceptual frameworks and internationally defined generic policies,

From our understanding, conflict transformation understands violent conflict to be caused, not just by incompatible goals, but by the fundamental problems of inequality and injustice, as embedded in social, cultural, and economic frameworks. It is therefore the aim of conflict transformation theory to prevent the physical manifestations of violence (direct violence) by addressing the underlying context and attitudes that give rise to these manifestations. By promoting systemic changes that address the wider social and political contexts that serve as the breeding ground of violent conflict, conflict transformation seeks not to suppress but to transform any negative energy produced by these competing needs, interests, and motivations into positive social and political change (Fischer et al. 2000).

To illustrate the merits of operationalizing a peacebuilding approach to armed social violence, de Leon and Tager identify two of the most prominent expressions of this phenomenon, namely, organised crime and urban violence. In the course of their discussion, they recognise the underlying conditions linked to the emergence of this phenomena is the exclusion, whether in a political, social or economic sense, of sections of society, resulting in their marginalization. They also note the failings of the common policy approaches to armed social violence, which fall into either

Because information is drawn out from the actual experiences of communities living with the effects of violence, as well as the consequences of policy interventions meant to address the violence, LM can capture multiple facets of the specific manifestations of armed social violence occurring in their area. This allows for a disaggregated understanding of the conflict dynamics and contextual variations of the violence, which lays the foundation for the formulation of more strategic/targeted policy interventions. And because this analysis is based on a bottom-up approach to understanding the conflict, it provides more opportunities to identify points of entry for collaborative efforts among various stakeholders such as communities, national and local civil society groups, churches, and the