|
Of the range of tools available to conflict resolution practitioners to manage intractable conflicts, none of them is arguably more durable over the long term -- yet risky -- than the creation and nurturing of democracy. Democracy is promising because the principles, institutions, and rules associated with democratic practice seek to manage inevitable social conflicts in deeply divided and less conflicted societies alike. Democracy provides predictable procedures in which collective decisions can be taken without the risk that losing a political battle will mean grave misfortune, imprisonment, or even loss of life. Democracy as a system of political decision making is in many ways a system of conflict management in which the outcomes are unknown but the fundamental rules of the game provide a safe arena in which to compete.
Additional insights into democracy and conflict management are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.
|
For this reason, many deeply divided post-war societies in the 1990s have turned to democracy as a way to exit intractable conflict. From El Salvador (1994) to East Timor (2002), countries that were formerly trapped in violent conflict have become fledging -- if not quite "consolidated" -- democracies.[1] This essay explores the linkages between democracy and conflict management as an exit to deadly strife in societies deeply divided by intractable conflicts. The essay highlights some inherent problems in turning to democratic governance after a protracted conflict and how different types of democracy may affect relations among conflicting groups. The implications of these basic connections between democracy and conflict management are explored for today's deeply divided societies moving beyond violence through a structured peace process. The essay also offers prescriptions for managing intractable conflicts in these situations. The essential findings in this area are two fold:
- First, despite many trials and tribulations with democracy in today's multiethnic societies, no other form of government -- including non-democratic power sharing, party-based authoritarian control, rule by the military, or the overwhelming force of a dictatorship -- can more effectively reconcile competing social interests. For this reason, understanding how types and practices of democracy may contribute to or help exacerbate intractable conflict is a critical concern.
- Second, among the possible ways of constructing a democracy, there is no single ideal set of institutions or practices that can guarantee democracy will help manage intractable conflicts in deeply divided societies. At the same time, given deep practitioner knowledge about a particular conflict, and a keen intuitive sense about how any given democratic institution or practice may work in a setting, practitioners can help shape the choices of protagonists in today's deeply divided societies in ways that promote compromise, conciliation, and conflict management.
African National Congress Election Poster, 1994
By casting itself as a multiracial political party for the 1994 elections, the ANC helped allay the fears of minority South Africans that it would rule exclusively as a party of the long-oppressed black majority. This poster represents the party's promise that the advent of majority-rule democracy in South Africa would not mean a continuation of the years of bloody conflict that characterized the system of apartheid (racial separation) and the rebellion against it.
In South Africa's celebrated elections of April 1994, the turn to democracy and a plan to craft a new constitution allowed South Africa to escape a seemingly intractable conflict over race, equity, and discrimination that had escalated since the first apartheid-era white-minority government took power in 1948.
The ANC's moderate appeal for votes after so many years of conflict -- personified by Nobel Peace Laureate Nelson Mandela -- assured minorities that their rights would be protected in a post-apartheid South Africa through a new charter of basic human rights and a four-year process to promote truth-seeking and reconciliation.
Although the ANC won a clear majority of the votes, as had been expected, South Africa has seen a remarkable decline in political violence after the elections of 1994 and the fundamental ethos of interracial moderation continues today.
Exploring the Linkages
In many deeply divided societies today, parties turn to democracy in the course of negotiating peace agreements to exit intractable conflicts. The international community has routinely assisted such efforts, through mediation of the terms of peace agreements, expert and technical assistance in negotiation, to fielding monitors for transitional elections, to helping with the creation and training of new or established political parties. In many cases, former rebel groups (such as the ANC) have made the transition from war-wagers to political candidates. Internationally assisted efforts to democratize after bitter internal conflicts have, in recent years, featured prominently in Angola, Bosnia, Croatia, East Timor, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Namibia, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, to name a few. Hopes are pinned on the ballot box replacing the battlefield as the principal way in which social conflicts are waged. Today, countries such as Burundi, Sri Lanka, Russia (Chechnya), and Kosovo are seeking to design new systems of democracy to help manage long-standing conflicts.
Given the depth of enmity among contending groups after a long period of deadly violence, democracy in these cases is defined in these fairly minimalist terms:
- A transitional election that imbues a basic sense of legitimacy to the post-war ruling authority;
- The emergence or re-emergence of political parties as primary organizations in the political sphere, and the decline of military or paramilitary influences;
- A new structure to promote basic human rights;
- The re-emergence of elections and some degree of political autonomy for municipal governments, local councils, and rural government structures;
- Oversight and monitoring of elections, political parties, and human rights by external observers (in many cases in the 1990s, a United Nations Peacekeeping operation).
- The "revival" of civil society, which is normally overwhelmed during times of war; and
- Often, a process of constitution-making.
These characteristics of post-war democracy are a function of newly created institutions, structures for representation -- particularly important are ethnic, religious, or racial factions and parties -- and patterns of political participation.
Democracy is a system of conflict management because it allows for the resolution of social conflicts through the rough-and-tumble competition in electoral and legislative arenas, replacing open confrontation on the battlefield for a seemingly unending process of bargaining and negotiation within the rules of the democratic game. As scholar Donald Rothchild perceptively argues in a seminal work on Kenya's independence negotiations, democratic institutions offer ongoing opportunities and incentives for the continuation of bargaining and negotiation among parties in conflict.[2]
That is, some types of democratic institutions and practices may provide tangible reinforcement of moderation in politics, reinforcing the management of conflict among contending groups. Other scholars such as Ben Reilly and Andrew Reynolds have offered in-depth, penetrating analyses of how different election systems, for example, can provide complex systems of incentives to encourage moderation, ethnic, racial, and religious integration, and meaningful public participation in high-conflict, post-war societies.[3]
Inherent Problems
Despite its promises for nudging parties to compromise, there are deeply entrenched reasons why democracy is inherently difficult in deeply divided societies, especially those seeking to escape intractable conflicts and violent encounters
- Parties in intractable conflict lack the inherent trust needed for democracy to prosper. For parties who were only recently at war, embracing democracy as a post-war system of conflict management is inherently risky because there is usually a deep-seated lack of trust, a pervasive fear of uncertainty. Why should parties in conflict accept the likely uncertainties of elections in a post-war democracy -- where there will be winners and losers at the polls? Why lose at the ballot box what was not lost on the battlefield?
- Majority rule can mean majority tyranny. Conflicts that are fought along identity lines in which there is a clear majority and minority (like Sri Lanka, Kosovo, or Northern Ireland) seem especially ill-suited to "normal" majority democracy because parties in conflict expect that political majorities will not respect the rights and interests of minorities. This is especially true when there is an expectation in society that voting will occur along ethnic lines, such that referenda, political parties, and election outcomes will be the outcome of polls that are essentially an "ethnic census."
- The persistence of deep divisions. With so many conflicts today fuelled by ethnic or religious ideologies, the core issue over which the war is fought -- exclusively defined ethnic identity is a significant barrier to striking a democratic compromise. When absolute claims for self-determination and independence clash with inflexible positions on territorial integrity, as in Russia/Chechnya, there is little room for compromise on basic principles of democracy as an alternative to war. Democracy requires a basic consensus on a future of living together, which may be absent in many intractable conflicts today.
The perils of introducing democracy after civil war are many and serious. Trust is weak, the issues are emotionally strong, the parties are faction-ridden and incoherent, and much is required of outside parties to guarantee a settlement. Can democracy work in deeply divided societies? The evidence is mixed. There are relative successes like South Africa to inspire our thinking about democratization after civil war. The country has managed to sustain procedural democracy while making slow, and seemingly steady, progress toward democratic consolidation. On the other hand, the problems experienced by Cambodia (which suffered setbacks to democracy after a period of failed power sharing), or Bosnia (which has struggled with overcoming ethnic tensions) temper optimism about democracy as an effective post-war conflict management system.
Scholars and practitioners alike agree that at least one element that determines the relative success of sustainable democracy in deeply divided societies is well-chosen institutions and public policy practices that promote ongoing inter-group bargaining and negotiation. Among the types of democracy that must be considered are majority-rule approaches, which feature winner-take-all competitions for political power, and forms of power sharing democracy. (For a discussion of the merits and demerits of these types and forms of democracy -- and the particular elements of them such as election systems, normative frameworks, and public policy for inter-group conciliation, see the knowledge block in this project on Sharing Power for Conflict Management.) Likewise, well-chosen public policies such as those that promote non-discrimination, equal access of all groups to state resources, and sensitive rules on language use can promote trust and reduce fears that democratic competition for power will produce intolerant majority governments.[4]
Prescriptions for Intractable Conflicts
If the perils to democratization after conflict could not be overcome, there would not have been the rather extensive number of relatively successful negotiated settlements in recent years.[5] What lessons offer promise of improving the ability to create democratic institutions to manage deep-seated, post-war social differences?
- Clearly define the goal of democracy early on in negotiations, create a plan, and define the path. To start democratization, an agreement must be reached early in peace negotiations. Such an agreement provides a clear normative framework that the outcome of any settlement is a democratic process. For example, in Northern Ireland, the ultimate outcome of the shaky peace process -- an elected assembly in Northern Ireland (along with North-South [Northern Ireland and Ireland] and East-West [Ireland and Britain] institutions -- has remained the same since the early stages of pre-negotiation (the Hume/Adams and Sinn Fein-Britain talks) in 1993. This early point of agreement has kept the process going despite many hurdles since that time.
- Democracy in post-war divided societies requires a carefully crafted transitional plan that generates its own momentum. The early turn to elections without a long process of confidence building can be disastrous. The classic case is Angola's election of 1992, which was to quickly end a civil war there and implement a peace agreement; the election results were highly contested and the rebel movement UNITA returned to the battlefield rather than accept defeat at the ballot box. After the failed election, another 150,000 died in Angola's war before the conflict was finally brought to an end in 2001. When elections are the culmination of an extensive period of bargaining and trust-building, they are more likely to succeed.
- Settlement terms should evaluate closely the design and effects of the choices parties make in negotiations on creating new political institutions. If carefully crafted democratic systems can create systems of incentives for encouraging non-violent approaches to conflict management -- for example, through the electoral system -- then the problems of trust, deep divisions, and fears of majority tyranny can be possibly ameliorated over time. Through "constitutional engineering," it may be possible to design a system of democracy that promotes moderation and compromise through the incentives generated by the underlying rules of the game; that is, to get elected, candidates for office may be encouraged to proffer the kind of moderate electoral appeals like those of South Africa 's ANC in 1994.[6] Most analysts agree that winner-take-all systems are inimical to conflict management in divided societies, although there is considerable debate among specialists on what alternative forms of democracy are inherently best.[7]
- An integrated civil society that cross-cuts ethnic and other divisions provide an underlying basis for moderate politics and for democracy to be consolidated over the long run. Recent research shows that civil society groups that overlap lines of deep social conflict reduce the likelihood of violence and encourage trust in the society. This social "glue" also buttresses moderation among political parties and provides unofficial forums for interaction outside the formal structures of democracy.[8]
- Local-level democracy offers multi-tiered processes to resolve complex conflicts. One often overlooked aspect of democracy in deeply divided societies is the importance of municipal, local level democracy, particularly in ethnically diverse and complex cities.[9] A multi-tiered approach is called for in which national-level bargaining in democratic institutions bolsters the work of community-level conciliators, and local-level confidence reinforces the pressures for peace at the top.[10]
- Public participation is essential for a durable process of implementing democracy. For long-term peace, open participatory peacemaking may arguably build stronger support for the settlement. In South Africa, many initial agreements in 1991 and 1992 were made in secret among top political leaders such as Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk, but later in the process, 1996, the final constitution was adopted only after unprecedented public participation in the drafting process. The conclusion is that secret agreements make sense early, but in the long run if the search for peace doesn't broaden the agreement may not be sustainable over time. A useful analytical lens for analyzing tasks of post-war democratization is "conflict transformation," in which coherent efforts are put into place to build democracy and conflict resolution from the bottom up, over time.[11]
For many years, it was widely presumed that democracy is ill-suited to post-war divided societies, that the problems inherent in competitive, free-wheeling politics in the pursuit of maximizing votes to gain power was too much for societies emerging from intractable conflicts to bear. Today, this view has been turned on its head. Deeply divided societies can only make a sustainable exit from intractable conflict if they embrace the imperfect alternative to war of competition for power through voting, political parties, parliaments, and public participation. Scholar Larry Diamond summarizes the view of scholars and practitioners today in arguing that "sustained interethnic moderation and peace follow from
- the frank recognition of plural identities,
- legal protection for group and individual rights,
- devolution of power to various localities and regions, and
- political institutions that encourage bargaining and accommodation at the center.
Such institutional provisions and protections are not only more significantly likely under democracy, they are only possible with some considerable degree of democracy."[12]
The challenge for practitioners in intractable conflicts is to carefully analyze how the process of peacemaking can simultaneously be one of democratization. Critical issues are the timing of inaugural elections and the ways in which to build trust and confidence in electoral outcomes, the creation and design of appropriate political party systems that promote compromise among contending groups, the building of a civil society that cross-cuts lines of conflict, close attention to the local dimensions of conflicted urban settings, and developing innovative methods for ensuring broad popular participation in decision making. Over time, the structured, rule-bound conflict that is the principal feature of democracy will ideally supplant the unstructured, often violent interactions that are the characteristics of intractable struggles in so many of today's deeply divided societies.
[1] There is an ongoing debate among observers of transition to democracy about when it can be said that the transition to democracy has reached a point of no return, and thus the change to a new political system is "consolidated." See Thomas Carothers, "The End of the Transition Paradigm," Journal of Democracy January 2002, pp. 5-20).
[2] Donald Rothchild, Racial Bargaining in Independent Kenya: A Study of Minorities and Decolonization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973).
[3] Ben Reilly and Andrew Reynolds, Electoral Systems and Conflict in Divided Societies, Papers on International Conflict Resolution (Washington: National Academy Press, 1999). See also The International IDEA Handbook on Electoral System Design (Stockholm: International IDEA, 1997).
[4] Ralph Premdas, "Public Policy and Ethnic Conflict," UNESCO MOST Discussion Papers Series, No. 12 (Geneva: UNESCO, n.d.)
[5] Successful post-war democratization can be defined as a transition that has ended violent confrontation and supplanted it with rule-bound competition. For a consideration of success in peace settlements, see Fen Hampson, Nuturing Peace: Why Peace Settlements Succeed for Fail, (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996): pp. 8-11.
[6] Donald Horowitz, "Democracy in Divided Societies," Journal of Democracy 4.4 (1993): pp. 18-38.
[7] For an overview of the options, see Peter Harris and Ben Reilly, Democracy and Deep Rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators (Stockholm: International IDEA 1998).
[8] Ashutosh Varshley, "Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society," World Politics 53 (2001): 362-98.
[9] For an overview of the importance of local-level democracy in conflict management, see Timothy Sisk et al, Democracy at the Local Level: The International IDEA Handbook on Participation, Representation, Conflict Management, and Governance, (Stockholm: International IDEA, 2001).
[10] See David Bloomfield, Peacemaking Strategies in Northern Ireland: Building Complementarity in Conflict Management Theory (New York: St. Martin's, 1997).
[11] See John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1997.
[12] Larry Diamond, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, 1995). Note: bullets added here, not present in the original.
Use the following to cite this article:
Sisk, Timothy D.. "Democracy and Conflict Management." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: August 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/democ_con_manag/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance .
Available at: http://www.idea.int/.
This is the home page of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), an intergovernmental organization with member states across all continents that seeks to support sustainable democracy in both new and long-established democracies. IDEA draws on comparative experience, analyses democracy trends and assistance, and develops policy options, tools and guidelines relating to: public participation; electoral systems; political parties; and post-conflict democracy building. The website provides access to descriptions of IDEA's various focus areas as well as information on major world regions that IDEA focuses on. IDEA also has an extensive catalogue of publications that interested parties may order through the site.
Pathways to Peace. 2004.
Available at: http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=123.
An interview with Benjamin Barber, Mari Fitzduff, Sagato Ogata, and William Ury. Travel with us along the pathway to peace where disagreements are met with democracy and deep listening rather than bombs and bullets. Discover on the journey what historians have long noted: that there's a real relationship between peace and democracy. Our guides on this path will be voices from the U.S., Japan and Northern Ireland.
Santiso, Carlos. Promoting Democratic Governance and Preventing the Recurrence of Conflict: The Role of the United Nations Development Programme in Post Conflict Peace-Building. University of Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.
Available at: http://www.eldis.org/fulltext/promoting.pdf.
Abstract: This article assesses the significance, promises and dilemmas of the governance agenda for [the United Nations Development Programme] and analyses the scope, promptings, and institutionalisation of democracy and governance programmes within UNDP, using Central America as a case study. It argues that the future of UNDP democracy assistance will largely depend on how successful it is at resolving the inherent tensions between democracy promotion and national sovereignty, while retaining its multilateral approach to peace and democracy.
Harris, Peter and Benjamin Reilly. The Importance of Democratic Institutions and Democracy and Conflict Management.
Available at: Click here for more info.
These sections of chapter one of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance's online book "Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict", specifically discuss why democratic institutions are best suited for handling extremely divisive issues and post-conflict scenarios.
Offline (Print) Sources
Baker, Pauline. "Conflict Resolution versus Democratic Governance: Divergent Paths to Peace?." In Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Conflict. Edited by Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, September 2001.
This article focuses on the challenges presented by intra-state, particularly ethnic, warfare. The author argues that the key dilemma for the international community in such cases is not so much whether or not to get involved, but rather how to engage in these conflicts. Thus, this chapter examines ways in which the two imperatives of peace--conflict resolution and democracy and human rights--can be reconciled.
Sorensen, Georg. Democracy and Democratization: Processes and Prospects in a Changing World, 2nd Edition. Boulder: Westview Press, January 1998.
"This book evaluates the current prospects for democracy in the world, clarifying the concept of democracy, and questioning whether democratic advancement will continue."
Reychler, Luc. Democratic Peace-Building and Conflict Prevention: The Devil is in the Transition. Coronet Books, November 1999.
This work focuses on the international shift toward democratization in the late twentieth century. It addresses questions about the definition of democracy; the spread of it; the assessment of progress and the factors influencing the successes or failures of the transition process. The author rejects theories that posit that democracy is not inherently universal. He counters this notion by arguing that empirical evidence has shown that democracy is the best instrument for guaranteeing freedom, respect for human rights, welfare and security. The author believes that as more people are convinced of democracy's merits, demand for the political system will increase. On the other hand, Reychler warns that there is potential for great problems in the transition to democracy and that many efforts will fail.
Muravchik, Joshua. "Promoting Peace Through Democracy." In Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict. Edited by Hampson, Fen Osler, Chester A. Crocker and Pamela Aall, eds. Washington, D.C.: USIP Press, 1996.
With this essay, the author argues that democracy is the world's greatest hope for world peace. He aims to demonstrate the importance of democracy to peace between nations and to resolving intra-state conflicts. He also reviews the spread of democracy in recent history and suggests action that may encourage its spread in the future, as well as how to overcome existing obstacles to democratization.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict Case Study: Bougainville.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This is a case study of the Bougainville conflict in Papua New Guinea, featured in Democracy and Deep-rooted Conflict edited by Peter Harris and Ben Reilly. The piece offers background on the parties to conflict, a brief conflict analysis, and a discussion of the various angles of the conflict management process, including who the interested parties are and what steps are being taken toward making peace in this place.
Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict Case Study: Fiji.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This is a short case study of Fiji featured in Democracy and Deep-rooted Conflict edited by Peter Harris and Ben Reilly. The primary conflict there is between the indigenous inhabitants of the island and the Indian Fijian population.
Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict Case Study: Guatemala.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This is a case study of Guatemala featured in Democracy and Deep-rooted Conflict edited by Peter Harris and Ben Reilly. It outlines the conflict, the negotiation process, the settlements, the implementation of the peace agreement, and prospects for the future.
Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict Case Study: Northern Ireland.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This is a case study of Northern Ireland featured in Democracy and Deep-rooted Conflict edited by Peter Harris and Ben Reilly. It provides historical background on the conflict, examining the plantation, the partition of Northern Ireland in the early 20th century and resulting decades of conflict and violence known as the Troubles. The piece goes on to describe various peace initiatives that have been attempteds as well as the negotiated peace agreement that was reached in late 1990s.
Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict Case Study: Sri Lanka.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This is a case study of Sri Lanka featured in Democracy and Deep-rooted Conflict edited by Peter Harris and Ben Reilly. The study examines the Tamil-Sinhalese conflict, which involved some of the most combustible factors in ethnic relations: language, religion, long historical memories of tensions and conflict, and a prolonged separatist agitation. The analysis offers a discussion of efforts at conflict management including employment, education, land distribution, the devolution of power and the external influences of India.
Democracy at the Local Level - The International IDEA Handbook on Participation, Representation, Conflict Management, and Governance.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This 256-page "handbook offers practical tools for strengthening local democracy. It provides citizens and policy-makers with ideas and options to enhance the meaning and quality of local democracy and provides examples of how these ideas and options have been implemented around the world." - Sisk
van Beurden, Jos. "Djibouti: External Conflict Internalized." , 2000
Available at: Click here for more info.
This is an article about the conflicts Djibouti has encountered since its independence. It discusses the influence of the nation's neighbors on its internal dynamics, and covers Djibouti's attempts to institute democracy.
Mekenkamp, Monique. "Guinea-Bissau: Democracy Restored by a Military Coup?." , 1999
Available at: Click here for more info.
This article describes the post-colonial power struggle in Guinea-Bissau and debates whether or not the nation's democracy was restored by a military coup.
Offline (Print) Sources
Harris, Peter and Ben Reilly. Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators. Stockholm: International IDEA, 1998.
This handbook explains how to negotiate peace in countries that are transitioning from a period of protracted conflict, to stable peace. It provides information on how to rebuild countries devastated by conflict, and uses case studies (Bosnia, Fiji, Northern Ireland, Guatemala, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea and South Africa) as a means to explain how different negotiation tools and conflict resolution processes can be used to foster a democratic society.
Reilly, Benjamin. Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, October 2001.
This book argues that political parties that have incentives to seek votes from a diversity of ethnic groups, can under certain conditions promote the process of democratization in transitional states.
Ginsberg, Benjamin and Martin Shefter. Politics by Other Means: The Declining Importance of Elections in America. Basic Books, 1990.
The authors argue that American politics is currently undergoing a fundamental transformation: the importance of elections in contemporary American politics is decreasing, while the importance of institutional conflict is increasing. Click here for more info.
Reynolds, Andrew, ed. The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, July 2002.
The chapters of this book offer analysis of various examples of constituional design, pointing out successes and failures from around the world. The effect of presidential and parliamentary systems, issues of federalism and autonomy, and the impact of electoral systems are all considered. The volume finishes with case studies covering Fiji, Ireland, Eritrea, Indonesia, Nigeria, and India.
Marks, Susan Collin. Watching the Wind: Conflict Resolution During South Africa's Transition to Democracy. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, June 1, 2000.
This book describes the community-level peacemaking actions in South Africa during their struggle through the transition from apartheid to democracy.
Return to Top
Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources
An Empire of Reason. Directed and/or Produced by: Meyer, Muffie and Ellen Hovde. First Run/Icarus Films. 1988.
This film uses a modern backdrop to examine the political conflict that raged throughout the thirteen colonies, just after they gained independence from England. Although fictitious in nature, this film uses the political debate between Federalists and anti-Federalists as a means of examining the concept of democracy, and as a means of highlighting the democratization process that took place during this time period. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
|
