Resolution in Divided Societies There

Resolution in Divided Societies

There are numerous grand theories for the resolving of deeply embedded and divisive conflicts in specific nations and/or societies, and various structures of government related to certain of these large-scale theories as well. When the conflicting elements in a society cannot be successfully integrated or assimilated and when partitioning or separating these elements is deemed impractical or inappropriate for a variety of reasons, conciliatory or shared-influence governmental systems have proven effective in many nations, but can also be problematic and complex in their implementation. In his discussion of the situation in Northern Ireland, Sean Byrne identifies the importance yet the failure of both consociational and civil society approaches to conflict resolution in the highly divided society that exist in this nation (such as it is). An exploration of these concepts and of this particular case yields insight into the functioning of intranational conflict resolution attempts and the complexities and barriers to their successful implementation.

The basic element of a consociational government or perspective is that the elites of each element in a divided society are able to make compromises and mutual decisions in a manner that stabilizes the society without necessarily resolving the deeper divides that exist -- due to real injury or simply due to perception -- between these elements. Byrne refers to "consensus by accommodation" and points out that consociational governments are at once decentralized and yet have rigid constitutions, in this manner carefully and concretely defining the relationship between the various factions in the society while at the same time allowing for the necessary/desired diversity in culture, values, and even certain aspects of government in some cases. In Northern Ireland's case, early attempts at installing a consociational government were ineffective because they were forced by the British in an authoritarian manner that is not at all supportive of the consociational perspective or process, and at a time when tensions between the elite in the two primary factions in the society were especially high. In order for this consociational structure to work, Byrne argues, there needed to be both a greater mutual willingness to engage in conciliatory and accommodating arrangements and a greater degree of shared purpose on a more direct level.

The civil society approach to peacebuilding and conflict resolution is not at all exclusive of the perspective and efforts of the consociational approach. As Byrne defines it, the civil society conflict resolution approach, "involves the development of an interactive interdependent web of activities and relationships among elites and the grass roots," essentially meaning that more practical and meaningful connections between the various factions in a divided society are used to actually bridge the divide through commonalities. This is inherently different than the consociational approach, which attempts to broker deals between factions without truly bridging the divide, but this does not mean that the two approaches cannot be used in tandem and in fact Byrne makes an excellent case that just such a dual approach is necessary to achieve true and lasting conflict resolution. Byrne identifies several barriers to the civil society approach in Northern Ireland, primarily noting that the British focus on faction elites as the means to achieving peace in the nation has led to a lack of grassroots attention and broader efforts at reducing aggression and tension in the populous.