POLICY THEORY OF CONFLICT

POLICY THEORY OF CONFLCT BY ADENYI THEOPHILUS OKECHUKWU NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA theophilusokey@gmail.com 08162797481 INTRODUCTION A theory of conflict is the explanation of related ideas and concept that tend to exacerbate conflict. I developed this theory to show or make clear how policy both public and private can cause, exacerbate or trigger conflict. Researchers and Irenologists and other experts have formulated different theories of conflict which gave explanations on different factors that precipitates and triggers conflict but has ignored to explore and investigate role of policy and in this regards; bad, obnoxious and unpopular policies in causing or escalating conflict. I developed this theory after exploring numerous literatures that deals with conflicts, its causes, resolution, management and transformation as well as some case study of different policies that exacerbated conflict all over the world THE ASSUMPTION POLICY THEORY OF CONFLICT The main tenet of this theory is that bad policies whether public policy or policy initiated by private individual or corporate organization triggers conflict which in turn lead to loss of lives and properties both at inter-personal, national and international levels. 1 Policy is a statement or programme of action of government, institutions, individuals towards the realization and attainment of a goal or objective. Furthermore, it is an authoritative course of action to achieve a particular goal. Policies could be constitutional, cultural, distributive, redistributive, re-organization, regulatory and symbolic in typology. In the process of formulation of a policy, the policy makers often and in most case tempted to formulate it to achieve a particular objective and in so doing; when it favours a particular group in the society and dis-favour others especially public policy that emanates from government. The group that the policy favours may capitalize on it to suppress and intimidate the dis-favoured groups and thus creating conflict. In most cases the policy formulators formulate the policy to favour a particular person or groups simple because they or he/she is at the corridor of power or close to government without evaluating the consequences just to achieve particular objectives. Such policy in most cases are influenced by the group or individual or individuals it favoured to enable them achieve their parochial interest and thus create conflict which if not resolved or prevented on time may lead to violent and destructive nature. Whenever such policy is formulated, the group, individual or individuals that the policy discriminates against or dis-favours will show disenchantment and resistance against the implementation of the policy and at the same time may resort to demonstration and violence to express their rejection or grievances and which may degenerate into an intractable dimension. Government being the formulators of the policy (public policy) will in turn resort to the use of conflict suppression mechanism by mobilizing 2 all its apparatus such as the police, army and bureaucrats to enforce compliance with the policy against the agitating groups of individual(s) This theory is based on the assumption that bad, obnoxious unpopular and discriminatory policies can lead to a violent conflict and which will lead to loss of lives and properties as the group or individuals that the policy is targeted against may employ every means to oppose it and in this way create conflict. Policy when formulated requires an extensive evaluation and appraisal so as to remove all the would be grey hairs for the benefit of all and sundry but when the reverse is the case, the consequences will disastrous. This theory seek to further explain why some programme of action of government instead of bring peace and cordiality, and atmosphere of cohesion and tranquility may lead to bitterness, animosity, resentment malice and acrimony and thereby bring about conflict which often is destructive and intractable due to the bias, preconceived notion, favoritism, partiality of the policy formulators against a particular group or individuals especially in the allocation of scarce resource, power sharing, resolution approach to conflict among others . It is my opinion that bad policy can lead to both physical and structural violence as well as negative peace. In the International arena bad policies affects peace and creates tensions or armed confrontations between states on one hand and between states and non-state actors. For example, it was the bad policy of the West led by the United States against the Eastern European blocs led by the Soviet Union and vice versa that led to the negative perception that precipitated the cold war from1945 to 1989 which led to the rivalry 3 between capitalist states against socialist states and which divided the world into two ideological bloc. Furthermore it was the Policy of the United States of America under exPresident George Bush Jnr against the government of Saddam Hussein of Iraq and against extremists and fundamentalists in the Middle East in implementing the Bush Doctrine that precipitated the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the U S which gave birth to the current sectarian violence and terrorism in the region. In the same development, it is the unfriendly and bad policies of the United States even after the cold war against the regimes and groups that are pro- Russians that fuelled the current conflict in Syria and Ukraine. The U S policy of Don’t Tell Don’t Ask under George Bush led to the crackdown against Islamic fundamentalists and extremists and their imprisonment or detention without trial at the famous Guantanamo Bay and which the entire Muslim world detest and abhors and her policies against the State of Palestine in favour of Israel on the statehood of the former as well as the occupied West Bank which the U S and its allies have continued to use their veto power at the United Nation to block the recognition of Palestine as a Sovereign State. This is responsible for all the criminalities, agitations, hatred among others against the U S interest and their allies in the region and among Muslim world. . In Nigeria, it was the bad policies of former President Olusegun Obasanjo in handling agitating groups that exacerbated militancy in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria as well as the destruction of Odi and Zaki Biam communities. In a similar development, the inter/intra communal war/conflict between Oruku and Umuode communities of Enugu State has continued to threaten the peace of the state due to the unpopular, biased, discriminatory and divisive policies of past governments in the state 4 especially the Navy Captain Benson Agbaje regime of 1999 and Barrister Sullivan Chime 2007-2015 who issued a gazzeted Government White Paper against Oruku people which seek to expel, drive, eject and uproot them from their ancestral home at Aguefi land which is the entire right hand side of Oruku community so as to establish Umuode people there as an autonomous community inspite of the fact the Orukus who are the aborigines in the area constituted over seventy nine percent (79%) of the entire habitation in Aguefi land. The Governor Chime policy which was formulated to favour one of his benefactors in the state, and politician from Umuode stock Prof. Barth Nnaji and a serving Judge of Enugu High Court to expel Oruku from their home for the later settlers ‘the Umuode people to establish their autonomous community there has been the escalator of the conflict since the advent of the regime. The policy has in turn attracted series of litigations against Governor Chime government by Oruku people in courts as well as the violent clashes that often erupts in the area as the the governor’s policy does not contain any integrative approach neither does it follow an existing precedents that had been workable during the regime of its predecessors’ in office Another example is the policy of Governor Elechi of Ebonyi State of Nigeria against the Ezza population of Ezillo in Ishielu LGA of Ebonyi State that contributed to the huge loss of lives and properties including women and children Similarly, the Aguleri/Umureli conflict was triggered, exacerbated by the colonial flawed policies on land especially as it affected Otuocha Land. The above examples are instances where bad policy precipitate, triggered and exacerbated conflict in Nigeria and some parts of the world. Governments all over the world as part of social contract are the 5 chief policy makers and are expected to formulate such for public interest and not to favour any person or persons or groups or to achieve any parochial interest. Conflict induced or triggered by bad, unpopular and obnoxious policies are often not easily noticed because government who are looked upon by the society to intervene and mediate in conflict, build peace and maintain social equilibrium, often use such power bestowed on them to cause conflict instead of resolving it through such policies. When this happens, agents of the same government will employ instruments of propaganda to brainwash the people into believing that such policy is public interest. In a place where conflict erupts, be it because of land dispute, resources, chieftaincy, values, ideologies etc, the role of government is to play a neutral, non-partisan and mediating role in order to resolve, transform or manage the conflict, but where the reverse becomes the case, government becomes the precipitator, escalator and trigger of the conflict using its policies and thereby creating policy induced conflict instead of being a peace maker. The above are the basic assumption of policy theory of conflict as so propounded by this author. ADENYI T. O NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA WWW.ACADEMIA.EDU/NOUN FEBREUARY 13TH 2015 6