Perspective (Spotlight Weekly)

Conflict Resolution in the Context of Nepal

By Dr. Niranjan Prasad Upadhyay

Differences of ideologies, interests, desire to control and lust for power, have been some of the triggers for conflicts. Conflicts have had devastating results and have destroyed countries. In fact, internal conflicts in the country expose problems in relation to maintaining safety and security in the country. Peace and over all development of the country is not an individual’s job. In achieving this goal, there should be joint efforts by the people of Nepal. Psychologically, conflict prevents stagnation; it stimulates interest and curiosity. In an atmosphere of open confrontation people tend to put forward more imaginative solutions to problems. A climate of challenge compels individuals to think through their own ideas before airing them out. Conflict can help individuals to test their capacities to learn and develop.

Chiefly, due to the internal conflict, economic as well as social condition of the country is poorly affected. Nepalese researchers have stated that disruptive conflicts have cost the nation millions of rupees. By and large, negative conflict affects the nation destructively. Furthermore, conflict creates stress among general people. Intense conflicts generate feelings of anxiety, guilt, frustration and hostility. Winners try to injure feelings of the defeated. Losers feel defeated and demeaned. The distance between people increases. A climate of mistrust and suspicion develops. Discussions and negotiations replace cohesion. Losers indulge in non-cooperation and pay scant attention to the needs and interests of other group members. Generally, on the other hand, positive conflict leads to stimulation, adaptation and innovation. Actually, positive conflict serves as a safety valve and allows people to release frustrations. Essentially, there are five different modes of conflict resolution. They are competing, collaborating, accommodating, avoiding and compromising. It is claimed that all cases of conflict highlight the importance of negotiating skills.

Researchers claim that in negotiation, the parties or their representatives try to work out a solution that is acceptable to both parties without the help of a third party. A variety of tactics are frequently used in negotiations, such as persuasion, threats and other forms of coercion, bluffing, reward, exchange, and concessions. In practice, negotiators must possess basic attributes i.e. understanding of the issue, quick reorganization of key issues, expectation of a win-win outcome, willingness to compromise, to solve problems, stamina, flexibility to tolerate conflict and stress, ability to cope with personal attack or abuse, good listening skills, sensitivity to the needs of others and tolerance. Studies have shown that in negotiations, Asians seem to have a preference for a less confrontational style, and are eager to preserve the existing social ties with the other disputant, the other negotiation party.

Psychologists urge that when two or more people gather at table conflict emerges. Fundamentally, self-centered nature of man may cause conflict and break up the human relations. Certainly, differences, disagreement and competition create conflict. Studies have postulated that ingeniously managed conflict can help people out of their mental ruts and give them new points of view. In the context of conflict issue, studies have shown that conflict in the country should be managed on the basis of negotiation and dialogue. Studies have developed a number of methods for dealing with conflict; they are avoidance, constraint and the use of improved coping methods, and confrontation. Interpersonal peacemaking involves the adoption of the well-managed confrontation.

In truth, a sound leader always carries out successful communication as well as manages conflict within the country. A leader is one who can always obtain confidence of his or her followers or the general public, take quick and courageous decisions on the strength of his or her own understanding and objectivity, relate himself or herself to the changing surroundings and context. To manage the conflict, the Nepalese political leaders must be sincere, obedient, punctual, integrated personalities and should possess leading role.

Management studies have shown some key strategies pertaining to deal with conflict in Nepal. They are openness to new ideas, better communication, setting up information groups, trust, respect for other’s opinion, negotiation, transparency, proper resource allocation and clear policies. In addition, they claim that difference of personality, frustration and generation gap may also produce conflict. At the same time, feedback, motivation, fair competition and open discussion may create a healthy environment in negotiation. Studies insist that assertive skills, awareness on interactive behaviors, cooperativeness, tolerance and acceptance of the ideas from different corners also resolve the conflict.

In Nepal, every leader thinks himself/herself as a democrat. But they rarely follow the democratic norms and values in their practical life. These days, Nepal needs a bold political leader who can deal with conflict as well as shoulders risk and take a venture to protect the common people’s interest. Fundamentally, no political leadership could guarantee national political commitment and exhibit countrywide political determination. A leader can save or kill millions of lives, manage conflict or destroy massive physical structures and can do many wonderful things within a minute by a single decision. Indeed, the destiny of a community, nation and even of this universe is largely determined by the decision of leaders who lead the people working in different fields and in different levels.

Conflict is not always negative. Conflict, like fire, can be useful force when appropriately handled. Management researcher, Thomson (1976) stresses that competitive, sharing, avoidant, collaborative and accommodating are the best styles in managing conflict. The choice and use of conflict handling styles is likely dependent upon both the nature of the individual and the situational factors. Recently, Dr. Indra Jit Rai a military scientist has stated that the modalities of the dialogue process, lack of adequate homework by the government and lack of confidence between the negotiating parties were responsible for the break down of the government –Maoist peace talks. Also former Defense Secretary Padma Kumar Acharya highlights his views at an interaction program in the context of government-Maoist peace talks. In that program Acharya has admitted that it was too late on the part of the government to introduce programs to address the problems raised by the Maoists. He has referred that “the problem started in 1996 but we started studying the situation only in March 2000”. Why we were so late? This response must come from the government side. Side by side, the Government must manage this crisis situation at any cost.

In conclusion, a creative person is able to shape the conflict environment according to the internal system of motivation, which involves openness, internal resources, internal control and courage. Psychologically, sound mental health always builds creativity, fosters intelligence and resists emotional stability. Side by side, it may be helpful in managing conflict. Creativity taps a person’s ability to adjust within social environment. People with positive mental health tend to be characterized as calm, enthusiastic and visionary.

(Dr. Upadhyay is a joint secretary at the Public Service Commission)