There is no apparent cause of conflict and also, there exists no precondition that ensures sustainable tranquility. Various factors differ in their essence and either strengthen or counteract each other. The scrutiny of each factor and state of affairs thus, involves the assessment of the virtual significance of the varying pointers and their inter-relationship. Conflict is the condition of discord brought about by the authentic or professed antagonism of desires, interests and values. It entails varying forms as it can be external, involving two or more persons, or it can be internal, which consists of an individual. As a conception, conflict can be utilized to elucidate numerous characteristics of societal life such as conflicts of interest, wrangles between groups, individuals or unions and social quarrels.
Conflict theory proposes that society operates in a manner that each individual accomplice and groups existing within the society exert great effort to maximize their gains. Also referred to as critical theory, it targets the modern-day political life. It is known as “critical theory” in the field of philosophy while it is submitted as “conflict theory” when applied to social sciences. The primary technique enlisted by critical authors commences with the contemplation that social life is founded on the obligation of ethical and legal code on the less fortunate by the wealthy. Thus, it explores the inequalities of life as its commencing point. Karl Marx is the inventor of conflict theory. However, other philosophers embraced the theory and later on, advanced it. Conflict theory is initiated when an individual’s or group’s responsibilities in the society are tampered with.
Conflicts arise as a result of communal dependency of the rich on the proletariat and vice versa. The wealthy utilizes the cheap and affordable manpower offered by the poor while the poor depend on the rich for employment which would present money to them to be able to meet their fundamental requirements. Nonetheless, each individual in the society, regardless of their social status, intends to progress his or her social and economic state. Marx proposed that the initially outlined capitalist organization would be detrimental to the society as it would self destruct in case of aggressive insurgency. This might result from the enlightment of the poor on their rights and the discovery of the exploitation they face from the wealthy
The distinctiveness of the divergence parties, the matter quarreled over such as; - disproportionate relations, limited resources and competing standards, and the echelon at which the conflict is challenged may differ over time. The dynamism of conflicts is so vivid and enormous as they shoot up and de-escalate, and are composed of multifarious interchange of behaviours and attitudes that can attain a reality. The involvement of third party is inevitable in such a case and this enhances the conflict further. The conflict difference in values forms the basis of many conflicts .Contemporary conflict is differentiated from the traditional one by features such as: -complicatedness, continuousness, extensiveness and profoundness. The relativity and plurality of rates is the sole originator of conflicts.
Defining Features of Contemporary Conflict
The distinguishing factors that highlight contemporary conflict values differ from the traditional values. Extensiveness has defined the extend to which the society regulates an individual’s activities. Traditional society had no alternative in dominions other than decency while in contemporary society; there are numerous realms from which individuals can select so as to diversify conflict values. Furthermore, present-day society is a rationalized, open and plural society, enabling the population t be in charge of their own lives. Therefore, the values of contemporary conflict have escalated to surpass the ethical realm and ventured into the entire human life. (Eirksson 2003, p 32)
The other characteristic, profoundness, allows the involvement of depth of ideology when handling contemporary conflict of values, apart from the procedure of choosing and deciding. It is hard for individuals to determine with surerity, what is more valuable and what contains value. This value has led to the devastation of inspirations and the predicament of faith. Continuousness, on the other hand, has made the values of conflicts to be constant since it is hectic to get solutions. This has exposed people to the same values as it affects the entire realm of their lives.
The final characteristic is complicatedness. In this case, the conflict of values that ensued in conventional society still happens in the contemporary society. However, this is complicated by contradictions, divergences and variance of values because various systems of significance, which were separated from one another in ancient times, currently are in a constant attachment due to the advancement of the universal contact. Plurality and impediment of current life has presented varying choices of values to be pursued by individuals. As a result of this freedom, groups and individuals existing in the present-day universe often experience dilemma and embarrassment.
The security, conflict and development nexus is out to check and moderate the disparity existing between the incapacity to strategically act and the claims from the western policy. The western policy uses all its encompassing programs and ambitions to justify the virtual impossibility of transformations rather than having its policies intervene the non-western societies. The security-development nexus complexity argues that the forward aspiration connecting security agendas and western development during historical times like the Cold War seem to be misplaced in the modern times. This is because most of the policies focus on the needs and priorities concerning structural economic and social change in an effort to overcome conflicts at the expense of basic resources and needs. This is clear as international institutions and Western States are no longer interested in escaping from conflict and poverty. Even addressing major issues facing modern societies such as poverty by establishing economic developments that are broad-based is not a sure guarantee in trying to prevent conflict but still such an initiative has to be pursued to the end (Harbom 2005,p 24).
The inclusion of strategic development into conflict resolution comes out as being more than just a scaling back of hopes with regards to the achievements of international policy making in non-Western states. The conflation of development and security in effect gives priority on the basis of status quo support instead of fundamental change in poor societies and countries.
The shift security from development is regarded by most commentators as being a projection of the concerns of Western institutions and not a response to the demands of poor countries. Responding to the voices of the poor has remained the major theme in the conflict between development and security in many nations. The existing policies are experiencing a shift in reference to Western policy redefining and downplaying development and focusing on state capacity building, good governance, transparency and anticorruption.
This is a shifting metamorphosis from the once active making of policies, to the current non-western states, then followed by a shift to policy responsibility and lastly to non-Western states societies and governments. International institutes and Western governmentss are shying away from making policies distancing themselves away from the consequences associated with non-Western states and policy making failures. What appears to the rest of the world as making of policies is in most cases a symbolic initiative indicating awareness of issues like failed sates, world poverty, or global warming rather than assuming the responsibility of addressing them.
The existing security, conflict and development nexus can be considered to being less of a policy nexus rather than a past policy goals critique. It seeks to highlight the risks associated with development in the context of non-western states and in most situations seeks to shift the blame of such lowering expectations to the non-Western societies and States. The nexus that has been asserted between development and security works best only when it serves a negative relationship and serving as a positive guide (Harbom 2005, p 40).
This nexus posits that societal level complexities in policy making result it more policy making problems instead of achieving coordination in the micro-level policies. The main concerns are on well being and security of individuals as the social progress has seized being the agenda and has been replaced by status quo institutionalization and poverty management. This is evidence in the scaling down of the hopes regarding the discussions surrounding poverty reduction in the middle of the security-development nexus (Swain & Amer 2011, p 65).
By redefining both security and development with reference to marginal sectors outcomes in societies clearly indicates the reduced goals of international policy making. This is a reduction in foreign policy levels of policy rhetoric instead of practical consequences. The result is that commentators’ policies in most cases highlight the asymmetry existing between the expectations and the assigned resources to sectoral programming. This is closely associated with involved agencies lacking both capacity and resources thus can barely manage any identifiable dent on the grappling issues.
The redefinition and merging of the ambitious goals of security and development programs down to a less focus on administration and governance of noon-Western states at the same time immediate marginalized groups conditions means that the bigger issues of social and economic transformation have ended up being given second priority in the agenda. This the conflict, security and development nexus has given rise a new war that has institutionalized the trend that is emerging within the community concerned with international policy towards a clear separation between outcomes and policy making by doing away with conceptual framework from the existing policy programs (Swain& Amer 2011, p 34).
It is clear that the best way to deal with this ‘New War’ is by the establishment of international actors who will ensure security sector reforms, good governance, mutually supportive rules of law so as to affectively check on wide spreading development and security conflicts. The absence of power conflict has led to the removal of a meaning framework that had been highly politicized in the international sphere. Instead of coming up with their own strategies and set up policies that are forward looking, the international institutions and leading western states seem to have settled on a security discourse which emphasizes on making powerless policies in the era of globalization, terror acts, global warming threats and failing states. In such a frame work, the security-development nexus can be considered as being a nexus between the conflicting declaratory ambitions regarding security, peace and development in states such as Africa and the strong desire to evade responsibility of making policies on the ground.