Power §

• Power is an essential ingredient in understanding conflict relationships and behaviour along with identity.
• In general, power can be defined in terms of what one-party can either coerce or persuade the other to give up.
  • If state act on their power it causes violent conflict
• Power is characterized by an ability to hurt each other economically, physically, and psychologically when actions and counter- actions are mutually opposed in direct confrontation.
  • Cause damage to another as argument

Uses of Power §

• In a general context, power can be defined as “a capacity to realize goals… by making particular things happen”.
• Power can be exercised by using threat or actual coercion as well as control of reward and punishment.
  • military, capability, credibility can influence how an actor uses power
  • power or lack of power can be used as reward or punishment
• Power is aimed at influencing human behavior by manipulating motivations and perceptions and other psychological orientations via the adoption of diverse means.
• A power struggle emerges from incompatible positions ascribed to scarcity and resource control, both actual and perceived, as well as opposing values.
  • Discriminatory practice due to opposing values
• Most importantly, disparities in economic benefits and social recognition as well as a lack of sufficient decision making power generate the feelings of dissatisfaction and powerlessness.
  • Power gaps causes grouping of interest due to feeling of weakness
• Power is frequently imposed to maintain or reinforce non-reciprocal arrangements and interactions (which generate feelings of grievances).
  • Coercion: could cause more tension
• One of the most common strategies adopted by a powerful party in an asymmetric, undemocratic relationships use power to control, silence, or remove incompatible views, interests, and values through the unilateral imposition of one’s own decision.
• In multi-ethnic societies, relative power differences do not remove challenges to the idea of unqualified majority government.

Behavior of Weaker Party §

• Power relations have an impact on the conflict styles of each party (aggressive, assertive, competitive versus passive, accommodating, compliant).
• In power asymmetry, a weaker party has the choice of disengagement, negotiation, resistance, standing firm, or subordination.
• The adoption of avoidance or yielding may stem from he fear of defeat, reflecting the perception of a large power imbalance.
  • weaker would rather negotiate in peaceful means
• The weaker party is not likely to risk fighting, owing to little chance of winning. Low self-esteem also contributes to an orientation toward the sacrifice of one’s own interests.
  • willing to give more concessions than stronger parties as they have little chance of wining a conflict
  • more likely to be manipulated or controlled

Power as a Means of Influence §

• Influence strategies can be carried out by either an explicit or implicit threat of violence or promises of various kinds of rewards
  • diplomatic recognition, food assistance, energy supply, military aid, technical or financial support
• The structures of power relations are defined in terms of not one dimensional strength but a Variety of qualities related to the mobilization of material, financial, normative, and human resources.

Power Relations in Conflict Process & Outcome §

• The distribution of Dower between groups is an important element which affects the dynamics and outcome of a social conflict as well as the parties’ approaches to the conflict.
• In conflict situations, coercive elements are involved in controlling the other’s actions against their wishes, forcing them to abandon or modify their objectives (with a threat, either physical or psychological).
  • In a coercive struggle, a conflict outcome is often derived from the degree of balance between the ability to inflict injury on an enemy and the capability to endure the attacks.
• In unjust relationships, Dower balance is needed for conflict settlement via the equalization of capabilities by diverse means.
• External support (either moral, political, and even military) might be needed for conflict resolution initiatives

  Example

  for instance, Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, in 2006, under heavy pressure from Western powers).

  • External actors, including patrons, allies, intermediaries, and a relevant audience (the concerned public), can affect the conflict in such a way as to support an underdog.
  • With international community watching an actor might change its behavior

The Outcome of Power Struggles §

• The outcome of power struggles produces conditions for the creation of new norms and expectations.
  • motivation and minds change between coercion approach or peaceful approach
• Lacking a history of institutionalized democracy relying on stable expectations, elections are often used as a means to establish one group’s privilege over another.
• The intense post-election violence eventually subsided with the introduction of a settlement agreement which struck a new balance in sharing government decision-making power and positions.

Contingencies in the Exercise of Power §

• Power is likely to be employed for confrontational strategies under varying circumstances
  • low cost of fighting, the high likelihood of winning, and high commitment and salient values attached to the struggle
  • The high costs of fighting along with the low significance of the issues at stake can reversely affect the contest of power.
• The employment of power needs to be justified by a wider community’s norm

  Example

  international laws in support of peace enforcement or humanitarian intervention to stop massacres.

Effectiveness of Coercive Power §

• The effectiveness in the exercise of power lies in the comparative ability to employ force for domination or resistance.
• To exercise power over the other, one party should have an ability to make a difference in the other party’s present and future welfare conditions.
• The effectiveness of coercive power can be determined by such factors as the credibility of the threat of punishment.
• The attractiveness in the adoption of force (as a means of influence) is undermined by the possibility of being retaliated against, the enemy’s determination, and the moral vulnerability as well as financial burden and human sacrifice associated with the use of force.

Sources of Powers §

• The charismatic, personal charms or political skills of control and manipulation (exhibited by Stalin) can render individual leaders’ power unchallenged even by institutional norms and procedures. (populism)
• The position held by individuals can also permit the establishment of subordinate—dominant relationships.
• Power can be associated with status, competence, or resources that carry political influence in decision making.
• A pervasive quality of power runs through the relationship of authority, influence, manipulation, or force.

Diverse Forms of Power Relationships §

• In Understanding social dynamics, many different forms of power can be exhibited by bargaining or authoritative as well as coercive contexts of relationships.
  • In bargaining relationships, one’s Power depends on whether they have a capability to offer highly valued resources desired by their opponents in return for meeting one’s own needs.
  • The coercive exercise of power is wielded through credibility of threats and their possible effects on the target’s well-being.

Multiple Dimensions of Ethnic Power Relations §

• Political and economic power differentials are generally translated into racial and ethnic tension.
• Disparities in economic benefits and social recognition as well as a lack of sufficient decision-making power on important political matters reflect rank order in a power/hierarchical relationship.
  • Those who have power to make decisions tend to maximize their self-interest at the cost of another’s interests
  • In a hierarchical system, powerful groups tend to play Gown and even refuse to recognize the conflict’s existence.
• The empowerment of a weaker party is essential to transforming a highly imbalanced adversarial relationship where justice can be achieved by
  • promoting recognizing of normative and moral values

Quest for Power and Anarchy §

• The Realism school of international relations describes conflict as a result of a shift in power and the display of relative strength.
  • Power and conflict cannot be avoided in an anarchic system which generates endless competition for relative gains.
    • maximize own state’s interest (upgrade military might)
  • From a realist perspective, it is not poor Communication or cultural differences but competing interests that are the irreconcilable sources of conflict.
    • competing interest: resource scarcity and unsharable property is the source of conflict
  • States have a power-seeking tendency owing to competition for security especially in an anarchic system.
• In realpolitik perspectives, inter-state conflict will not be resolvable
  • (since competition for Dower often leads to coercion and violence).
• For Structural Realism, rational actions emerge from adjustment to the structure of international anarchy and the operation of a given system.
• the analysis of international conflict is intimately linked to assessing the realignment of military capabilities and the possible use of force as an instrument of influence as well as its psychological effects in adversaries’ strategies.
• In fact, “international conflict is a process driven by collective needs and fears, rather than entirely a product of rational calculation of objective national interests on the part of political decision makers”.
• If states have an ability to destroy each other with the ownership of nuclear weapons, the horror of mutual destruction can create a universal deterrence system.
• In realpolitik perspectives, there is very little room for conflict transformation given its neglect of noncoercive means for managing relations.

Example

The emergence of post-World War Il order in Western Europe (indicated by Franco-German relations) suggests that the guarantee of justice as well as the healing of past wounds can transform centuries of military rivalry.

Patterns of Power Alliance & Conflict Management §

• Because the spread of antagonism among multiple actors decreases pressure for conflict built on any single relationship, a multi-polar system has a less serious potential for major power confrontations than a bipolar one.
  • Cold War’s bipolar pulls all other states to pick a side in the conflict
  • Multipolar is better for avoiding military confrontation
• A pluralistic system of complex relationships avoids rigid cleavages and polarization due to the existence of diverse interests and demands crisscrossing with each other.
• An increased number of actorsin a multi-polar system does not allow entire preoccupation with any single opponent. In a tightly organized bipolar system, on the other hand, a regional conflict can escalate into global confrontation given the superpowers’ involvement around the globe.
• In multi-polarity, more mediators should be available to arbitrate (temper or restrain) conflict that might explode into armed clashes.
• In a nutshell, the degree of power concentration (Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar) influences risk-taking or risk-averse behavior, creating different calculations along with power alliance patterns.

Power Symmetry §

• Power symmetry exists in multiple patterns of relations among interacting units. In an anarchic system, it is best illustrated by a balance of power that prohibits the domination of a single powerful state or combination of powers.
• The successful management of conflict by balance of power inherently depends on a mutual threat of destruction.
• When threats used against an equal power adversary are expected to be reciprocated by retaliation, small margins in the military capabilities are not likely to produce confidence in risk-taking actions because of the prospects of facing severe mutual destruction.
  • more lenient and careful about how they use power

Dyadic Relationships §

Example

• Rivalries in power symmetry since World War II include the US-Soviet Union (1945-1991);
• Greece- Turkey (1964—-present);
• Syria- Israel (1948-present);
• India-Pakistan (1946-present);
• Eritrea-Ethiopia (1979-present).

• In these situations, mutually destructive capabilities have been taken seriously to restrict a full-scale military confrontation to a limited area.
• Conflict has occasionally been managed with a manifest expression of cautious intentions.

Ethnic Rivalry §

• Power struggles among ethnic groups are essentially unstable with the declining state capacity to manage ethnic rivalry.
  • because poor governance, distribution of resources, and ineffective policies
• Groups competing for power develop great mistrust and challenge each other’s political and social status.
  • could cause political uprising
• Ethnic balance of power or its absence has repercussions for competition in the re-allocation of territories, economic wealth, and production facilities.
• Institutional distribution of power among ethnic groups can also be negotiated instead of being determined by armed struggles.
  • to reach compromise on ethnic conflicts
• Ethnic rivalry with the mixture of multiple groups can end with de-facto partition.
  • ethnic formed government might not be recognized by international community or end up being a failed state
• Power struggles among ethnic groups are essentially unstable with the declining state capacity to manage ethnic rivalry.
• Groups competing for power develop great mistrust and challenge each other’s political and social status.
• Ethnic balance of power or its absence has repercussions for competition in the re-allocation of térritories, economic wealth, and production facilities.
• institutional distribution of power among ethnic groups can also be negotiated instead’of being determined by armed struggles.
• Ethnic rivalry with the mixture of multiple groups can end with de facto partition.

Balance of Power in Protracted Internal Conflicts §

• A status quo based on balance of power can produce predictable patterns of interaction.
• The leverage of minority groups can be measured by their population size, territorial compactness, and external military support.
• Internal wars were protracted due to a balance of military capabilities over a long period of time

  Example

  as is experienced by El Salvador, Colombia, Guatemala, ozambique, Angola, and Rwanda

• Power balance is likely to be changed eventually due to the growing strength of one protagonist over another via an increase in fighting capabilities sometimes associated with foreign military aid or an adversary’s loss of major patrons.
  • Shift in balance of power: could change their perception, expectation, and motivation
  • External support could come with alternative interests

Ethnic Hegemony §

• The degree of unequal distribution of power represents relationships between a hegemonic ethnic group and its primary challenger (in multi-ethnic societies).
• In order to gain autonomy or independence, the minority may fight against the government run by antagonistic groups.
• Minority challenges
  • may be suppressed militarily (as is seen by Karén in Burma) or
  • settle with limited or full autonomy (Aceh in Indonesia, Miskitos in Nicaragua, and Chittagong hill people in Bangladesh).
• Uighur uprising in 1980 and 2009, and Tibetan mass protests in 1959, 1988, and 2008 were all suppressed by the Chinese police and military.
• Hegemony over the state is established by not only the control of police and military apparatus but also a patronage of junior political partners for power sharing.

Ethnic Power Struggle & Anarchy §

• In Kenya, Nigeria, and other multi-ethnic societies, conflict can flare up and subside in the cycle of relative power balance reset by either elections or military coups.

• The decline of the hegemonic group can be attributed to the challenge to its rule’s legitimacy along with the rise of the challenger’s power.

  Example

  As each ethnic entity declared independence, the domino effect completely broke up the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (composed of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro) from 1992 and then came the further split of Serbia with the demand of independence by Kosovo.

• Protracted civil wars produce a collapse of centralized order, but the degree of anarchy varies, depending on the nature of governance.

  • semi-failed state
  • quasi-state
  • several degrees of state-failure

Power Transition §

• In a multi-ethnic society, power transitions underway are likely to create conditions for conflict. Rising and declining power groups develop different levels of anxiety and expectation.
• In the absence of any reliable mechanisms to negotiate power sharing, fighting is a more likely means to determine the power status for both the challenger and higher status group.
• A clearer sense of transition in power relations may encourage a declining power to be more willing to negotiate after their initial resistance against any compromise.
• After a civil war, new power relations are established to signal the emergence of a new equilibrium and stability.
• Negotiated settlement (based on mutual recognition of each other’s power and status) can provide a more stable transition than all-out war.

Rank Discrepancy: §

• Rank discrepancy refers to the disparity in power and status.
  • In social conflicts, rank discrepancy can create tensions and grievances.
  • Rank discrepancy contributes to power struggles for a more equitable distribution.

The Impact of Asymmetry on Behavior: §

• Power asymmetry influences behavior.
  • The more powerful exhibit dominance, control, and assertiveness.
• Power asymmetry creates fear and vulnerability in the weaker party.

Moral, Normative Asymmetry: §

• Moral and normative asymmetry contribute to conflicts.
• Conflicting parties have different moral or ethical frameworks.
• Moral and normative asymmetry hinder compromise.

Rebalancing Power Asymmetry: §

• Efforts to rebalance power dynamics aim for a more equitable distribution.
  • Strategies include negotiation, mediation, and power-sharing mechanisms.
• Rebalancing power requires addressing underlying causes and promoting inclusivity and equal representation.

Mobilization of the Oppressed: §

• Power disparities lead to the mobilization of oppressed or marginalized groups.
• Oppressed groups challenge power structures for their rights, equality, and social change.
• Mobilization includes protests, social movements, and collective action for justice and empowerment.

It’s important to note that…

References §

1. Chapter 5 of CMRAI - Conflict Management and Resolution An Introduction