Democracy is a discussion. Vaclav Havel, Present of the Czech Republic
There is an ongoing discussion in post Soviet societies about whether
democracy has brought more good or more evil. What makes the
discussion fairly hot is people’s firsthand experience with the protracted
and severe conflicts that have become manifest as democratization, or
“detotalitarization”, unfolds. Frequently, people’s trust in the virtues of
democracy are challenged by deviations from the path to democratization.
For example, people are told that the ruling party is temporarily forced to
implement less democratic policies in order to cope with harmful conflicts.
This move toward undemocratic rule, however, causes new conflicts, and
it results in a vicious circle. One can find dozens of examples of this
escalation cycle in the recent history of Russia and the newly independent
states of the former Soviet Union.
The second Russian coup de’etat took place in October 1993. The
conflict between the two branches of political power the “nondemocratic”
Parliament and the “democracy oriented” president kept escalating to the
point where one of the parties used military force. Without speculating
about who was right or wrong, this case serves as an example of how
nondemocratic means like storming the Parliament with tanks can be
justified by so called democratic forces.
Under the banner of reestablishing the constitutional order and
protecting human rights, the Russian government sent troops to Chechnya
to fight Dudaev’s “undemocratic” regime. This decision resulted in a two
year war with no clear outcomes other than growing hostility between
Russians and Chechens. In exercising their democratic right to self determination, countries that had been unified under the former Soviet
Union became fragmented by interethnic conflicts. Many people blame
remains unclear and resembles the ancient dilemma about the chicken and
In short, the relationship between conflict and democratization
the egg. One approach to this dilemma is found in the following statement.
Pluralism is the belief in the value of diversity. And believing in
diversity in a dialectics of diversity is antipodal to believing in conflict.
Hence, what the theory of democracy derives from its pluralistic matrix is
not, and cannot be, a praise of “conflict” but, instead, a dynamic
processing of consensus based on the principle that whatever claims to be
rightful, or true, must hold its own against, and be revitalized by,
criticism and dissent.
More accurately, democracy is about the process that transforms the
former into the latter. According to Emmanuel Kant’s model of “pacific
union” between democratic states, “peaceful ways of solving domestic
conflicts are seen as morally superior to violent behavior, and this view is
transferred to international relations between democracies”.
Logically, the question arises, If democracy is the panacea for violent
conflicts, why do ethnic, religious, political, and other conflicts mushroom
in countries that pursue democratic policies? One explanation of this
contradiction draws upon the distinction between democratic transition and
consolidation. “The new democracies cannot be seen as consolidated; on
the contrary, they were described as restricted, frail, and unconsolidated.
It follows that the norms of a democratic culture for the peaceful
resolution of conflict have not yet become characteristics of the new
democracies.”
If this suggestion about democratic consolidation is valid, how should
countries handle these transitional conflicts? Should they wait until
democracy is consolidated in order to resolve them in a peaceful way? On
the one hand, without a strong rule of law, economic prosperity, and other
factors that might facilitate resolution of the conflicts accompanying
democratization in the former Soviet Union and Eastern and Central
Europe, a sufficient basis does not exist for the comprehensive resolution
of large social and political conflicts. On the other hand, how can one
possibly not deal with these conflicts when people’s lives are at stake? In the former Soviet Union, where here is no rule of law, expecting
just and legal solutions to the severe interethnic conflicts is unrealistic.
Moreover, political leaders are currently unlikely to
consistently promote
peaceful resolution of conflicts for a number of reasons:
1. Conflict can be a tool for geopolitical hegemony; for example,
provoking ethnic violence in a neighboring state can provide an excuse
for annexing its territory or maintaining political obedience through a
divide and rule strategy. One of the justifications for Russia’s entry
into the war with the Chechens was the discrimination against the
Russian speaking population there.
2. Conflict can be a vehicle for power struggle. Very often the political
opposition exploits interethnic conflicts by escalating military
encounters and then seizing power in the crisis situation. Such was the
Gamsakhurdia’s supporters.
3. Conflict can be a means for power holders to maintain the status quo,
by lighting a fire of interethnic conflict in order to distract people’s
attention from internal social and political problems. This may explain
the conflict in the Moldova Transdnestria regions.
Despite these political uses of conflict, the potential role for
cooperative conflict resolution theory and practice should not be
underestimated in the post Soviet context. Many non violent conflict
management strategies are still in use in traditional societies within the
former Soviet Union. For example, Chechen and Dagestanian elders had
made significant progress in negotiating and persuading Chechen terrorists
to free hostages from the Dagestanian city of Kizlyar in December 1995.
They might have been successful had not Russian troops begun their
unjustified attack, ruining any hope for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
Further, some mothers of Russian prisoners of war found a creative
way to negotiate with Chechen military commanders for the release of
their sons. These mothers mobilized members of the Chechen Diaspora in
their home cities to negotiate with their compatriots in Chechnya.
Mass media in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States
can play an important role in the escalation or resolution of conflict. For
example, during the period of glasnost, newspapers reinforced the schism
and escalated the conflict between old and new thinking. Working with journalists who belong to opposing and sometimes warring parties in
ethnic conflict situations has highlighted the interface between journalism
and conflict resolution.
In the case of the Ossetian Ingush conflict, in which hundreds of lives
homeland, the workshop for journalists resembled, in its beginning stages,
were lost and thousands of people were forced to seek refuge outside their
a mediation session. Initially, the meeting was filled with sharp and bitter
attacks. However, the participants were respectful to the facilitator and the
process, and eventually they were able to shift discussions from political
declarations toward professional sharing. The most exciting moment of the
workshop occurred when the participants began thinking about future joint
projects they could initiate. The idea of joint coverage of their common
predicament emerged as an
important result of the workshop.
In a Macedonian project, interethnic journalist teams have been
reporting on the volatile social and economic issues that plague different
ethnic sectors. The project has helped demonstrate to the participating
journalists the importance of gathering different perspectives in a situation
before jumping to conclusions. These cross cultural teams help balance the
natural subjectivity involved with understanding a conflict that challenges
one’s identity group.
In almost every workshop, journalists mentioned that their ethnic
identity has prevented them from having access to certain perspectives of
the conflict and has impeded their ability to provide balanced,
noninflammatory, and still honest coverage of interethnic relations.
Lack of open dialogue between Tatar and Russian mass media in
tatarstan was mentioned as contributing to problems in Tatar Russian
relations. A workshop involving journalists from both groups was
productive, though emotionally charged. After some initially bitter
discussion, journalists decided to found a press club where Russian and
Tatar journalists from Kazan and other cities could meet to talk to each
other. Although many of the journalists at this workshop hadcriticized and
insulted each other in their respective publications and programs, they
seemed surprised to meet each other in a different context and find smart,
nice people instead of the monsters they had created in their imagination.
Clearly, the mass media plays a large role in shaping people’s
to direct experience. This influence is particularly dangerous where highly
ahtudes toward various events, especially those with which people have inflammable interethnic or interfaith conflicts are concerned. Very often
journalists do not consider the role they play in the escalation or reduction
of tensions. Conflict resolution workshops offer a new perspective to
journalists, especially those in Russia and the former Soviet Union.
There is no unanimous opinion regarding the role of civil society in
democratization. Some believe that civil society brings about democracy;
others say that “only a democratic state can create a democratic civil
society; only a democratic civil society can sustain a democratic state”.
The idea of building a civil society is becoming increasingly poplar in
Russia, and the NGO sector of society has gained surprisingly powerful
momentum.
This force is increasingly recognized by national governments and
intergovernmental organizations in the region. For example, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently organized a
series of training sessions for human rights NGOs in the newly
independent states of the former Soviet Union. An international team of
trainers from Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Russia have been training
activists from the Baltic states, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and
Azerbaijan. These trainers share with the participants the experience of
living through totalitarian regimes and transitions to democracy. They are
able to train NGO leaders in advocacy; campaign organizing; how to
communicate one’s message to the power holders, to their community, and
to mass media; and ultimately, how to promote social change.
NGOs can play an important role in these societies by forming
coalitions and developing advocacy campaigns for integrating cooperative
conflict resolution skills and processes into politics. At least it is worth
trying.
