The Arab Spring was a series of anti-government protests, uprisings, and armed rebellions that spread across much of

the Arab world in the early 2010s. It began in response to corruption and economic stagnation and was first started in
Tunisia.
From Tunisia, the protests then spread to five other countries: Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain, where either the
ruler was deposed (Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Muammar Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, and Ali Abdullah Saleh) or major
uprisings and social violence occurred including riots, civil wars, or insurgencies. Sustained street demonstrations took
place in Morocco, Iraq, Algeria, Iranian Khuzestan, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and Sudan. Minor protests took
place in Djibouti, Mauritania, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and the Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara. A major slogan of the
demonstrators in the Arab world is ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ an-niẓām! ("the people want to bring down the regime").
Causes
Pressures from within
The world watched the events of the Arab Spring unfold, "gripped by the narrative of a young generation peacefully
rising up against oppressive authoritarianism to secure a more democratic political system and a brighter economic
future". The Arab Spring is widely believed to have been instigated by dissatisfaction, particularly of youth and unions,
with the rule of local governments, though some have speculated that wide gaps in income levels and pressures caused
by the Great Recession may have had a hand as well. Some activists had taken part in programs sponsored by the US-
funded National Endowment for Democracy, but the US government claimed that they did not initiate the uprisings.
Numerous factors led to the protests, including issues such as reform, human rights violations, political
corruption (demonstrated by Wikileaks diplomatic cables, according to Alexander Cockburn, writing in CounterPunch in
February 2011), economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, and a number of demographic structural
factors, such as a large percentage of educated but dissatisfied youth within the entire population. Catalysts for the
revolts in all Northern African and Persian Gulf countries included the concentration of wealth in the hands of monarchs
in power for decades, insufficient transparency of its redistribution, corruption, and especially the refusal of the youth to
accept the status quo.
Some protesters looked to the Turkish model as an ideal (contested but peaceful elections, fast-growing but liberal
economy, secular constitution but Islamist government). Other analysts blamed the rise in food prices on commodity
traders and the conversion of crops to ethanol. Yet others have claimed that the context of high rates of unemployment
and corrupt political regimes led to dissent movements within the region.
Social media
In the wake of the Arab Spring protests, a considerable amount of attention focused on the role of social media and
digital technologies in allowing citizens within areas affected by "the Arab Uprisings" as a means for collective activism to
circumvent state-operated media channels. The influence of social media on political activism during the Arab Spring
has, however, been much debated. Protests took place both in states with a very high level of Internet usage (such
as Bahrain with 88% of its population online in 2011) and in states with some of the lowest Internet penetration
(Yemen and Libya).
The use of social media platforms more than doubled in Arab countries during the protests, with the exception of
Libya. Some researchers have shown how collective intelligence, dynamics of the crowd in participatory systems such as
social media, has immense power to support a collective action—such as foment a political change.  As of 5 April 2011,
the number of Facebook users in the Arab world surpassed 27.7 million people. Some critics have argued that digital
technology and other forms of communication—videos, cellular phones, blogs, photos, emails, and text messages—have
brought about the concept of a "digital democracy" in parts of North Africa affected by the uprisings.
Facebook, Twitter, and other major social media played a key role in the movement of Egyptian and Tunisian activists in
particular. Nine out of ten Egyptians and Tunisians responded to a poll that they used  Facebook to organize protests and
spread awareness. This large population of young Egyptian men referred to themselves as "the Facebook generation",
exemplifying their escape from their non-modernized past. Furthermore, 28% of Egyptians and 29% of Tunisians from
the same poll said that blocking Facebook greatly hindered and/or disrupted communication. Social media sites were a
platform for different movements formed by many frustrated citizens, including the 2008 "April 6 Youth Movement"
organized by Ahmed Mahed, which set out to organize and promote a nationwide labor strike and which inspired the
later creation of the "Progressive Youth of Tunisia".
Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution
The first demonstrations took place in central Tunisia in December 2010, catalyzed by the self-immolation of  Mohamed
Bouazizi, a 26-year-old street vendor protesting his treatment by local officials. A protest movement, dubbed the
“Jasmine Revolution” in the media, quickly spread through the country. The Tunisian government attempted to end the
unrest by using violence against street demonstrations and by offering political and economic concessions. However,
protests soon overwhelmed the country’s security forces, compelling Pres. Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali to step down and flee
the country on January 14, 2011. In October 2011, Tunisians participated in a free election to choose members of a
council tasked with drafting a new constitution. A democratically chosen president and  prime minister took office in
December 2011, and a new constitution was promulgated in January 2014. In October–November 2019, Tunisia became
the first country of the Arab Spring protests to undergo a peaceful transfer of power from one democratically elected
government to another.
Egypt’s January 25 Revolution
Inspired by Ben Ali’s ouster in Tunisia, similar protests were quickly organized among young  Egyptians through social
media (see Wael Ghonim), bringing out massive crowds across Egypt on January 25. The Egyptian government also tried
and failed to control protests by offering concessions while cracking down violently against protesters. After several days
of massive demonstrations and clashes between protesters and security forces in Cairo and around the country, a
turning point came at the end of the month when the Egyptian army announced that it would refuse to use force against
protesters calling for the removal of Pres. Hosni Mubarak. Having lost the support of the military, Mubarak left office on
February 11 after nearly 30 years, ceding power to a council of senior military officers. The military enjoyed high public
approval in the interim before a new government, but its apparent prioritization of stability over democratic transition
at times dampened optimism.
Yemen
In Yemen, where the first protests appeared in late January 2011, Pres. Ali Abdullah Saleh’s base of support was
damaged when a number of the country’s most powerful tribal and military leaders aligned themselves with the pro-
democracy protesters calling for him to step down. When negotiations to remove Saleh from power failed, loyalist and
opposition fighters clashed in Sanaa. Saleh left Yemen in June to receive medical treatment after he was injured in a
bomb attack, raising hopes among the opposition that a transition would begin. Saleh returned to the country
unexpectedly four months later, however, adding to the uncertainty and confusion about Yemen’s political future. In
November 2011 Saleh signed an internationally mediated agreement calling for a phased transfer of power to the vice
president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. In accordance with the agreement, Hadi took over governing responsibility
immediately and formally assumed the presidency after standing as the sole candidate in a presidential election in
February 2012. Unable to improve conditions or maintain stability, however, Hadi’s government faced armed
confrontation and rebellion that in 2014 devolved into a civil war.
Bahrain
Mass protests demanding political and economic reforms erupted in Bahrain in mid-February 2011, led by
Bahraini human rights activists and members of Bahrain’s marginalized Shiʿi majority. Protests were violently suppressed
by Bahraini security forces, aided by a Gulf Cooperation Council security force (composed of about 1,000 soldiers
from Saudi Arabia and 500 police officers from the United Arab Emirates) that entered the country in March. By the end
of the month, the mass protest movement had been stifled. In the aftermath of the protests, dozens of accused protest
leaders were convicted of antigovernment activity and imprisoned, hundreds of Shiʿi workers suspected of supporting
the protests were fired, and dozens of Shiʿi mosques were demolished by the government. In November 2011 an
independent investigation into the uprising, commissioned by the Bahraini government, concluded that the government
had used excessive force and torture against protesters. The government carried out some of the commission’s
recommendations for reform but clamped down further on opposition groups in the years that followed.
Libya
In Libya protests against the regime of Muammar al-Qaddafi in mid-February 2011 quickly escalated into an armed
revolt. When the rebel forces appeared to be on the verge of defeat in March, an international coalition led
by NATO launched a campaign of air strikes targeting Qaddafi’s forces. Although NATO intervention ultimately shifted
the military balance in favour of the rebel forces, Qaddafi was able to cling to power in the capital, Tripoli, for several
more months. He was forced from power in August 2011 after rebel forces took control of Tripoli. After evading capture
for several weeks, Qaddafi was killed in Sirte in October 2011 as rebel forces took control of the city. A  Transitional
National Council, set up by rebel forces and recognized internationally, took power, but its struggle to exert authority
over the country precipitated the outbreak of civil war in 2014.
Syria
In Syria protests calling for the resignation of Pres. Bashar al-Assad broke out in southern Syria in mid-March 2011 and
spread through the country. The Assad regime responded with a brutal crackdown against protesters, drawing
condemnation from international leaders and human rights groups. A leadership council for the Syrian opposition
formed in Istanbul in August, and opposition militias began to launch attacks on government forces. In spite of the
upheaval, Assad’s hold on power appeared strong, as he was able to retain the support of critical military units
composed largely of members of Syria’s ʿAlawite minority, to which Assad also belonged. Meanwhile, divisions in the
international community made it unlikely that international military intervention, which had proved decisive in Libya,
would be possible in Syria. Russia and China vetoed UN Security Council resolutions meant to pressure the Assad regime
in October 2011 and February 2012 and vowed to oppose any measure that would lead to foreign intervention in Syria
or Assad’s removal from power. The arrival of a delegation of peace monitors from the Arab League in December 2011
did little to reduce violence. The escalation of violence, fed by funding and arms from several rival countries interested
in the outcome of the situation, culminated in a devastating civil war and a massive refugee crisis affecting millions.
Other countries
The effects of the Arab Spring movement were felt elsewhere throughout the Middle East and North Africa as many of
the countries in the region experienced at least minor pro-democracy protests. In Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman,
rulers offered a variety of concessions, ranging from the dismissal of unpopular officials to constitutional changes, in
order to head off the spread of protest movements in their countries.
How Republics Fell and Monarchies Survived the Arab Spring
Arab republics such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya owe their existence largely to revolutionary nationalist movements
during the second half of the 20th century. Although these republics resulted from popular movements, countries like
Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia saw their leaders extend their rule indefinitely. Following years of suppression and
economic hardship, unrest reached a boiling point and sparked a counter revolution—the Arab Spring—which called for
democracy and the formation of liberal states. While revolutionary nationalism saw the nation as an undifferentiated
mass, the Arab Spring stressed the role of individuals and groups, and promoted the ideas of pluralism and openness.
Revolutionary forces in the neighboring monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and Qatar were far less successful.
Though some minorities—such as the Shiites in Bahrain—revolted, their movements were swiftly quashed. What made
monarchies more resilient during the Arab Spring as compared to republics? To understand this conundrum, Robert
Snyder offers an ideological-institutional framework in The Arab Uprising and the Persistence of Monarchy.
Snyder suggests that the fundamental reason behind the fall of the Arab republics is that which led to their original
formation—revolutionary nationalism. As the leaders of the revolution became rulers, they wrote constitutions that
drew on nationalist ideologies and gave supremacy to communitarian ideals over individual rights. This paved the way
for state control over media, state suppression of dissent, and state regulation of the economy. In a world of increasing
cooperation, their foreign policy was based on conflict through the creation of a perceived threat to the nation and its
people in the form of imperialistic western powers. Even the judiciary was not independent, since emergency state
security courts and military courts effectively formed a parallel legal system, which undermined the rule of law in these
countries. The republics thus failed to become politically inclusive as their charismatic leaders became
increasingly autocratic.
The monarchies took a strong position against revolutionary nationalism from the beginning of their establishments as
States. They understood the appeal of such an ideology to their subjects and took measures accordingly. They ensured
that the state and nation remained separate. They fared better than revolutionary republics by being more politically
inclusive, enforcing property rights, and forging a more cooperative foreign policy.
Arab monarchies such as Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Morocco rank higher than Egypt and
Tunisia was in their protection of property rights, while Syria, Libya, and Yemen are not even ranked. The above factors,
combined with capital from oil exports, promoted trade and commerce with the western world.
In framing, Lisa Anderson, quoted in Snyder’s paper, points out that Arab kingdoms have continued to survive by placing
ruling family members in key political and economic positions, and have thus far prevented the rise of an opposition.
However, this state of affairs may not continue so long as economic shocks and anti-state actors like ISIS continue to
alter the status quo. In addition to internal factors, the foreign policies of western governments, especially those of the
US, have played a significant role in the survival of Arab kingdoms, as western governments have found it easier to forge
regional cooperation and peace with stable monarchies as opposed to autocratic rulers.
Monarchies and republics in the Arab world approached consolidating social cooperation during their state-building
phases differently. The kingdoms forged alliances with tribal leaders, traders, and other elites, whereas the republics
waved the flag of democratic socialism, labeled the elites traitors, and replaced them with political elites from the ruling
party. As the former created a robust network of social, political, and economic actors with the ruling family firmly at the
center, the latter created a centralized structure in which a significant proportion of civil interests were not represented.
The different histories, which Snyder suggests underlie the development of countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia and
Egypt, need to be kept in mind when making foreign policy choices. The successful creation of new republicanism in the
Arab states will depend on reforms that are based on liberal principles, not on revolutionary nationalism
or religious ideologies.
How Middle Eastern monarchies survived the Arab Spring
The term “community” connotes positive outcomes in global affairs. An international community opposes war crimes
and supports humanitarian goals; epistemic communities share information and ideas for common causes like climate
change; security communities, such as NATO, spread peace and deter aggression among members; and democratic
communities like the European Union innovate “best practices” of governance and defend human rights.
But dictators have communities, too.
Authoritarian states under duress can band together, share ideas, circulate strategies and stick by a collective identity in
ways that mimic democracies. This is true in the post-Arab Spring Middle East. Since 2011-2012, there has been
unprecedented convergence in policy across the eight Arab monarchies — Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the UAE. These countries suffered far less turmoil than republics like Egypt and Tunisia, but
their citizens were no less demanding of political change.
In response, these eight autocracies communicated, consulted and conjured the beginnings of a monarchical
community, one predicated on a unique “pan-royal” identity that shared a singular fate. As near-absolutist dynasties
under siege by revolutionary forces, they had to respond collectively. Those responses have been felt in both domestic
and foreign policy, from new forms of repression, deeper sectarianism, the evisceration of mass media and potential
GCC expansion.
During the Arab Spring, calls for isqaat (downfall) rumbled through the streets of many countries, but the kingdoms also
saw popular calls for malakiyyah destouriyyah (constitutional monarchy). A loaded phrase, it reminded royal absolutists
that — unlike other ruling kingships around the world, which had since fallen or transitioned to democracy — the Arab
dynasties still clung to power based upon an antiquated notion of legitimacy. They felt besieged by history in a way that
republican dictators could not understand. After all, autocracies exist everywhere in the world, but outside the Middle
East, only tiny Swaziland and Brunei remain ruling monarchies.
This piece is also featured in POMEPS Studies 20 From Mobilization to Counter-Revolution – read the full collection here
That existential fear did not make royal palaces turn inward. On the contrary, they reached out to one another,
circulating old and new ideas as never before. Their collective identity was not about Arabness, but rather royalness
— the belief that as an endangered species, they shared an immutable commonality that could not be denied and must
be protected by new firewalls to keep out the contagious spread of unrest and revolution. By February 2011, when the
Mubarak dictatorship collapsed in Egypt, observers saw a marked rise in communication between the monarchies. This
included not only direct lines between kings but also lower-level exchanges among cabinet ministers, senior princes and
private emissaries.
For instance, frequent summits assembled foreign ministers representing just these eight kingdoms. Notably, the
monarchies did not use the Arab League, the nominal organization charged with coordinating regional affairs, to come
closer together. They did so, on their own, using not just diplomatic channels but also informal familial networks forged
in past decades by royal intermarriage, friendships and business ventures. Many of these exchanges — such as the
“royal-only” ministerial meetings — persisted well beyond the 2011-2012 period.
The fruits of such communing included new policy initiatives to help preserve the beleaguered citadel of Arab royalism.
In February 2011, Saudi Arabia led the push to turn the GCC, an otherwise ineffectual security alliance, into a bigger
“monarchies club” by including Morocco and Jordan as new members. In pure realist terms, this made little sense to the
oil-rich Gulf, given the weakness of the Moroccan and Jordanian militaries, as well as their poorer economies and need
for greater aid. Being strategic allies alone also cannot explain this. After all, neighboring pro-Saudi Yemen had long
lobbied to join, but even at the height of its uprising in 2011, no Gulf monarchies suggesting giving the Yemeni regime
membership to save it.
Consider the inverted geographic logic of this. Rather than adding another Gulf country to the Gulf Cooperation Council,
royal leaders fancied the inclusion of two non-Gulf countries. The common denominator is Royalism.
Ultimately, the GCC did not expand, but because of a startling reason: some of the smaller Gulf kingdoms, such as
Kuwait, feared the spread of popular uprisings from Morocco and Jordan to the Gulf. In any case, the rich Gulf kingdoms
provided Jordan and Morocco all the benefits of membership without its formality, investing many billions of dollars
through aid and deals since 2011.
Another manifestation of royal communalism unfolded within domestic policy with the practice of “cross-policing,” in
which royal governments smothered domestic critics of other Arab monarchies. Since 2012, there have been dozens of
cases of cross-policing. Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood official Zaki Bani Irsheid was arrested and jailed for a year by his
home country after posting criticism of the UAE on Facebook. In Kuwait, parliamentarians who censured the policies of
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the Emirates have been detained and imprisoned. In Bahrain, critics of Saudi Arabia
are treated little better than enemies of the Khalifa monarchy.
This cross-policing possible is made possible by a little-known agreement reached in November 2012 called the Joint
Security Agreement, which nominally covered the Gulf kingdoms but to which Morocco and Jordan also assented. The
JSA calls for signatories to suppress any citizen who endangers the domestic affairs of other kingdoms, making it
markedly unsafe for anyone living under these monarchies to criticize any other Arab monarchy. Further, many royal
governments have also passed new “anti-terror” statutes and laws since 2012 that mirror one another in key ways. They
extend the reach of censorship onto cyberspace and use deliberately vague language to give state authorities extreme
leeway to prosecute chosen targets.
Listen to a conversation with the author about intervention in the Middle East
These arguments about a royal community come with an urgent disclaimer: Sharing a collective identity does  not mean
the elimination of all differences among members. It does not mean political unification or the end of historical rivalries.
Neither does it does not mean the dissolution of preexisting symbols and heritages, such as tribal or national identities.
Identities are malleable and compete; the existence of one does not preclude another.
Thus even within this new framework of pan-royalism, disagreements and spats can run rife in ways that expose its
pluralism. Saudi Arabia and Qatar competed over which faction to back in revolutionary Egypt, for instance, but this did
not preclude cooperation on other issues. Saudi Arabia and the UAE likewise have not resolved their competing claims
over shared coastal waters, and perhaps they never will — but they still collaborate on security matters.
Where this new monarchical community goes from here depends on regional events. Given its informal nature, long
periods of stability and peace will weaken this identity. Inversely, another wave of regional uprisings will strengthen it,
driving these kingdoms even closer together. But certainly, this community will do something — and that is an
undeniable legacy of the Arab Spring.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory, first developed by Karl Marx, is a theory that society is in a state of perpetual conflict because
of competition for limited resources.
Conflict theory holds that social order is maintained by domination and power, rather than by consensus and
conformity. According to conflict theory, those with wealth and power try to hold on to it by any means possible, chiefly
by suppressing the poor and powerless. A basic premise of conflict theory is that individuals and groups within society
will work to try to maximize their own wealth and power.
Understanding Conflict Theory
Conflict theory has sought to explain a wide range of social phenomena, including wars, revolutions, poverty,
discrimination, and domestic violence. It ascribes most of the fundamental developments in human history, such as
democracy and civil rights, to capitalistic attempts to control the masses (as opposed to a desire for social order). Central
tenets of conflict theory are the concepts of social inequality, the division of resources, and the conflicts that exist
among different socioeconomic classes.
The central tenets of conflict theory can explain many types of societal conflicts throughout history. Some theorists
believe, as Marx did, that societal conflict is the force that ultimately drives change and development in society.
Marx’s version of conflict theory focused on the conflict between two primary classes. Each class consists of a group of
people bound by mutual interests and a certain degree of property ownership. Marx theorized about the bourgeoisie, a
group that represented members of society who hold the majority of the wealth and means. The proletariat is the other
group: It includes those considered working-class or poor.
With the rise of capitalism, Marx theorized that the bourgeoisie, a minority within the population, would use their
influence to oppress the proletariat, the majority class. This way of thinking is tied to a common image associated with
conflict theory-based models of society; adherents to this philosophy tend to believe in a pyramid arrangement in terms
of how goods and services are distributed in society. At the top of the pyramid is a small group of elites that dictate
terms and conditions to the larger portion of society because they have an outsized amount of control over resources
and power.
Uneven distribution within society was predicted to be maintained through ideological coercion; the bourgeoisie would
force acceptance of the current conditions by the proletariat. Conflict theory assumes that the elite will set up systems
of laws, traditions, and other societal structures in order to further support their own dominance while preventing
others from joining their ranks.
Marx theorized that, as the working class and poor were subjected to worsening conditions, a collective consciousness
would raise more awareness about inequality, and this would potentially result in revolt. If, after the revolt, conditions
were adjusted to favor the concerns of the proletariat, the conflict circle would eventually repeat but in the opposite
direction. The bourgeoisie would eventually become the aggressor and revolter, grasping for the return of the structures
that formerly maintained their dominance.
Conflict Theory Assumptions
Current conflict theory has four primary assumptions that are helpful to understand: competition, revolution, structural
inequality, and war.
Competition
Conflict theorists believe that competition is a constant and, at times, an overwhelming factor in nearly every human
relationship and interaction. Competition exists as a result of the scarcity of resources, including material resources—
money, property, commodities, and more. Beyond material resources, individuals and groups within a society compete
for intangible resources as well. These can include leisure time, dominance, social status, sexual partners, etc. Conflict
theorists assume that competition is the default (rather than cooperation).
Revolution
Given conflict theorists' assumption that conflict occurs between social classes, one outcome of this conflict is a
revolutionary event. The idea is that change in a power dynamic between groups does not happen as the result of a
gradual adaptation. Rather, it comes about as the symptom of conflict between these groups. In this way, changes to a
power dynamic are often abrupt and large in scale, rather than gradual and evolutionary.
Structural inequality
An important assumption of conflict theory is that human relationships and social structures all experience inequalities
of power. In this way, some individuals and groups inherently develop more power and reward than others. Following
this, those individuals and groups that benefit from a particular structure of society tend to work to maintain those
structures as a way of retaining and enhancing their power.
War
Conflict theorists tend to see war as either a unifier or as a "cleanser" of societies. In conflict theory, war is the result of
a cumulative and growing conflict between individuals and groups and between entire societies. In the context of war, a
society may become unified in some ways, but conflict still remains between multiple societies. On the other hand, war
may also result in the wholesale end of a society.
What Are Some Common Criticisms of Conflict Theory?
One common criticism of conflict theory is that it fails to capture the way in which economic interactions can mutually
benefit the different classes involved. For example, conflict theory describes the relationship between employers and
employees as one of conflict, in which the employers wish to pay as little as possible for the employees' labor, while the
employees wish to maximize their wages. In practice, however, employees and employers often have a harmonious
relationship. Moreover, institutions such as pension plans and stock-based compensation can further blur the boundary
between workers and corporations by giving workers an additional stake in the success of their employer.
Conflict’s Positive and Negative Aspects
Though many of us tend to view conflict as a negative occurrence, it has both positive and negative aspects, which arise
both during and as a result of interactions between conflicting individuals or groups.
The Positive Aspects of Conflict
In Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement, Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin identify five positive or beneficial
aspects of conflict.
 Conflict contributes to social change ensuring both interpersonal and intergroup dynamics remain fresh and
reflective of current interests and realities
 Conflict serves to “discourage premature group decision making,” forcing participants in the decision making
process to explore the issues and interests at stake
 Conflict allows for the reconciliation of the parties’ concerns, which can lead to an agreement benefiting both
parties’ needs, and often their relationship and organizations
 Conflict strengthens intra-group unity by providing an outlet for group members to discuss and negotiate their
interests within the group. Without intra-group conflict, the health of the group typically declines
 Conflict between groups produces intra-group unity as the conflict provides the opportunity for increased intra-
group cooperation while working towards the group’s common goal for the conflict’s outcome
The Negative Aspects of Conflict
Pruitt and Rubin also note that, despite most conflicts being resolved peacefully with positive outcomes, conflict has
definite negative and sometimes even severe consequences.
 Conflict can distract individuals and groups from their primary purposes, leaving them with less time and
resources for other activities. When conflict involves the use of “heavy contentious tactics,” it can cause the
individuals or groups involved in the conflict as well as individuals or groups not involved in the conflict to divert
time and resources away from other needs
 Conflict can have both short term and long term effects on the physical and psychological health of the
individuals involved in or affected by the conflict. In worst case scenarios the psychological consequences can
include deep trauma and diminished coping mechanisms
 Conflict can lead to “collective traumas,” which lead to “chosen trauma” and can be transmitted to future
generations in the form of resentment against one’s ancestors’ enemies. Chosen trauma gives rise to group
identity and keeps the flame of conflict burning
Our Perspective Regarding Conflict
The potential for conflict to produce both positive and negative results closely mirrors our individual perspectives
regarding conflict and can be mapped along a continuum from a positive or benefit-centric perspective on one end to a
negative or cost-centric perspective on the other.
Research suggests that an individual’s perspective regarding conflict strongly impacts their ability to effectively address
it. As our perspective of conflict charts our path for engaging and navigating our differences, our view of conflict must be
balanced, realistic, and flexible. Such a perspective recognizes that conflict is a normal, natural aspect of human
interaction that inevitably manifests to varying degrees in almost everyone’s life.3 The perspective also understands
that, though conflict has potential costs, it does not have to be negative or destructive. When properly understood and
addressed constructively, conflict can be managed in a way that minimizes its potential, but not inevitable, negative
impacts.
Managing Conflict
Conflict management refers to the long-term management of intractable conflicts. It is the label for the variety of ways
by which people handle grievances—standing up for what they consider to be right and against what they consider to be
wrong. Those ways include such diverse phenomena as gossip, ridicule, lynching, terrorism, warfare, feuding, genocide,
law, mediation, and avoidance. Which forms of conflict management will be used in any given situation can be
somewhat predicted and explained by the social structure—or social geometry—of the case.
Conflict management is often considered to be distinct from conflict resolution. In order for actual conflict to occur,
there should be an expression of exclusive patterns which explain why and how the conflict was expressed the way it
was. Conflict is often connected to a previous issue. Resolution refers to resolving a dispute to the approval of one or
both parties, whereas management is concerned with an ongoing process that may never have a resolution. Neither is
considered the same as conflict transformation, which seeks to reframe the positions of the conflict parties.
Orientations to conflict
There are three orientations to conflict:
 Lose-lose
 Win-lose,
 Win-win
The lose-lose orientation is a type of conflict that tends to end negatively for all parties involved. A win-lose orientation
results in one victorious party, usually at the expense of the other. The win-win orientation is one of the most essential
concepts to conflict resolution. A win-win solution arrived at by integrative bargaining may be close to optimal for both
parties. This approach engages in a cooperative approach rather than a competitive one.
Although the win-win concept is the ideal orientation, the notion that there can only be one winner is constantly being
reinforced in American culture:
"The win-lose orientation is manufactured in our society in athletic competition, admission to academic programs,
industrial promotion systems, and so on. Individuals tend to generalize from their objective win-lose situations and apply
these experiences to situations that are not objectively fixed-pies".
This kind of mentality can be destructive when communicating with different cultural groups by creating barriers in
negotiation, resolution and compromise; it can also lead the "loser" to feel mediocre. When the win-win orientation is
absent in negotiation, different responses to conflict may be observed.
Early conflict management models
Blake and Mouton (1964) were among the first to present a conceptual scheme for classifying the modes (styles) for
handling interpersonal conflicts in five types: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and problem solving.
In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers began using the intentions of the parties involved to classify the styles of conflict
management that they included in their models. Both Thomas (1976) and Pruitt (1983) put forth a model based on the
concerns of the parties involved in the conflict. The combination of the parties' concern for their own interests
(i.e. assertiveness) and their concern for the interests of those across the table (i.e. cooperativeness) yielded a particular
conflict management style. Pruitt called these styles yielding (low assertiveness/high cooperativeness), problem solving
(high assertiveness/high cooperativeness), inaction (low assertiveness/low cooperativeness), and contending (high
assertiveness/low cooperativeness). Pruitt argues that problem-solving is the preferred method when seeking mutually
beneficial options (win-win).
Khun and Poole's model
Khun and Poole (2000) established a similar system of group conflict management. In their system, they split Kozan's
confrontational model into two sub-models: distributive and integrative.
Distributive – Here conflict is approached as a distribution of a fixed amount of positive outcomes or resources, where
one side will end up winning and the other losing, even if they do win some concessions.
Integrative – Groups utilizing the integrative model see conflict as a chance to integrate the needs and concerns of both
groups and make the best outcome possible. This model has a heavier emphasis on compromise than the distributive
model. Khun and Poole found that the integrative model resulted in consistently better task-related outcomes than
those using the distributive model.
De-Church and Marks's meta-taxonomy
De-Church and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict management at the time and Ni established
what they claimed was a "meta-taxonomy" that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have
inherent in them into two dimensions:
  Activeness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect
impression"). High activeness is characterized by openly discussing differences of opinion while fully going after
their own interest.
 Agreeableness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a pleasant and relaxed rather than unpleasant and
strainful impression"). High agreeableness is characterized by attempting to satisfy all parties involved.
In the study De-Church and Marks conducted to validate this division, activeness did not have a significant effect on the
effectiveness of conflict resolution, but the agreeableness of the conflict management style, whatever it was, did have a
positive impact on how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the outcome.
Rahim's meta-model
Rahim (2002) noted that there is agreement among management scholars that there is no one best approach to how to
make decisions, lead or manage conflict.
In a similar vein, rather than creating a very specific model of conflict management, Rahim created a meta-model (in
much the same way that De-Church and Marks, 2001, created a meta-taxonomy) for conflict styles based on two
dimensions, concern for self and concern for others.
Within this framework are five management approaches: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising.
 Integration involves openness, exchanging information, looking for alternatives, and examining differences to
solve the problem in a manner that is acceptable to both parties.
 Obliging is associated with attempting to minimize the differences and highlight the commonalities to satisfy the
concern of the other party.
 Dominating in this style one party goes all out to win his or her objective and, as a result, often ignores the
needs and expectations of the other party.
 Avoiding here a party fails to satisfy his or her own concern as well as the concern of the other party.
 Compromising involves give-and-take whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable
decision.
International conflict management
 Special consideration should be paid to conflict management between two parties from distinct cultures. In
addition to the everyday sources of conflict, "misunderstandings, and from this counterproductive, pseudo
conflicts, arise when members of one culture are unable to understand culturally determined differences in
communication practices, traditions, and thought processing".[10] Indeed, this has already been observed in the
business research literature.
 Renner (2007) recounted several episodes where managers from developed countries moved to less developed
countries to resolve conflicts within the company and met with little success due to their failure to adapt to the
conflict management styles of the local culture.
 As an example, in Kozan's study noted above, he noted that Asian cultures are far more likely to use a harmony
model of conflict management. If a party operating from a harmony model comes in conflict with a party using a
more confrontational model, misunderstandings above and beyond those generated by the conflict itself will
arise.
 International conflict management, and the cultural issues associated with it, is one of the primary areas of
research in the field at the time, as existing research is insufficient to deal with the ever-increasing  contact
occurring between international entities.
Sources of conflict
From the underlying causes, we now move to the specific sources of conflicts, sometimes also referred to as issues
involved in a conflict or issues at stake in a conflict. 5.3.1 Information Lack of information, misinformation and different
interpretations of information can lead to conflict. Disputants may not have sufficient information or even the same
information about a given situation. In other instances, groups and individuals may interpret the same data or
information in differing ways or they may assign different levels of importance to the same data. Control and
manipulation of information is a major weapon in conflict situations.
Miscommunication
Ineffective communication is another source of conflict. Even if there are no basic incompatibilities between groups and
individuals, miscommunication and misunderstanding can lead to conflict. Moreover, stakeholders may have different
perceptions about the facts in a situation and until they are clarified, there can be no resolution. Self-centeredness,
selective perception, emotional bias and prejudices lead to differing perceptions between the stakeholders of a conflict.
Lack of skill in communicating one’s viewpoint in a clear and respectful manner often results in confusion, hurt and
anger, all of which fuel the conflict further. Whether the conflict has objective sources or has arisen due to perceptual or
communication problems, the people involved experience it as very real. 5.3.3 Resources This relates to conflict over
material resources such as land, money or objects, which are evidently identifiable and can be negotiated. Historically,
disputes over access to and control of territory, material, economic and scarce natural resources have been one of the
dominant sources of conflict. One major element in the colonial empire building of the 19th and 20th century was the
competition for resources and defense of national economic interests which were defined in territorial terms. Here each
faction wanted to grab as much as it could; its behavior and emotions were directed towards maximizing gain. In
extreme cases, disputants may resort to military action or the threat of it to gain or defend access to resources
perceived as vital for survival, for example, the developed Western countries attach a great deal of importance to
maintaining their access to oil supplies in the West Asian region and are prepared to undertake extreme measures to do
so.
In the twenty-first century, demands for land, fresh water and other natural resources are growing rapidly due to
increase in population as well as consumption. But these resources are limited and Gandhi had very aptly said, “Earth
provides enough to satisfy every [person’s] need but not for every [person’s] greed.” Besides, environmental
degradation has further complicated the situation and the consequences are being felt the world over. In India, the
shortage of water has given rise to several conflicts at the local and regional level.
Relationships
Relationships are an important facet of human life. Gandhi was in fact always keen to cooperate with the opponent to
build relationships, which would form the basis for a sound post-conflict life. As human beings, we have personal
(family) and social (community) and/or organizational (business) relationships. In these relationships, people have
disagreements over a variety of issues, which is very normal. However, sometimes the interdependence created by
these relationships introduces a destructive dimension to these differences, for example, a wife is repeatedly subjected
to abuse and domestic violence but is unable to walk out of the relationship because (apart from other social and
cultural pressures) she may be economically dependent on her husband, who is aware of this interdependence and uses
it to his advantage.
Interests and Needs
Non-fulfillment of interests and needs are a major source of conflict. The non-fulfillment of these needs may be either a
reality or just a perception. In fact, important needs for identity, respect or participation are often at the heart of
conflicts that ostensibly seem to be a contest for material things. Conflicts usually arise because of the denial of
following needs:
 Unfulfilled needs for economic resources or the perception that economic resources are not distributed fairly;
Unfulfilled needs for safety, respect and participation in social life or a perception of unjust relationships and
humiliation
 Unfulfilled needs for identity, culture, religious values or a perception that these are threatened.
When the needs of individuals, communities and nations are denied in the abovementioned areas, it leads to structural
violence. Vertical structural violence can operate in the following arenas insulting the respective needs:
 Repression – political – the insulted need is freedom
 Exploitation – economic – the insulted need is well-being;
 Alienation – cultural – the insulted need is identity.
For Gandhi, exploitation was the essence of violence. He saw violence as anything that impeded individual self-
realization and that violence could be either direct or structural in nature. Dehumanisation is a case in point.
Structures
Structures- both social and organizational- determine who has access to power and resources, who has the authority to
make decisions and who is afforded respect. Conflicts about or within structures often involve issues of justice and
competing goals.
Power
Power can mean different things – legitimacy, authority, force, or the ability to coerce. It is a vital ingredient in conflict
situations; conflicts either centre on the search for more power or a fear of losing the same. However, power is
intangible; it cannot be counted. But power does not exist in a vacuum; it is present in, and based on, relationships.
Besides, one should look at resources as a key area that determines the actual location of power or the need for power.
Power conflicts can occur between individuals, groups or nations, when one or both sides choose to take a power
approach to the relationship and wish to maintain or maximise the amount of influence that they exert in the
relationship and the social setting. It is impossible for one side to be stronger without the other being weaker, at least in
terms of direct influence over each other. Thus, a power struggle ensues which usually ends in victory for one side and
defeat for the other, or in a ‘stand-off’ with a continuing state of tension.
Governance
Good governance is considered to be integral to economic growth, the eradication of poverty and hunger, and
sustainable development. It makes violent conflict less likely. If governments reflect the values and satisfy the needs of
those over whom they exercise authority, they will be legitimized. When the legitimacy is lacking or there is a doubt
about its existence, the demands for social change can result in political turmoil and social unrest. If these demands are
suppressed or ignored, violent conflict may arise. In contemporary times, the major governance issues relate to greater
autonomy (political, economic and/or cultural), representative forms of government and equitable distribution of
resources.
Rights
Denial or violation of rights and the struggle for elimination of these violations are at the heart of many conflicts. Civil
and political rights are often called ‘first generation rights’ and include rights of the individual in society to life, liberty
and freedom of opinion and expression. Gandhi had always stressed on the centrality of the individual and felt that
society could not be built on a denial of individual freedom. Economic, social and cultural rights are known as ‘second
generation rights’ that comprise of rights to basic necessities such as food, shelter, health and education. The ‘third
generation rights’ refers to collective rights like those of minorities and marginalized groups. Human rights are thus
necessary for individuals to lead a dignified life.
Culture
Culture is an important factor in social conflict. It is learnt from the family, community, school, and media; it is not
something human beings are born with. Culture determines the way individuals and groups act, the manner in which
they relate to others and the way they think about and perceive events happening around them. Thus it is necessary to
understand the cultural contexts of the individuals and groups involved in a conflict especially in situations where the
contending sides are from different cultures. In fact, Marc Ross argues that there is a ‘culture of conflict’, which he
defines as “a society’s configuration of norms, practices and institutions that affect what people enter into disputes
about, with whom they fight, how disputes evolve, and how they are likely to end.”
Ideology
Ideology is mostly used in reference to the public world of politics. Political ideologies such as Fascism, Nazism, and
Marxism involve a set of fundamental beliefs about economic organization or governance of society. One of the most
famous ideological conflicts of the 20th century was the one between the Capitalist Bloc and the Communist Bloc
popularly termed as the Cold War, which manifested in ways such as the formation of economic and military blocs, and
proxy wars between client-states at the regional and local level. The Cold War ended with the disintegration of the
former Soviet Union and withering away of the Communist Bloc.
Religion
Conflict between religions has occurred throughout history but in the contemporary period some of the major religions
of the world are witness to a surge in fundamentalist elements. Fundamentalists have attempted to extend their sphere
of influence from places of worship to the state and the society as a whole leading to escalation of conflicts not only
between religions but also within the moderate and extremist sections within religions as well as with the state and
society at large.
Values
Values are dear to individuals and groups – these are the beliefs that shape their identity and faith perspectives that give
meaning to their lives. Incompatibility in ways of life and ideologies such as preferences, principles and practices that
people believe in can lead to value conflicts. When states, groups and individuals assert the rightness and superiority of
their way of life and their political-economic system vis-à-vis other states, groups and individuals, values can then
become a major component in such conflicts. Values are often seen as a part of one’s identity; and thus, challenge to
values is often seen as a threat to identity, resulting in defensive reactions by individuals and groups since they assume
that resolution of the conflict will require a change in values.