“THE MORAL IMAGINATION” AND CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

1. “THE MORAL IMAGINATION” AND CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION IN SOUTH AFRICA Andries Odendaal 2008.

2. ‘Conflict Resolution’ vs ‘Conflict Transformation’ Conflict Resolution: • John Burton: “Conflict Resolution means terminating conflict by methods that are analytical and that get to the root of the problem”. • Harvard Business School: Win-win solutions are possible. Conflicts can be solved in manners that leave all parties satisfied.

3. Conflict Transformation Einstein: “Probleme lasse sie nicht mit dem Denkweisen lösen, die zu ihnen geführt haben”. A fundamental transformation of thinking (plus attitude and behaviour) is necessary.

4. John Paul Lederach: • No ‘easy’ quick-fixes to deep-rooted conflict, no morally simplistic win-win outcomes and no purely technical solutions. • Conflict Transformation is a long-term strategy that has to take place at all levels of society (not elite-pacts). • The possibility to transcend violence “is forged by the capacity to generate, mobilize, and build the moral imagination.”

5. The Moral Imagination: • “Requires the capacity to imagine a relationship with the other that transcends the cycles of violence while the other and the patterns of violence are still present”. • “Refuses to frame life’s challenges, problems and issues as dualistic polarities. Its fundamental approach holds multiple and even competing and contradictory needs and perspectives together at the same time”. • The greatest mystery of peace is that it is “located in the nature and quality of relationships developed with those most feared”

6. Summary Violent conflict is transformed through the deeply moral effort to step out of the ‘us-them’ mode of thinking and embrace a future, with all its complexity and risk, which is inclusive and interdependent.

7. Transformation of Protracted Social Conflict. CONTEXT ACTORS CONFLICT NEEDS CAPACITY Pattern of international economic / political linkages Acceptance needs Recognition of identity & culture State actors supportive met accommodate Contextual background: History Economic Political Cultural Social suppress exploitative unmet Access needs e.g. political & economic participation Governance & the state Nature of conflict legitimacy capacity constructive met destructive Communal groups illegitimacy incapacity unmet engage Security needs Subsistence needs, freedom, physical security violent rebellion Role of military Civic politics Militarised politics met unmet Hugh Miall 2004. Conflict Transformation: a Multi-dimensional Task. The Berghof Handbook, 68-89. (Slightly adapted)

8. Potential for ‘dualistic polarities’ in SA: • Pressure on state institutions to ‘deliver’, vs. need for human dignity and access. • Need for productivity vs. ensuring access, dignity and security on a broad base (symbiotic vs. parasitic co-existence). • Need for physical safety vs. human dignity and human rights; and socio-economic inclusion.

9. Challenge for our Moral Imagination • Have we been sufficiently transformed in our thinking, attitude and behaviour to allow a vision of the future that is truly inclusive and interdependent? • Do we have the moral energy to avoid the ‘us-them’ trap and to hold the competing and contradictory needs together?