Opinion

Fragmentation in conflict and its impact on peace

By Chairman Manyang Von Chief Parek
prince.manyangparek@hotmail.com
Phone: +211 915334323 +211924689069
www.sudanilechristiandp.org

It is evident that leaders who are in love with power and wealth without political principles, vision, objectives and ideology do go to war easily without caring for citizen’s life. It is sign that they have no political program in their mindset due to political opportunism.
These types of leaders do forget that it is not easy to restore back peace when the country is thrown into war which destroys development. Worthily the economy does collapse badly without provision of social welfare benefits such as education, health care, employment, shelter and clean drinking water.
But to get out of this war there is a need to address the root cause of political conflicts that resulted into crisis and violence leading to bloody civil war.
Generally speaking the only way we can leave together after that in peace and harmony as brothers and sisters in Christ is for us to establish Federal Republic of Sudanile through conducting democratic election in our society.
In the end this nation can then be governed by executive Prime minister according to political party that has worn majority in elections with ceremonial President that oversee the political affairs of the nation.
But we should remember that the three organs of the system of government must be kept separate:–legislative, judiciary and executive in order to function more effectively in the end.
Although it is wrong to extremely decentralize this system of governance up to a point of affecting the central system of arena governance as that becomes pure dictatorship in the end.

In a sense thus fragmentation in conflict and its impact on peace in the country does at time become catastrophic to human life existent. It takes place because some leaders who are uncultured and warlords do practice tribalism and ethnicity against citizens that result to political crisis and violence.
They created such conflicts in order to selfishly gain power and wealth through corruption, although nobody does tolerate such act of thief. They adopted culture of killing citizens to appear great, strong and heroes in the face of the public. In spite that makes one name to be even heard like wild fire across Equatorial forest.
Above all they fail to govern the system of governance more effectively due to lack of knowledge and experience in how to manage the institution of government.
Instead they know how to manipulated citizens without understanding fragmentation in conflict and its impact on prospects for peace within the country, although in the past we know that traditional leadership of chief doms has always been caring for citizen’s life as they do not practice manipulation and corruption against them.

Therefore it is important for our liberators to first attend an institution of counseling before they think of governing the nation. Whether they like it or not the war has affected their physiology to an extent of disregarding law which is of course wrong and unacceptable.
Thus justice should be paramount by anybody without that it is better to go for rehabilitation or counseling in order be able to fit back again into the society.
It is time to change the attitude and mindset for the better.
Because complicated conflicts taking place with many disparate actors have become increasingly common in international system.
It happens in our case as extreme fragmentations within SPLM opposition due to civil war has embodies new norms that can disrupt implementation of revitalize peace agreement as was signed by warring parties in Khartoum.
Thus fragmentation affects a number of conflict dynamics, including the turn to violence, internecine conflict dynamics among parties, targeting of civilians, collaboration with the state and the extent to which opposition movements are accommodated into government at the end.

In centre specifically on the fragmentation of opposition movements those actors that challenge the recognized state in civil wars are definitely case in point.

Under this ground, I examine the known consequences of fragmentation of actors and conflicts, including violence, accommodation and opposition movements are more likely when the opposition is badly divided into so many small factions. Increasing fragmentation after a conflict exacerbates this problem, leading to further violence.
Fragmentation is also associated with the increased targeting of civilian and fighting between organizations. Lee Seymour finds that side switching has primarily been caused by opportunistic factors. Such as achieving appointment top government position as the way of making wealth in the end.
These reasons rebel actors do always seek military support to fight in local political rivalries as way of maintaining patronage systems. Sabine Otto finds that organizations that originated from the splintering of other organizations are most prone to switching to the state such as in South Sudan.
Thus recently acknowledged consequence of fragmentations is the possibility for side switching by opposition actors in our country.
Side switching refers to an opposition actor joining the government side and fighting other opposition organizations for political advantage. Thus side switching can occur when the state puts sufficient pressure on organizations that they fear for their own survival and this can turn on their brethren or so call comrades.

Nevertheless, for century’s philosophers politicians and social scientists have explored at great depth and even commented on the nature of power within the society.

In this, the measure of a man is what he does with power which makes political scientists to focus on how power is distributed especially in democratically different types of political systems.

Lord Acton famously asserted a power tends to corrupt meaning that absolute power corrupts absolutely. In a sense the concept of power can have decidedly negative connotation as the term itself is difficult to define at times.

In this aspect, there are two clear definitions of power, where power relationships do refer to a kind of strategic relationship between rulers and the ruled.

A set of practices by which states seek to govern the life of their citizens, managers seek to control the labor of their workers, parents seek to guide and raise their children and individuals seek to keep their own lives in order.

All never involve political because the relationship between power and resistance in them can be very fluid for that matter. Although in this there is a give and take between the attempts of the rulers to direct the ruled behavior and the attempts of the ruled to resist those directions.

 

In this view, Michael Foucault said that government is the ‘’conduct of conduct,’’ the way some seeks to act upon the conduct of others to change or channel that in a certain direction.

Thus government implies that there are relations of power between rulers and ruled, but the context of role is not limited to the state. Government in a sense is in operation whether the power relationship is between states and citizens, institutions and employees, masters or even oneself and oneself in the society.

Therefore, the role of the state and its influence on society and vice versa is just one aspect of governmental relationship. On the other side of governmental power and authority are the various forms of resistance to being ruled.

Foucault argues that without this latitude for resistance or independent action on the part of the one over whom power is exercised, there is no relationship of power or government.

In the end there is only a relationship of violence or force. If so, why do people obey especially in situations when it is not in their objective interests to do so?

Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it where their salvation? What do we mean by power?  Well, no power relationships unless they become fixed or authoritarian.

In our conventional understanding of power is that one person or one groups, of people has power over another. In this case, think critically about somebody, or institution that has power over people it then means relation of domination.

Max Weber defined power as ‘’ the chance of man or of a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action.’’

It is the varying degrees of ability one has to exercise one’s will over others. When these chances become structured as forms of domination, the give and take between power and resistance is fixed into more or less permanent hierarchical arrangements.

They become institutionalized as such power affects more than personal relationship; it shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional organization, and government.

That means a government’s power is not necessary limited to control of its own citizens.

Endeavors to gain power and influence do not necessarily lead to domination, violence, exploitation or abuse leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi; for example, commanded powerful movements that brought or affected positive change without military force.

These men organized nonviolent protests to combat corruption and injustice which succeeded in inspiring major reform. They relied on a variety of such as marches on streets, petitions, and boycotts. In this way power is a capacity or ability that each of us has to create and act in positive manner.

 

Clearly power and politics should be understood as collective capacities which we have to create and build new forms of community of common. Power as we think and speak of is an ability to do or create something potential within the society.

It does establish the things that we can do and the things we cannot do. Philosopher Aristotle view of politics is the idea of freedom people grant themselves to rule themselves in peace.

In principles not that of domination as it is give and take that we experience in everyday life as we come together to construct a better community and good life as Aristotle put it.

The individuals give themselves the responsibility to create the conditions in which the good life can be achieved in the end. Thus the city—state was for Aristotle the ideal form for political life. In a sense politic is the sphere of activity involved in running the state.

It is the way of giving form to politics at take control out of the hands of people. Without that people would live in continual fear, and danger of violent death.

And the life of man would be equally as poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Simply people submit to rule as authority is when power or domination is perceived to be legitimate or justified rather than coercive.

While authority refers to accepted power—that is, power that people agree to follow. People listen to authority figures because they feel that these individuals are worthy of respect. Meaning that people perceive the objectives and demands of an authority figure are definitely reasonable and beneficial, or rule.

error: Content is protected !!