Process

The second component of PSC is that of process dynamics, variables which, given the preconditions mentioned previously, are responsible for the activation of overt conflict. Azar recognises three key determining factors:

Communal Actions and Strategies This refers to the potential of various ‘triggers’ which activate otherwise latent conflict, which then escalate into broader and possibly more violent conflict. Azar summarises this process as follows:

‘Initially, a trigger may, but not need be, a trivial event (e.g., an insult to an individual with strong communal ties). But the trivial event tends to become a turning point at which the individual victimization is collectively recognised. Collective recognition of individual grievances (or incompatible goals) naturally leads to collective protest. Collective protest is usually met by some degree of repression or suppression. As tension increases, the victimised communal groups begin to draw the attention of their constituents not only to the event itself, but also to a broad range of issues involving communal security, access and security needs (e.g. selective poverty and political inequality). The spill over of the event into multiple issues increases the momentum for organising and mobilizing resources. As the level of communal organisation and mobilization becomes greater, communal groups attempt to formulate more diverse strategies and tactics, which may involve civil disobedience, guerrilla warfare or secessionist movements.’¹⁰ The extent to which this escalates is in-part influenced by the ability of communal groups to effectively organise and develop strong leadership as well their tendency to gather support outside of national boundaries which may in turn result in the conflict taking on a regional nature.

State Actions and Strategies - Azar notes that in the majority of cases, the response by states to communal grievances, particularly those which have weak governance structures is usually one of coercive repression or instrumental co-option to avoid outward signs of weakness or defeat.

‘In many cases, a militant or harsh response constitutes the core of state strategy in coping with communal dissent. Such a hardline strategy invites equally militant responses from repressed groups. Co-option could serve to mitigate communal grievances, but it is usually perceived as being a tactical manoeuvre to fragment the opposition and divert its attention. Failure of the co-option strategy further justifies coercive repressive options, leading to an upward spiral of violent clashes.’¹¹

Built in Mechanisms of Conflict - The last of Azar’s process variables relates to the effects of long-term conflicts on perceptions of the other and how this, in-turn, can impact on the behaviour of belligerent groups.

‘The perceptions and motivations behind the behaviour of the state and communal actors are conditioned by experiences, fears an belief system of each communal group. In a situation of limited or proscribed interactions, the worst motivations tend to be attributed to the other side. There is little possibility of falsification, and the consequence is reciprocal negative images which perpetuate communal; antagonism and solidify protracted social conflict.¹²