Violence Prevention Articles & Essays

This article argues that the practice of preventing violent conflicts is not new and that there are some widely-accepted tenets that taken together constitute a basic approach to effective prevention. What is lacking are operational models which effectively incorporate most elements of this approach.

This article presents and critically analyzes a model for preventing violent conflict which takes a whole-of-problem approach and a corresponding pilot project based on the model which has been operating in Guinea- Bissau since 2004. The model is found to be well designed as it incorporates the basic approach for effective prevention and a number of principles for good international engagement in fragile states. The model is also found to be a useful framework for undertaking dynamic conflict prevention, which can be understood as the ongoing proactive identification and targeting of those factors which will likely cause violent conflict no matter in which sector or level they occur. Moreover, the flexible structure of this model situates it well for wide application in other states and regions where violence is to be prevented. Weaknesses identified with the model include limitations to the range of preventive actions which it can utilize, limitations in generating political will, and dependency upon highly-experienced and knowledgeable project staff in order for it to be successfully applied in other contexts.

 

http://www.ciian.org/assets/forms/wholeofproblemmodel.pdf

The problem of fragile, failing and failed states is a critical issue on today’s international scene, and the question of preventing violence is especially acute for many countries. New ways need to be found to tackle this violence, if such countries are to have true hopes of stability and then also of coherence and well-being. 

 

This was the primary concern of the multi-year, practical, learning effort entitled the International Peace and Prosperity Project (IPPP) in Guinea-Bissau.

 

The IPPP features the mobilization of local leaders and the provision of professional assistance and modest financial support to carry out early, holistic, horizontally and vertically integrated violence prevention actions.

 

More specifically, the IPPP in Guinea-Bissau aims to prevent political violence by:

 

·      working towards peace and prosperity using rigorous ongoing conflict and violence analyses;

 

·      playing a value-added, catalytic role in assisting Guinea-Bissau citizens, the government, and international actors to implement concrete, synergistic actions through dialogue and focused projects;

 

·      providing a small grants program to stimulate security and development initiatives;

 

·      undertaking global advocacy to mobilize international resources for violence prevention and peacebuilding in Guinea-Bissau.

 

 

The IPPP continues to operate under the direction of the Canadian International Institute of Applied Negotiation, with funding and support provided through the Alliance for Peacebuilding, Washington, D.C.

 

This report details the experience of the International and Prosperity Project in Guinea-Bissau and forms the basis of a new draft model for violence prevention in fragile and failed states.

PREVENTING POLITICAL VIOLENCE:  Towards a Model  for  Catalytic  Action (PDF)

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

New Unit Created to Prevent and End Violence

For Immediate Release

 

August 10, 2006 – Ottawa, Ontario – Recognizing the need for a fast-acting mechanism that can respond in cases of potential or actual violence, a new Early Response (ER) Unit has been formed by the Canadian International Institute of Applied Negotiation, in Ottawa.  The new ER Unit provides critical services both domestically within Canada and internationally in unstable situations and fragile states.

 

CIIAN’s President and the Director of the ER Unit, Dr. Ben Hoffman, states “I believe the new ER Unit is greatly needed in our world of increasingly volatile environments. Ethnic and religious strife, land occupations, labor strikes, dysfunctional workplaces, and troubled schools can become violent unless timely action is taken. We have the expertise to recognize early warning signs that these environments may become violent and the experience to deliver an appropriate response aimed at prevention and stabilization.”

 

A Multi-Disciplinary Team of Worldwide Experts

“Our ER Unit is staffed with a team of consultants who work in the most protracted conflicts and hostile environments. They are professionals in conflict resolution, law enforcement, the armed forces, international mediation, and peacebuilding”, states Hoffman.

 

Saves Money and Other Resources

“It is now recognized that prevention is less costly than ending violence. Waging and ending a war costs more than peacekeeping, and peacekeeping costs more than prevention. The same applies at home. Unresolved conflict and violence in the workplace costs millions of dollars.  In addition to the financial costs there are human and social costs, lost opportunities and debilitating long-term wounds.”

 
How it Works

Hoffman explains how it works. “The ER Unit follows a model for intervention which includes an early and holistic assessment of the situation, immediate crisis management to stabilize an environment, and then assisting with the transition to full recovery and renewal.”

 
A Delicate Matter: Concerns and Cautions

Hoffman recognizes that there often concerns and cautions involved with matters of violence prevention and that anybody involved in an intervention must be aware of them and act accordingly.

He elaborates, “confronting conflict and recognizing that the potential for violence exists isn’t an easy thing to do. While we know that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, it takes a lot of courage for managers and leaders to admit that there might be a problem and then to solicit outside help. Our ER Unit places special emphasis on conducting assessments and interventions in a respectful and situationally-appropriate manner.”

 

For more information, contact:

Ben Hoffman, PhD

President

Canadian International Institute of Applied Negotiation

613.237.9050

ciian@ciian.org

www.ciian.org

Suite1105-1 Nicholas Street

Ottawa, Ontario

 

This article is being collaboratively written and developed via an online moderated dialogue.

Evan

************************************************************************

 

 

Question: What is the root cause of domestic/international violence and is there a common root cause between domestic and international violence?

 

Evan,

I'm really looking forward to this online dialogue with Frema Engel. Recently I read her book, Taming the Beast, and I was struck how the 4 "Rs" she identifies in the context of workplace violence are so applicable to the international politcal violence prevention work I'm involved in these days. Recognition, Roots, Response, and Recurrence.

The question of root causes is obviolsy central to any effort to prevent violence or to reduce it if it is ongoing. But 15, even 10 years ago I would not have agreed (easily, or quickly) that working in domestic violence ( cases of absue in the home, usually perpetrated by men on women and children) was really comparable to working in international conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Now, I'm a little more inclined to say there is a strong comon denominator: violence as the abusive use of power.

Before I got around to distilling my experiences in cases of wife abuse and the many conflicts and wars I've worked in for the past 30 years, I would have argued more of an "IR" explanatory model for inter-state violence and a socio-cultural one for inter-ethnic, intra-state violence. That is, I would think that the inherent anarchical nature of the international state system would be a central explanatory concept for inter-state war (and even in the case of insurgencies, one might argue the rebels are using violence because when push comes to shove where States are concerned, shove it is).

And of course, there ar so many helpful models to look at causes of international and intercommunal conflict (proximate causes, triggers, structural causes). And we could add to these analytical concepts and models, demonstrating the complexity of international warfare and insurgencies within states. That discussion would seem to take us a long way off from domestic violence.

What concerns me is the focus on conflict itself, including even the aspiration to "resolve" it. I have come to think that the conflation of the two words, "violent" and "conflict" cause many of us to misplace the focus of our analysis and the ways of addressing conflict, wars. When the words are conflated, "violent" is an adjective describing a noun, "conflict". I find more every day that I work in "violent conflict situations" it is really the Violence itself that needs attention, as a noun in its own right. So the causes of conflict become violence (perceived or real) and these are either direct, overt, operational manifestations of violence OR structural. Hitting, kicking, removing, or shooting someone is obvious violence. So I keep thinking, how can we prevent hitting, killing? And is that done by helping people express conflict nonviolently? Yes, but if the hitting and killing are indeed cuased by deeper rooted strucutral violence and my analysis goes there, when I look at structural "causes" of conflict they turn out to be violence themselves. They are not just curious cuasal phenomenon. They are again perceived or real violence that is being done to a person, group or society. Of course, it seems more than reasonable they would give rise to conflict: to the "perception of incompatible interests", to use a comon definition in the conflict resolution field. But they may also give rise to various forms of direct viloence (riots, assassinations, insurgenices, terrorist acts, cvil wars). And the cycle of violence is apparent.

How does that aply to domestic violence? I don't know and I'm not even sure my thinking about the need to focus more on violence as the abusive use of power is correct.

I'm glad this is a informal dialogue and as I said, I look forward to Frema's first round of responses.

Ben

************************************************************************

Ben,

You really got this dialogue off to a great start. I'm somewhat reluctant to comment about international conflict and violence because as you know this is not where my experience has been. In recent years I've been concentrating my attention on workplace conflict and violence that is for the most part contained in work organizations, but has, in some cases, extended to the community in which these organizations are located. Nevertheless as an observer in world events, I think that we can draw a few analogies to the international scene.

Let me comment about the link between conflict and violence because I’ve been preoccupied with trying to understand this. I'm going to stick to my experience with workplace problems, although I am also comfortable commenting on family life as appropriate.  

First the obvious: chronic or unresolved conflicts lead to an exacerbation of tension, frustration, anger and entrenched positions.  When people reach the boiling point I see three things happening most often.  One, they turn their emotions inward and get depressed, burned out, or become physically ill.  Two, they become apathetic and "turn off", ignoring what goes on around them, and adopting the position that "it is none of my business". They become the silent bystander to abusers and their targets and ignore what they see happening around them. Third, they act out their feelings.  One can see it in their behavior - how angry, resentful, hurt and offensive they are to those around them; that is, they become violent.  The violence of course is often expressed verbally, or they become a bully in every sense of the word.  At times they take let out their feelings through physical behavior.  

These scenarios get played out all the time in the workplace.  One question I always ask unhappy employees is why they don’t leave if they dislike the situation and the people they work with so much.  Is it worth getting sick over, or letting the situation consume them?  The answer almost always boils down to people’s feelings/beliefs of some sort of acquired rights to be there, or else they don’t feel things will be better for them anywhere else.  These beliefs are not based at all on any hard evidence at all.  Nonetheless, it is very hard to move people out of this thinking into realizing there is a whole world waiting for them, and if they were to make a move they would probably have something better and they would certainly be happier working in another environment.   However, most people just do not like or want to change, and so they stay and tolerate the intolerable, becoming resigned to their destiny.

So we have unhappy people, believing they are right and the other person is wrong, not wanting to take the first step to settle their differences.  What seemed to be once, well functioning units becomes hostile and toxic. The environment becomes full of animosity and contempt and people can’t work together anymore.

What I have been increasingly struck with, is how entrenched people’s positions have become and how easy it is for workplaces to become hotbeds for conflict, violence and meanness.  I also see – from my experience intervening in these environments – that it is not so difficult to repair the problems when conditions are right.  In the workplace, it takes a senior person who is tired enough, who wants things to change and is ready to invest the time, money and resources to make it happen.  It also takes the right intervention (Here my Four R’s for Violence Prevention comes in handy, for you need to understand the Root causes) the right intervention (Response) and a strategic approach to resolving the issues and getting results (Prevent a repetition). 

Most of the time, I see how important it is to “set the stage” (strategic plan), and to “force” people to get involved, and be willing to participate in training, mediation or alternate dispute resolution processes.  How amazing it is to see how quickly resistance can be broken down and partnerships in peace-building formed when the process is planned, “staged” and the boss (“higher authority”) is involved. The critical steps with the approach is to coach the boss and have him/her involved in the process, be able to redefine the problem in terms of a performance issue, and make a demand for resolution.   

Having said all of this, I don’t understand really why violence is such a predominate behavior for so many discontent, angry, frustrated people.  I often wonder if humankind is hardwired for violence. Or, are we sorely in need of leaders of workplaces and governments like Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi, people with exceptional high morals, strong resolve in their beliefs, charismatic, and who are excellent role models and can lead the way.  It doesn’t work (in the workplace at least) when there are double standards, when people aren’t taken seriously, when leaders are weak or lack resolve for things to be different. It does work when leaders are involved, resolve problems, treat people respectfully (this doesn’t mean they always get their way) and able to build a sense of community at work.  

Where am I going with this? If we are to expand this thinking into the community and countries, would not the same apply?  Do we have double standards, do we tolerate or ignore so-called innocuous behaviors early on, do we set up conditions whereby people don’t feel they have any options other than to negotiate and talk out their differences?  Lastly (for today at least) do we have strong leaders with exceptionally high moral standards, who are charismatic, excellent role models, and who can lead the way?

Ben, I’m looking forward to your response and continuing this dialogue.

Frema

 

Frema Engel

Engel & Associates, Montreal

Organizational Architect:  Inspiring employees through community-building at work

 ************************************************************************

Hi Ben and Frema:
Thank you both for your thoughts about possible root causes that might be common between violence at the international and domestic levels.
Your replies raise some fascinating parallels between the possible root causes in the two contexts and it also provides a good transition to my next question about interventions.
As Ben notes, while looking at the International level there are certainly a lot of factors and causes of violence that are not relevant at the domestic level such as the inherent nature of the state system to cause inter-state wars but there are some similarities when we turn our focus to  violence.
It’s interesting to note that Frema’s Four R system can be applied to both domestic violence and international violence and, as it turns out, we’ve just explored the second R: Roots.
But, if we now turn our attention the third R (the Responses) we can see that Frema has already mentioned some important factors in her interventions that help workplaces become less violent. Two interesting things that she mentioned are the role of leaders and the strategic plan that guides the intervention.
So, I would invite Ben to now respond to Frema’s reply and to another question about interventions:
1-What role does the strategy of the intervention play at the international level? More precisely, could you comment on the notions of “forcing” people to the peace table and the role of higher authority in the intervention.

 

 

**********************************************************************************

Question: Are there interventions that are common between the the two levels ?

 

Question: What is the biggest obstacle to living violence free at the international/domestic level?

Question: Do you see lessons learned from efforts to reduce domestic violence applicable to international violence (i.e., intra-state civil war, the “war on terror”)?