As far as state-minority relations are concerned, there is no perfect option. If there were a perfect solution, the world would be much less conflict-ridden. However, though we may not know exactly which options are “right,” we do know that there are obvious wrong options: segregation, oppression, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Unfortunately, despite claims of enlightenment, civilization and new world orders, many governments still consider brutal strategies among their choices. They fail to recognize, or choose to ignore, the fact that these are not solutions, but the very core of the problem.Turkish military authorities have openly admitted that military aggression in southeast Turkey is largely ineffective, costly, destructive and time consuming. The government has seized the opportunity to initiate the latest democratic process before the clashes can spiral into the destruction of the country and nation. If the parties to the ongoing clashes commit themselves sincerely to overcoming biases, to settling their differences in ways which are mutually satisfactory and socio-politically integrative, previously unconsidered options can be visible and feasible. However, if the situation is not handled properly, attempts at resolution could actually worsen the conflict.
The government is seeking to use the influence and leverage of outsiders to the conflict, and its interactions so far have proved helpful and integrative. The government seems to be listening to people from all walks of life in an unbiased and non-aggressive way. This helps the government and its constituencies understand what makes the parties to the conflict hostile toward each other. However, the hawkish discourse from the opposition parties, the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), has shown them to be intractable, biased and limiting.
These attitudes are important because in conflict resolution, how effectively we listen is at least as important as how effectively we express ourselves. It is vital to understand other people's and groups' perspectives, not just our own, if we are to come to a mutual resolution. Good listening also helps to bridge the gap between the conflicting parties and understand where the societal disconnect lies. This can channel negative emotions and energies toward the causes of conflict rather than toward individuals and groups. The alternative, the elimination of “the other” through violence, may temporarily lessen the intensity of a conflict, but does not end it permanently. On the other hand, it is simplistic to believe that enhanced communication alone will be sufficient to resolve a conflict. Studies suggest that more accurate communication sometimes actually widens, rather than narrows, differences between protagonists.
Conflicts vary. They can involve struggles for inclusion, recognition, development, allocation and control of resources. When all of these are pertinent, it may seem extremely difficult for parties to the conflict to find a solution to satisfy all the needs of all sides. The role of regional and global interest groups and lobbies that benefit from the continuation or intensification of the conflict makes things even more complicated.
In any major conflict, there are always some leaders or factions on both sides that turn to hawkish, fanatical and violent means and ends against the wishes of the majority. To deal with those who do not wish to compromise, both sides need to cooperate to the advantage of the majority without encouraging any further negative feelings or a new front in the conflict. It can be almost impossible to resolve some conflicts, if particular groups on each side are not willing to work toward resolution. Nevertheless, we should leave the door open for individuals who decide to leave the uncompromising group to change their behavior; they should be provided with emotional and legal safety on their return, any consequences should occur in a non-punitive environment and those who are uncompromising should be held accountable for their own behavior. Where little agreement can be achieved, the important thing is to come to a place of understanding and try to work things out in a way that is respectful and beneficial to all involved.
Interests, meanings and values overlap at every level in all types of human relationships, including in societal and ethnic conflicts. Peaceful and mutually satisfactory ways to manage or end conflicts are therefore complex. Psychological, historical, economic, political, ideological and global factors all contribute to the resolution of conflicts or their escalation. Studies indicate that conflicts occurring at the individual, organizational, national and international levels have common features. So lessons learned from resolving conflicts at one level will be applicable to others, although conflicts may take many different forms and require different resolution strategies and outcomes cannot be generalized.
The interior minister's meetings with the luminaries of the arts, business and media are praiseworthy but not adequate in themselves. He would be well advised to form and meet with a team of conflict analysts now as well.
