Scarcity and surfeit : the ecology of Africa's conflicts

20 Scarcity and Suqeit

That analysis of these wars should begin at unit level by looking at conflict
groups themselves is clear.l18 Because for the majority of groups involved in
the increasing number of 'new wars' or 'wars of the third kind', identity is
presented as the basis for struggles for self-determination, this suggests that,
following Edward Azar, "the most useful unit of analysis in PSC [protracted
social conflict] situations is the identity group - racial, religious, ethnic, cul-
tural and others".l19 In fact, in sharp contrast to Collier et al's 'greed' theory
of conflict discussed above, Azar hypothesises that,

"... the source of protracted social conflict is the denial of those ele-

ments required in the development of all peoples and societies, and

whose pursuit is a compelling need in all. These are security, distinc-

tive identity, social recognition of identity, and effective participation in

the processes that determine conditions of security and identity, and

other such developmental requirements. The real source of conflict is

the denial of those human needs that are common to all and whose pur-

suit is an ontological drive in

Following John Burton's approach to the centrality of 'basic human needs' in
conflict theory,'" Azar considers basic needs such as security, communal recog-
nition and distributive justice as primordial and therefore non-negotiable,
emphasising the fact that these needs are expressed around religious, cultural
or ethnic communal identity. He clearly recognises that the problem resides in
framing contemporary conflicts in terms of material interests, such as commer-
cial advantages or resource acquisition, while empirical evidence suggests that
"they are not just that". It is crucial to understand the way in which groups or
quasi-groups organise themselves as they become aware that they are in oppo-
sition to another group or groups. This self-awareness as collectivity-in-opposi-
tion relies on contact between individual members of groups. In this sense, a
group is not defined by common interest alone. It must rest on communication
and interaction. In order to understand the processes by which groups form
some sort of collective entity and become conscious of that through sharing a
measure of grievance and di~satisfaction,'~~ a behavioural or interactional
approach to conflict dynamics is needed. As Mitchell points out,

" ... conflicts are not static phenomena, and hence the dynamic aspects

of conflict which alter both structure and interplay relationships over

time, are essential aspects of any satisfactory analysis."'23

In this respect, the now classic work by Louis Kriesherg titled Social
conflict^,'^^ introduces a behavioural perspective by looking at "social con-
flicts as social relationships":

" ... at every stage of conflict the parties interact socially; each party

affects the way the others act, not only as each responds to the others