Essay on Political Conflict Settlement

Political conflict is a difference regarding values which are considered relevant to a given societys conflict items and directly involves two warring parties. Political conflicts affect and threaten the functions of the state. The component of a political conflict includes at least two warring parties, reciprocal correlated action or communication that makes the actors incompatible and the main item that the actors are warring over. Political conflicts are considered social conflicts which have relevance to the whole society and have no accepted mechanism which can be engaged to settle them.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Political conflict is a serious issue that needs urgency and critical thinking by the affected parties to come up with an efficient mechanism on how to solve the issue since a bad choice made during solution formulation of the conflict may have severe effects to everyone affected. Government officials are mostly the one mandated choose the best method to solve a conflict. There are two known options to solving political conflicts which are either through rational argumentation or resolving to violence. Either of the conflict settlement methods has its advantages and shortcomings.

Renowned thinker and philosophers have argued differently on how people can reach an agreement and resolve their political differences. Hobbes argues that when people mutually promise each other to obey a universal authority, they establish sovereignty by the institution. When governments perform their obligations well, they prevent conflicts from arising from the public. He adds that conflicts may occur when people decide for themselves whether the government should be obeyed or not, and to avoid the problems that may result from failure to obey the authority, people should treat the sovereignty as having total power.

Hobbes adds that political obligations should have a limit and that people should retain their right to defense when oppressed by the political authority (Finn 143). He argues that there should have a mutual understanding between the government and its citizens unless in the case where their honor and their families are at stake. His argument is, however, contradicting since he says that citizens should totally obey the authority and no one should decide when to obey the authority, and on the other hand stresses that people should resist the authority when they feel that their life is at stake from the effects of the government authority. His point is that when there is a shock which is exerted by the political system, the society becomes disoriented, and this allows violence to take place.

Rational choice theory approach should be considered by the decision makers who are the political leaders to consider and outweigh the benefits of participating in political conflicts as compared to the cost. If the cost and the impacts of participating in political violence are the most, then the government should resolve to the reasonable argument option, call the other actor involved in the conflict and come up with better resolution to the problem rather than continuing with violence.

For there to exist peace between the political body and her citizens, there must be rules and laws that link them both. Aristotle does not give a set of rules which must be followed for the existence of ethical and political decisions. He teaches his students to be the kind of people to make the right decision knowing and understanding why they choose such a decision. Some individuals may think that a decision they made is the right one ethically and that may contradict with the government set rule and existing laws. This will automatically cause political conflict between the individual and the government since both actors believe that they are right.

Aristotle is aware that rich people are less while the poor are the majority, and this is one of the main causes of political instability, and it leads to civil wars, which in turn result in violence. According to him, he stands for the rational argument and goes ahead to say that the rich people should rule as they have a lot to offer politically. The poor people will only enforce inadequate rules to the society as they will be reasoning from the poverty perspective. Even if the law claims that the rich and the poor are equal, this is not true from a rational argument perspective.

When it comes to gender, Aristotle says that women should not be allowed to be political leaders or participate in political matters because they have poor reasoning capacity; they make decisions out of their emotions and not through thorough and critical thinking like men(Swanson 47). Women should do domestic works at home and leave leadership to the men. He adds that women should not even be allowed to vote. However, Aristotle argues that instead of hostility and violence, whichever group that has power should behave in a just way towards their subject. For continued political stability, both parties, the political leader, and their subjects should be educated on how to coexist peacefully (Kraut 223).

Machiavelli addresses the issues of social classes, conflict, and inequality in the society. He argues that a republic is government of the people, meaning that citizens play a significant role in stabilizing political life which is enhanced by spirited consent of the citizens to participate rather than being forced to do anything by the government. He adds that a republic can advance as compared to a principality due to the diversity of its citizens. It reduces the likelihood of political conflicts as everyone has their rights well stated and provided; Republicans are more adaptable, stronger and stable.

According to his thinking, both nobility and the people are included, and conflicts are not discouraged but rather seen as elements that contribute to the flourishing of the society. On my part, I agree with Machiavelli that this is a good form of handling political conflicts, unlike modern society where the governments discourage any forms of conflict claiming that it threatens the well-being of the community and security. Peaceful demonstrations are sometimes discouraged by the governments since they panic when people get to know their rights.

From what we get from the great thinker's perception of political conflict, many contradicting factors results in the violent way of settling political conflicts. Gender, wealth, and the nationality discrimination cannot allow there to exist a peaceful way of conflict resolution. Thinking in the line of rational argument, not many people will agree with what the great thinkers like Aristotle believe in. Most of the people in modern society believe that all people regardless of their wealth or gender have equal rights to spearhead a nation and this has often resulted in conflicts and hostility since some people feel superior to others and hence result in conflicts and wars to have their way.

In the modern society, very few people have immersed excess wealth through corrupt ways, and that means poor leadership if we consider the rational argument that the rich people should be the political leaders. They have looted the public resources to fill their stomachs and do dirty deals which end up oppressing the poor who have no voice. All gender should be allowed to participate in democratic activities since we are all equal before the eyes of the law. Men should code women the respect they deserve whereas the women on their side should defend their rights, air their voices and compete with men when it comes to politics so that they can receive the respect they deserve.

Violent means of resolving political conflicts has had many side effects like loss of life, property, dignity as well as causing mental illness due to the intensity of the hostile situation. For the process of political conflicts resolving to be effective, people should be educated first so as to tackle the problem of interpersonal violence even if the process may seem time consuming and complex. Violence is always considered the tool weapon of the weak people especially the poor, but with the proper education to control and reduce violent behaviors, there will be interest for controlled non-confrontational approach to solving political violence. The rational argument as a way of resolving political conflicts as put forward by Aristotle is most likely not work in the modern society.

Many countries across the world have been working tirelessly to ensure peace and stability within their areas of jurisdiction as well as across the boundaries (Juergen Dedrin, 2016). Leaders have seen that the rational argument when it comes to resolving political conflicts is a factor that triggers violence among its citizens. Educating people on their rights and initiating negotiations has been their main agenda to achieving political stability across the world. Peace researches are being carried continuously with steady commitment. People have the chance to live harmoniously with each other they do not need to agree on everything. This is because people should have the existence of common knowledge and awareness among its community members over a given issues so that so that peace can reign amongst them.

Reference

Finn, Stephen J. Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Natural Philosophy. London: Continuum, 2006. Print

Swanson, Judith A, and C D. Corbin. Aristotle's Politics: A Reader's Guide. London: Continuum, 2009. Print.

Kraut, Richard. Aristotle's Politics: Critical Essays. Lanham, Md. [u.a.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Print.