Why We Should Learn From Museveni’s Conflict Resolution and Management Style

The conflict theory, suggested by Karl Marx, claims society is in a state of perpetual conflict because of competition for limited resources. It holds that social order is maintained by domination and power, rather than consensus and conformity. It sees social life as a competition and focuses on the distribution of resources, power, and inequality.

Uganda as a country has had its share of conflicts right from independence in 1962, which culminated in the 1966 Mengo crisis, the 1971 military coup, 1979 Tanzania invasion of Uganda with the help of dissidents, then the 1981 rebellion and subsequent post-1986 conflicts within the country.  However the common denominator in all these episodes has been mismanagement of the conflict by those in charge, thus we have as a country paid a high price as a result of this ineffectiveness.

Nonetheless, since 1986, we have witnessed a number of interventions by the leadership in Uganda to diffuse tensions and prevent conflicts from escalating to undesired levels, something that is attributed to the proper mix of conflict resolution techniques employed by the leadership of President Museveni while dealing with various contradictions and conflicts. He has also been involved in a number of conflict resolution and mediation activities in the region and has earned himself a reputation as a wise, resilient, cool-headed mediator and a superb strategist in the region and beyond.

His method of conflict resolution coupled with a pan African ideology has diffused a number of would-be national and regional conflicts.

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed conflict resolution and management techniques that explain how different individuals deal with conflicts at hand.

A conflict is a struggle between people which may be physical, or between conflicting ideas. It is a clash of interest, and the basis of conflict may vary but it is always a part of society. The basis of conflict may be personal, racial, class, caste or political.

Conflict occurs when people do not share common goals or common ways to reach a particular objective (e.g. different work styles). Lack of communication or poor communication may also spark conflict. This is because a misunderstanding of a particular situation creates a potentially explosive interaction.

Therefore, conflict resolution is a way in which two or more parties deploy to find a peaceful solution to a disagreement among them. When a dispute arises, often the best course of action is negotiation to resolve the disagreement.

Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict and retribution. Individuals attempt to resolve conflicts by actively communicating information about their conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest (e.g., intentions; reasons for holding certain beliefs) and by engaging in collective negotiation.

While Conflict management is the practice of being able to identify and handle conflicts sensibly, fairly, and efficiently, it is also a process of limiting the negative aspects of conflict while increasing the positive aspects of conflict. The aim of conflict management is to enhance learning and group outcomes, including effectiveness or performance in an organizational setting.

There are many examples of conflict resolution in history, and there has been a debate about the ways to conflict resolution: whether it should be forceful or peaceful. Conflict resolution by peaceful means is generally perceived to be a better option in comparison to forced conflict resolution that might invoke another conflict in the future. Uganda chooses the peaceful means in resolving its conflicts within and with the neighbors and the benefits have been incomparable.

The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a conceptual perspective that assumes individuals’ preferred method of dealing with conflict that is based on two underlying themes or dimensions: concern for self-assertiveness and concern for others empathy.

According to this conflict resolution model, individuals balance their concern for satisfying personal needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and interests of others in different ways. The intersection of these two dimensions ultimately leads individuals to exhibit different styles of conflict resolution. Conflict resolution styles or strategies that individuals may use depend on their dispositions toward pro-self or pro-social goals (assertiveness/empathy).

Avoidance conflict style is characterized by joking, changing or avoiding the topic, or even denying that a problem exists, the conflict avoidance style is used when an individual has withdrawn in dealing with the other party when one is uncomfortable with conflict, or due to cultural contexts. During conflict, these avoiders adopt a “wait and see” attitude, often allowing conflict to phase out on its own without any personal involvement. It is also known as avoiding and the outcome is suitable when the issue is trivial and not worth the effort or when more important issues are pressing, and one or both the parties do not have time to deal with it.

On many occasions, we have heard the public call on the president to act on diffusing some issues in the country, but he is seen as if not interested or even around to hear or see anything happening, yet very aware but decides to adopt this strategy in dealing with the prevailing condition, eventually, this problem will cease to appear in media and public debates, without taking too much of his valuable energy from other important and pressing national or regional issues.

For example when Rwanda decided to close its border to Ugandan goods and Rwandans citizen, many expected the Ugandan president to react and maybe make sweeping statements or confront his counterpart in the same vein, something that maybe would have put the two countries on a collision course;  however he adopted this conflict resolution strategy throughout, and even warned his officials against commenting on the issue in all forums.

In contrast, yielding, “accommodating”, smoothing or suppression conflict styles are characterized by a high level of concern for others and a low level of concern for oneself. This passive pro-social approach emerges when individuals derive personal satisfaction from meeting the needs of others and have a general concern for maintaining stable, positive social relationships.

When faced with conflict, individuals with a yielding conflict style tend to harmonize into others’ demands out of respect for the social relationship. This also informs the choice of approach the president and his comrades chose when dealing with the Ugandan issues when they decided to take to the bush as young men instead of enjoying the luxuries of being in government so that they could fight for Ugandans. They chose to sacrifice for the common good, because their concern was for others as compared to their own, and many times the president also has been yielding to things if assumed to maintain stable and positive social cohesion, this has always put him on a collision course with his comrades who would rather see him act differently against opponents.

This yielding strategy has promoted reconciliation with those opposed to him and stabilized the nation, he never kills his opponents, but instead reaches out to them in comradeship and fatherly manner. Actually, if any Ugandan tells you that he is in exile because of this government, he should be dismissed right away, because known strong critics of this government are well known and freely living in Uganda, enjoying freedoms and security, their businesses remain untouched and win government tenders and are positively contributing to social development of our nation.

Again, many would have expected him to react differently to Rwanda’s continued provocation, but he has maintained the cool and even acceptable negotiations with his counterpart even when signs show the other party had no interest in normalizing relations but simply playing tricks and playing to the international gallery as the victim.

The conciliation, “compromising”, bargaining or negotiation conflict style is typical of individuals who possess an intermediate level of concern for both personal and others’ outcomes. Compromisers value fairness and, in doing so, anticipate mutual give-and-take interactions. By accepting some demands put forth by others, compromisers believe this agreeableness will encourage others to meet them halfway, thus promoting conflict resolution. This conflict style can be considered an extension of both “yielding” and “cooperative” strategies. The head of state in Uganda also employs this kind of strategy in dealing with conflicts within or without and it has worked wonders by diffusing would-be crises by compromising his earlier stand. The negotiation with various rebel groups in Uganda is a good example, many who had taken to exile in fear of reprisal and this ensured that peace prevails within the country and many former opponents are now part of the government He has been a mediator in a number of regional conflicts and interventions as a result of his pan African ideology, conflict resolution, and negotiation skills.

Cooperation conflict style; Characterized by an active concern for both pro-social and pro-self-behavior, the cooperation, integration, confrontation or problem-solving conflict style is typically used when an individual has elevated interests in their own outcomes as well as in the outcomes of others. During conflict, cooperators collaborate with others in an effort to find an amicable solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. Individuals using this type of conflict style tend to be both highly assertive and highly empathetic. By seeing conflict as a creative opportunity, collaborators willingly invest time and resources into finding a “win-win” solution.

This technique sums up all the methods that have been employed by the leadership in Kampala and now the whole country is safe and secure, our neighbors and the region is stable. President Museveni also believes in horse-trading when dealing with conflict as he usually believes in a win-win situation. The win-win approach sees conflict resolution as an opportunity to come to a mutually beneficial result; that includes identifying the underlying concerns of the opponents and finding an alternative which meets each party’s concerns. From that point of view, it is the most desirable outcome when trying to solve a problem for all partners.

Our leaders are aware too that using force as a technique in conflict resolution may be counter-productive for it may negatively affect the relationship with the opponent in the long run; may intensify the conflict if the opponent decides to react in the same way (even if it was not the original intention); it does not allow to take advantage in a productive way of the other side’s position and, last but not least, taking this approach may require a lot of energy and be exhausting to some individuals.

It is when we care that we employ effective conflict resolution and management strategies that we will ensure lasting solutions and enhance peacebuilding within and out, we, therefore, need to draw lessons from president Museveni’s techniques in conflict management for future conflict resolution and peacebuilding endeavors.

The author is an educationist and a political analyst