Conflict in the Developing World

Conflict in the Developing World

By Jon Burnsky

Many of the cases we have seen concerning environmental conflict are in developing countries. Scarcity and abundance seem to lead to various types of conflict in these countries yet similar causes do not tend to lead to same effects in developed countries. This could be used as evidence of a Neo-Colonial situation, such that in the global market, buyers do not compete against each other as much as suppliers do for their chance to sell. However I think a deeper cause is the institutional weakness or instability in these nations that allow conflict to escalate.

In another class of mine (GVPT 280) we learned that the most logical and effective way to democratize and also develop as a developing country is to fist consolidate as much power as possible in the central government and allow for very little contestation from the people. The second step is to then hear different people’s wants and serve as many constituents as possible. The final step is to try to incorporate them into new institutions and disperse power back to the people.

Scarcity causes a conflict of interests between people which can lead to physical conflict as has been seen in the cases of Thailand, Honduras, Sierra Leone, Mexico, and Somalia. Without effective institutions the haves and have-nots cannot legally settle their disputes and often crime or civil war arise. Political Ecology offers the most comprehensive explanation of why these conflicts arise, stating that it is a combination of environmental and political factors. I feel that solutions that focus solely on the environmental factors will not solve the long-term problems and will not prevent similar future problems from arising. So the best way to resolve these conflicts is try to solve the overarching political issues by implementing stronger institutions.

Somalia is an interesting case in that the first step has been a failure. The government, or whoever, it could very well be the pirates, needs to successfully consolidate and centralize power. While this may cause conflict in the short-term it is a long-term investment in stability. With an effective and democratic governing body in place, though it may be years down the line, the problems of piracy, overfishing, and dumping should be able to get solved more efficiently and without violent conflict.

The cases of Sierra Leone and Mexico are perfect examples of how the state, in an attempt to democratize and develop centralize authority (the first step) but fail to accommodate conflicting interests, such as those of the RUF miners and the marginalized indigenous people. This is a failure of the second essential step. The government believes that it still must maintain tight control over the economy and not allow for the people’s voices of opposition to ring loud. This allows the conflict to grow until it becomes violent. The solution in these cases is to follow the progression of development; integrate the peoples’ views and interests, and then disperse the centralized power back down to the masses.

Similarly Thailand and Honduras have failed to enact the third step: giving power back to all of the people and properly establishing stable and accountable institutions. These governments are corrupt and favor those that are rich landowners. In theory they can mediate disputes, but because corruption and bribing are so entrenched in the system, institutions become weak and ineffective in practice. New institutions based more on compromise and equality under the law are the necessary to deal with the scarcity driven problems here.

Of coarse fixing the institutions only increases the chance that conflicts will be resolved before escalating to violence, it does not take care of the root cause of the conflict, which I believe is usually scarcity or abundance. However, it could be that proper mediation is all that is needed in the end.