Y'all might like to read this -- three part series in the Washington Post about an attempt to "export democracy" to Yemen -- which appears to have become a simple attempt to set up a group trained in conflict resolution.
washingtonpost.com
My own experiences in conflict resolution lead me to believe that courts and lawyers work better, but they don't have those, either.
Oh, and why courts and lawyers work better. Well, if people are going to "work things out" then they will. It's only when they can't that they need outside help. If there is a neutral arbiter that they can trust, a system for resolving conflict that is transparant and honest and fair, that seems to work best when people simply cannot agree. They tell their story to the judge, and the judge decides. Even if the loser isn't happy, everybody else agrees it was for the best.
Cuts the endless cycle of revenge by keeping others from piling on. They tell the loser to get over it, and everybody goes back home.
Similar to voting. In voting, everybody yadda yaddas interminably, and then the people vote. And it's done. If you lose, get over it, you'll have another chance next time.
Conflict resolution just goes on and on and on. But at least it gives people a non-violent forum, which is good.
But democracy is all about making a decision, and sticking with it. The people make a decision, and then they stick with it. The losers may not like it but they live with it. |
