Conflict Resolution Between Two Prominent Political Leaders

Background

The world is changing, and so are the established forms of ruling. In various countries globally, people are incorporating democracy into governance, thereby enabling everyone to have a voice. However, the transition to a democratic government does not come easily. The interested parties must do everything in their power to make sure they achieve their desired goal even if they have to shed blood to claim democracy. In most of the African countries, this is always the case, but thankfully, they have passed over this transition process. They carry out their activities in a democratic way but at times, to ensure democracy is maintained, they end up causing mayhem so that the people can get what they want but not what they are given. Despite this, some politician in Africa believes that power is not given that quickly and to have the power necessitates having the required resources to acquire power in all way possible. By all means possible, it means through the ballot, bullet, or wallet. If a politician does not win through the ballot, they will try to win by bullet and wallet. As a result of bullet and wallet, the politician in power and the one contesting a sturdy political seat causes political instability within the country. Since the two most influential people have followers on the ground, they opt to cause post-political violence to test who has the might of power.

Opposing parties usually fail to consider the adverse effects of their decisions as a political leader, which may lead to a significant number of deaths, damage of properties, and casualties (Pfeiffer, 2018). If such a situation is not solved by third parties such as the United Nations, these consequences are inevitable. This paper will address Kenya post-election violence that took place between the year 2007 to 2008 and also how the mediator will employ all vital negotiation skills and knowledge to ensure that the most affected parties set aside their feuds and move forward as one. The chief objective is bringing the two prominent leaders into good terms and creating a common ground for more dialogue.

Indeed, unity breeds peace, happiness, and joy among people. The concept of politics can be juxtaposed to a marriage institution, whereby two people in love and with a common purpose join hands and decide to follow one path as they await the outcome of their love. In the year 2002, this was the case in the country. The retired President of the Republic of Kenya Mwai Kibaki joined hands together with the former Prime Minister Raila Odinga with a sole aim of defeating the retired President Daniel Moi’s best candidate, Uhuru Kenyatta, who is the current President of Kenya. 

According to the two political giants, they believed that it was time for a change. Certainly, their win in the previous elections influenced the move, but as time went by, they started questioning one another’s loyalty. Resultantly, by 2005 they had already decided to end their political ties. However, as it is always said that there is no permanent enmity in politics, Raila Odinga joined hands with Uhuru Kenyatta and carried out a referendum that was meant to show the might of the opposition political parties. As it turned out, the opposition won the referendum, a record since the country gained its independence, and this could only be perceived as a significant political move towards presidency aspirations in the forthcoming elections. This dream, nonetheless, was shuddered when Mwai Kibaki, the People’s National Union (PNU) presidential candidate party was declared the winner on August 8, 2007. Substantial evidence showed that the election was rigged, and supporters of Raila Odinga believed that their candidate won.

A commonly known principle in any given competition stipulates that winners must be able to show their willingness to accept defeats. Raila Odinga failed to accept his defeat to the presidency, which sparked conflict among tribes from which the candidates came. Eventually, ethnicity took charge of the political spectrum, and many people lost their lives. Also, the country experienced massive destruction of properties, and thousands of people became internally displaced up to date (Pfeiffer, 2018).

Amid all the tribes in Kenya, the most that were affected were the Gikuyu and Kalenjin. Ethnic wars were experienced, resulting in innumerable losses, with the warring communities forgetting that they will come a time when they will need one another in the future. Since the two are known to be political strongholds, a notion of who has the highest prominence and power terrorized the minds of the citizens. Political kingpins, who were the vital means with which the communities could unite, used all resources they had to support the extreme killings and massive property destruction instead (Pfeiffer, 2018). The conflicts would later cause repercussions that the country suffers up to date. There was, indeed, the need for common ground and attempts by internal parties to create it proved ineffective. The purpose of this paper is to use this case study and apply various negotiation techniques to subdue the conflict.

Conflict Resolution Strategic Planning

When two conflicting party fails to solve their problems by themselves, it is always recommended to seek help from a third party. Acknowledging the importance of a third party means reaching ground upon which the affected parties can put aside their interests and consider the wellness of the other afflicted parties, whom in this case are the general public ( Rahim, Civelek & Liang, 2018). A negotiator is invited to solve the issues at hand and give a guideline on how the two parties are to settle their feuds if they are likely to repeat themselves in the future. Unraveling the conflicts requires that the third-party invited must have a strategic conflict resolution plan that he or she will use to make sure that the two parties settle their dust and they can see their future road. 

As the negotiator, it is crucial to understand what the two parties want as far as conflict resolution is concerned. In this case, it is significant to spend a considerable amount of time learning about both parties which may take the form of a background check as well as understanding the crucial reasons they are against one another. Also, attempting to learn the source of their conflict and how they want to solve their conflict goes a long way to ensuring a smooth resolution process (Patton, 2005). By understanding all those aspects, carrying out a resolution will be easy and straightforward. 

Subsequently, it is vital to employ the available tools and techniques whose credibility is proven from other conflict resolutions or through scholarly studies. The middle person employs Barnlund's six views in establishing the parameters of the matter at hand. The Barnlund's six view entails, first, how all the aggrieving party; in this case, the Gikuyu and Kalenjin tribes understand negotiator’s take in their situation. Secondly, the strategy requires understanding the ideal standpoint from which to view the conflicting parties. Since the two tribes are the most prominent political strongholds in Kenya, as the negotiator, it is important to be neutral throughout the process. Thirdly, Barnlund recommends that the mediator should consider how the general public will take the conflict resolution’s decisions made by all parties. Each of them has a robust political paradigm in their ethnic establishments. It follows, therefore, that negotiator must ensure that the decision reached will unite the ethnic groups involved and the nation at large. Fourth, the strategy stipulates that understanding how both parties view themselves as far as the conflict is concerned is vital. In essence, knowing what they think and want helps resolve the conflict without leaning on either side ( McCorkle & Reese, 2015). The fifth view involves how both parties individually understand negotiator ‘stake and presence in the middle of the feuds. If their take is positive, then solving the conflict will be run smoothly. Lastly, Barnlund suggests that one should assess how the person believes one views them. The field theory corresponds to the Barnlund’s six views in that the negotiator can understand the conflicting parties’ human behaviors during the conflict resolving process (Civelek & Liang, 2018).

Fundamentally, both parties in a conflict resolution must first accept their mistakes so that the process can flow efficiently and effectively. Thus, the subsequent negotiator’s action is getting the parties to accept the role they played in the reputations that led the country into turmoil. The concept of the attribution theory is appropriate in implementing this action. The theory holds that "humans understand their actions and behavior by attributing to individual feelings and beliefs." Thus, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of the actions and conducts of the two political leaders on how they carry themselves in various situations. This approach is an alternative to the aspect of unearned criticism, which applies in cases where the parties do not each other’s interests. Raila Odinga, the leader of the opposition, stated his interests outright when he demanded that he should be sworn in as the president since he won the elections.

After understanding how both parties behave in various circumstances, the aspect of constructivism comes into place. Constructivism is the negotiator’s learning process of how conflicting parties behave. Usually, people’s reactions are considerably based on their emotions, which may hinder logical reasoning. In effect, it is the negotiator’s responsibility to stress the importance of making sound judgments since some decisions, once made, cannot be halted. In this case, having emotional intelligence is essential to all parties, including the negotiator, and therefore, no one will be guided by emotions hence making the resolution nonpartisan and straightforward. These concepts set a strong foundation for the entire process and a significant step towards getting the parties into terms.

Subsequently, there is a need by the negotiator to implement a communication environment that will suit both parties. Understanding communication helps in establishing how the two parties see each other. Even if their communication tones are characterized by anger, understanding that a journey of one thousand miles starts with one step is essential. A smooth communication climate ascertains the negotiator that the political leaders have a significant chance of coming into a collective understanding of the most crucial aspects of the conflict ( McCorkle & Reese, 2015). This step requires setting up future relationship goals, which include: maintaining leadership positions, advocating peace, and pulling back from any involvement in activities that may bring forth conflict. The relationship goals should come from each side, but as a universal party, validating their goals is fundamental, and standing by the truth will help streamline their arguments. 

Remarkably, listening skills will be of great importance to help understand clearly what the problem and its intended solution. Such excellent skills facilitate making informed decisions based on facts as and claims of each party. Also, the negotiator engages the two political leaders and by asking them to clarify complicated or unclear issues, which give goes a long way to strengthening the rapport between them. Also, Keough (2017) recommends establishing the powers of the two conflicting parties. Raila Odinga, on the one hand, is the leader of the opposition party and has significant followership from the Kalenjin community. He also one of the most influential politicians in the country. Mwai Kibaki, on the other hand, is the president-elect and the leader of the ruling party, PNU. Kibaki descends from the Central Kenya region where he garners tremendous support from the Gikuyu community. Each party is capable of leading supporters to chaos as was proven by Raila Odinga’s political rallies and demonstrations. Other essential components of power to consider coercion, reward, information, and legitimacy. 

Lastly, the decision of the two parties should be unanimous. As far as the element of interests is concerned, the decision should favor each one of them so that they avoid the theme of anger. The theme of anger is a situation whereby one of the parties does not accept the proposition of the other party as they see or feel that they are being outshined and the ongoing process is not according to their plan ( Rahim, Civelek & Liang, 2018). Therefore, since the process is not a competitive one, as the negotiator, making each party feel represented and appreciate the future relationship goals is essential to all parties. Political gains and leadership desire are the primary objectives of each party, which necessitates highlighting several compromises, which are presidency, the vice-presidency, and the office of prime minister.

Concluding on the strategic plan to use in the negotiation process, it is crucial to understand that failure to prepare before the negotiation process can make conflicting parties provocative. In effect, this may result in making emotional decisions which are haste and with no factual and statistical background. 

Negotiation Process

Carrying out negotiation requires drafting up an effective plan that constitutes the approaches that the process will take. Patton (2005) recommends four types of the negotiation process, namely, positional bargaining, favors and ledgers, chicken and problem solving “circle of value” negotiation. These negotiation models accommodate an effectual interaction among the parties involved. For the purpose of this case study, the most suitable negotiation process is positional bargaining.

Positional bargaining entails a scenario where “one party stakes out a high or low opening position or demand or offer and the other party stake out a correspondingly low or high position” (Keough, 2017). During this process, a particular series of communication is followed where the involved parties reach an agreement or fail to agree in which case they opt to seek other solutions such as lawsuits. The approach of positional bargaining is essential due to simplicity and helps the negotiator to pay significant attention to the commitment of the two parties towards solving their disputes ( Moffitt & Bordone, 2012). The two political leaders have shown considerable interest in ending the bloodshed and property destruction of Kenya, which is a crucial assurance. Also, the two have received multiple pleas from the Kenyans and the international communities to put aside their differences. Thus, one could argue that it is highly unlikely to reach an impasse.

Furthermore, positional bargaining process is essential in a situation whereby the conflicting parties are politically influenced as one party can act as an anchor and be able to twist the interests of the other party to accept its position (Keough, 2017). Politics have played a significant role in the conflict at hand, thereby affirming the effectiveness of the approach. As mentioned earlier, the Gikuyu and Kalenjin tribes are known to have a political dominance in the country’s history. Both tribes have a voice of whom they want to rule them even if the vying political leader does not hail from their tribe. Thus, the conflict cannot be seen as crucially affecting the two political leaders; it also extends to the warring communities. In effect, one can derive a cause of action that entails uniting the two tribes and forming a coalition government (Malik, 2016).

Notably, the task of deciding who among the two leaders should be the president and the deputy is complex. The two leaders have money, property, and people on the ground, as well as equivalent support by the members of parliament, form their respective political parties. The power of the national assembly also poses a threat to the resolution process since members of parliament can revoke the decision made after the mitigation; they can pass a vote of no confidence against the administration. The laws of Kenya stipulate that on passing such a decision, the vote should encompass at least two-thirds of the members in the house. It follows, therefore, that the negotiator should ensure that the final decisions at which the parties will arrive will be suitable and convincing to other significant stakeholders.

Consequently, establishing who between the political leaders has the highest number of resources and supporters becomes the anchor of the situation at hand. Here, Kibaki’s PNU party has the highest quorum in terms of representation in parliament, which could convince Odinga to take the next suitable position (Malik, 2016). In this case, the former takes the presidential seat while the former deputizes him.

Eventually, both tribes have been united since the president, Mwai Kibaki whose majority of supporters are from the Gikuyu tribe will be working with Raila Odinga who represents the Kalenjin and other opposing communities. Another productive dialogue is to convince the two leaders to have an equal say in appointing cabinet secretaries and other relevant holders of public offices such as principal secretaries. In effect, the two tribes have formed one government structure which paves the way to friendship, cultural interactions such as intermarriages and business relations. Both parties acknowledge that the two tribes that they represent were the center of the 2008/2009 post-election violence. They have vowed to never engage, directly or indirectly, into such ethnic conflicts or political rallies that threaten the stability of the country and the lives of its citizens. Also, they will build bridges of oneness, love, peace, harmony, and unity not only to the Gikuyu and Kalenjin but also to all the other forty-five tribes of Kenya.

Reflection on Negotiation

Throughout the negotiation, the entire representative of the two communities, and in this case, their political kingpins dominated the dialogues. The parties tabled out their political and personal interests, and at least fifty percent of their interests seemed to align. It was evident that the two leaders want the country to regain its stability and are passionate about uniting all Kenyans to steer the country towards economic development and growth. In effect, not only did the resolution unite the two warring communities but also the entire country at large.

Unquestionably, the outcome of the negotiation process between the two parties was favorable. The two leaders agreed to join hands in building one united country that appreciates diversities. Also, the agreement influenced unity among other leaders by setting a good example. Since they had people on the ground, including members of parliament, they requested them to pass the message of love, peace, unity, oneness, and harmony on their behalf (Malik, 2016). Indeed, it was implemented, and currently, even people from the grassroots have experienced the unity of two communities. It is because they can eat together, marry each other, and more so to do business together. 

Following the post-election violence of 2007 to 2008, the two leaders on behalf of their communities were vested in political feuds, hate speech and no eye to eye communication. They used public platform and events such as campaigns to spread animosity. They were determined to fight and do everything within their disposal to make sure that the people they represent are safe and get a piece of "national cake" (Malik, 2016). Regardless of these past mistakes that wee inevitably consequential, they were moved by the love of their people and kept their personal lives aside and represent the people. Fundamentally, this was the outcome, and the two leaders are currently running the government. 

The Patton’s (2005) seven elements of negations were exhaustively implemented in the positional bargaining process. Principal among them interested, whereby both parties developed a mutual interest as an objective, that is, coming together and form the government. Also, it involved fairly establishing who among them was the best fit for the president and vice president using thresholds to which they agreed unanimously. The action relates closely to the aspect of legitimacy, which also played a vital role during the settlement.

The negotiator was nonpartisan and had no past or current political or physical or emotional relationship with either of the parties. Patton (2005) argues that acting from a universal viewpoint ensures that the outcome is mutual. While the role of the negotiator played was unequivocally vital, the two parties also played a significant role as expressed in their public statements. In one occasion, the two were quoted as saying, "no blood shall ever be shed on this nation because there is an individual who wants to obtain power."

A negotiation process is hardly standing without proper communication. Not only did the constant dialogues open up new ideas on how to proceed with the settlement, but also channel the focus of the parties towards a peaceful resolution. The negotiator pointed out the mutual history as well as the consequences of actions to both parties. In effect, even if they were against one another, their similar problems brought them together, and this sparked communication through which they were able to draw up fair and suitable terms

References

Keough, C. M. (2017). Negotiation and Bargaining.  The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication , 1-10.

Malik, A. (2016). Mobilizing a defensive Kikuyu-Kalenjin alliance: the politicization of the International Criminal Court in Kenya's 2013 presidential election.  African Conflict and Peacebuilding Review ,  6 (2), 48-73.

McCorkle, S., & Reese, M. (2015).  Personal conflict management: Theory and practice . Routledge.

Moffitt, M. L., & Bordone, R. C. (Eds.). (2012).  The handbook of dispute resolution . John Wiley & Sons.

Patton, B. (2005). Negotiation.  The handbook of dispute resolution , 279-303.

Pfeiffer, E. (2018). “The Post-Election Violence Has Brought Shame on This Place”: Narratives, Place and Moral Violence in Western Kenya. African Studies Review, 61(2), 183-209.

Rahim, A., Civelek, I., & Liang, F. H. (2018). A process model of social intelligence and problem-solving style for conflict management.  International Journal of Conflict Management ,  29 (4), 487-499.