1.2.1.3- Economic theory of conflict
The economic theory of conflict explicates the economic
undercurrents in conflict causation. All other theories have a link with the
economic theory as the latter includes all the impacts of these theories. There
is considerable interface between politics (power, resources or value) and
scarcity. People seek power because it is a means to an end, more often,
economic ends. Communities feud over farmlands, grazing fields, water resource,
etc, and groups fight government over allocation of resources or revenue.
Scarcity, wants, needs, or the fear of scarcity is often a driving force for
political power, contention for resource control, and so forth. Conflict is
thus not far-fetched in the course of such palpable fear or threat of scarcity.
Just as the fear of poverty and deprivation could lead to fraud or corruption;
so is threat of or real famine, deprivation, mismanagement of scarce resources,
could propel conflict over resource control.
Nizeimana & Nhema (2015) underline that the exclusionary
political systems in Africa have created an environment in which various groups
contending for power are excluded from the political and economic processes
through various repressive measures and the 2012 crisis is an event that
testifies to this assertion. In the view of Francis (2013), poverty, poor
governance, marginalization, the exclusion of a large section of the Malian
populace from the political and the economic process and the failure to address
fundamental grievances by the ruling class in Mali created a breeding ground
for the Tuareg people to gain a foothold and organize themselves.
While the above discussed theories are meant to show
explanations for the outbreak of intra-state conflicts, there are other
theories used to analyze the steps that need to be taken to pacify states
failed into civil conflict. They are Democratic Peace (idealists) and Realist
Theories.
11
1.2.2- Theories of armed conflicts resolution 1.2.2.1- The
idealist theory
Democratic peace theory (idealists) see the intrastate armed
conflicts as a result of lack of democracy. For the proponents of this theory,
the priority step that should be taken to stabilize states failed into armed
conflict is to build institution of democracy (Carothers, 2007). They claim
that a state suffering from turmoil of armed conflict needs to deal with the
question of attaining popular legitimacy to end the state of political
instability. Siegle & al (2004) holds that it is essential to restore trust
in any divided society following civil war, by first building regimes enjoying
popular legitimacy based on the institutional foundations of representative
democracy, exemplified by holding competitive multiparty elections, building
power sharing arrangements into constitutional settlements, strengthening
legislatures and independent judiciary, expanding civil society, and
decentralizing governance.
Accounting for the above arguments, Michael (2010) states
that, first, democracy provides opportunities for expression of discontent in
an open manner that reduces the possibilities of emergence of extreme violence
and at the same time it helps to build trust among the people. They also
consider that democratic type of regime constrains governments from repressive
acts against their own citizens and thus reduces the causes of home-grown
conflict. Democracy curtails the repressive acts against citizens through the
mechanism of voice, since elected governments can be voted out of office, and
through the mechanism of veto, since institutions check executive power
(Christian, 2007).
Generally the idealist theory while having logic and rationale
arguments, its implementation in the real world seems far from practical since
the condition of instability by itself that characterizes states fall in to
civil conflict, is not permissive to undertake the necessary steps to build
institutions of democracy. Nevertheless, there are instances in which attempts
are being made to set up institutional framework for states emerging out of
civil war including the elections held as part of democratic reconstruction to
end the Malian crisis in mid-2013. But this was possible and successful, as
military intervention for enforcement advocated by the realists was associated
to the process.
| 
