Introduction
This essay explores the notion that conflict, while often viewed negatively, may be a necessary evil within the context of peace and conflict management. Conflict, defined as a clash of interests or values between individuals, groups, or states, can manifest in various forms, from interpersonal disputes to large-scale wars. Although it is frequently associated with destruction and suffering, this discussion will argue that conflict can also serve as a catalyst for social change, resolution of underlying tensions, and the establishment of more equitable systems. The essay will examine both the destructive and constructive dimensions of conflict, drawing on academic theories and real-world examples. Specifically, it will discuss conflict as a driver of progress, its role in highlighting systemic issues, and the inherent challenges in managing its outcomes. By critically evaluating these aspects, this piece aims to provide a balanced perspective on whether conflict, despite its harms, is an unavoidable and sometimes beneficial force in human society.
Conflict as a Catalyst for Change
One of the primary arguments in favour of viewing conflict as a necessary evil is its capacity to drive social and political change. Historically, many significant advancements in human rights and governance have emerged from periods of intense struggle. For instance, the civil rights movement in the United States during the mid-20th century, marked by protests and clashes, ultimately led to landmark legislation addressing racial segregation (King, 1963). Without such conflict, systemic inequalities might have persisted unchallenged for much longer. This aligns with the views of scholars like Coser (1956), who posits that conflict serves a functional role in society by facilitating adaptation and integration. In other words, conflict forces societies to confront uncomfortable truths and adapt structures to be more inclusive or just.
Moreover, in international relations, conflict has often prompted the creation of mechanisms for peace and cooperation. The devastating outcomes of the two World Wars, for example, led to the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, an organisation dedicated to preventing future global conflicts through diplomacy and dialogue (United Nations, 2023). While the wars themselves caused immense loss, they arguably necessitated the development of frameworks that, although imperfect, have contributed to relative global stability. Therefore, while conflict inflicts harm, it can also lay the groundwork for transformative progress, suggesting its role as a necessary, if regrettable, force.
Conflict as a Reveal of Systemic Issues
Beyond driving change, conflict often acts as a mirror reflecting underlying societal or systemic problems that might otherwise remain unaddressed. In the field of peace and conflict management, scholars such as Galtung (1969) argue that conflict is not merely an event but a manifestation of structural violence—deep-seated inequalities or injustices embedded in societal systems. For instance, civil unrest in various parts of the world, such as the Arab Spring uprisings starting in 2010, exposed issues of political repression, economic disparity, and corruption in several Middle Eastern and North African states (Anderson, 2011). These conflicts, though destructive, brought global attention to systemic failures, prompting international discourse on governance and human rights.
Indeed, ignoring such tensions can exacerbate them over time, leading to even greater outbreaks of violence. A pertinent example within the UK context is the Northern Ireland conflict, often referred to as the Troubles (1960s–1998). Rooted in deep historical divisions over national identity and governance, the conflict resulted in significant loss of life but eventually paved the way for the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, a peace accord addressing many of the underlying grievances (Bew, 2007). This suggests that conflict, while painful, can force stakeholders to engage with issues that might otherwise be sidelined, thereby justifying its characterisation as a necessary evil in certain contexts.
Challenges and Limitations of Conflict
However, it must be acknowledged that conflict is not inherently constructive, and its benefits are often overshadowed by immediate and long-term damages. The human cost of conflict, whether through loss of life, displacement, or psychological trauma, is a significant counterargument to any notion of its necessity. For example, the Syrian Civil War, ongoing since 2011, has resulted in over half a million deaths and millions of refugees, with limited evidence of systemic improvement in the region (United Nations, 2023). Such outcomes highlight the limitations of viewing conflict as a necessary tool for change, as the suffering it causes can outweigh any potential benefits.
Additionally, conflict does not always lead to resolution or progress. In many cases, it entrenches divisions or escalates into cycles of violence. Theories of conflict escalation, such as those proposed by Pruitt and Kim (2004), suggest that unmanaged conflict often spirals into more destructive forms, making peaceful resolution increasingly difficult. This raises a critical question for peace and conflict management: how can conflict be harnessed for positive outcomes without allowing it to devolve into chaos? Arguably, the field of conflict resolution offers tools such as mediation and negotiation to mitigate these risks, but their success is not guaranteed and depends heavily on context and stakeholder willingness.
Balancing Necessity and Harm in Conflict Management
Given these perspectives, conflict management becomes a crucial consideration in evaluating whether conflict is indeed a necessary evil. Effective conflict resolution strategies aim to transform destructive conflict into constructive dialogue, addressing root causes without resorting to violence. For instance, the concept of ‘positive peace,’ as articulated by Galtung (1969), extends beyond the absence of war to include the presence of justice and equality—ideals often only pursued in the wake of conflict. However, achieving this balance remains a complex task, requiring nuanced understanding and tailored interventions.
Furthermore, practitioners in peace and conflict management must weigh the ethical implications of viewing conflict as necessary. While it may expose issues or drive reform, the moral cost of endorsing or tolerating conflict for such ends must be critically assessed. As Burton (1990) notes, human needs theory suggests that many conflicts arise from unmet basic needs, and addressing these proactively could reduce the incidence of conflict altogether. This perspective challenges the inevitability of conflict, proposing instead that with adequate foresight and resource allocation, societies might circumvent the ‘necessary’ aspect of this evil.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has critically examined the assertion that conflict is a necessary evil, particularly within the sphere of peace and conflict management. On one hand, conflict undeniably serves as a catalyst for social and political change, as evidenced by historical movements and international frameworks born from crises. It also reveals systemic issues, forcing societies to confront and address deep-rooted problems. On the other hand, the immense human and societal costs of conflict, coupled with its potential to escalate rather than resolve, temper any straightforward endorsement of its necessity. Ultimately, while conflict can yield constructive outcomes, its necessity is contingent upon whether it is managed effectively to minimise harm and maximise beneficial change. This duality underscores the importance of conflict resolution strategies and proactive measures in peacebuilding. Future research and practice in this field should focus on mitigating the destructive aspects of conflict while harnessing its potential to address societal grievances, ensuring that its role as a ‘necessary evil’ is neither inevitable nor unchecked.
References
- Anderson, L. (2011) Demystifying the Arab Spring: Parsing the differences between Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Foreign Affairs, 90(3), 2-7.
- Bew, P. (2007) Ireland: The Politics of Enmity 1789-2006. Oxford University Press.
- Burton, J. (1990) Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Coser, L. A. (1956) The Functions of Social Conflict. Free Press.
- Galtung, J. (1969) Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167-191.
- King, M. L. (1963) Letter from Birmingham Jail. Harper & Row.
- Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (2004) Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. McGraw-Hill.
- United Nations (2023) History of the United Nations. United Nations Official Website.
