7- More or less conflict?

What does the idea of conflict applied to Ancient Greek tell us about us?

The question of Prof. Franchi was: Does the formation of a Koinon lead to more or less conflict between the constitutients units? I think that the answer depends on what type of conflicts are we refering to? As Koinon come to solve the problem of construction of power, coordination and war-free areas I would expect less violent conflict but not less conflicts. 

The distinction between violent or non violent conflict is very important. When violent confict prevails, progress does not take place:

"there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building;...." (Hobbes, Leviatan)

But when the state of war in mitigated, in this case by the Koinon, people can peacefully interact and industry flourish, culture of the earth develop, navigation happens and new interactions are created. So, interaction is the result of the mitigation of war.

However, interaction is also the basic source of conflict. Confict disapear only when interaction is not possible. Which take us to a paradoxical statement: the decrease of violent conflict creates the context for progress through the development of interactions between people and groups that, at the same time is the source of more, new conflicts. Luckily not every conflict is violent. And peace and progress can be achieve even in the presence of non violent conflict. In fact, I like to think that peace and progress is the result of the good management of unavoidable conflictuality.

The success of an institution should not be read as the end of problems because even when institutions are successful, they may lead to other conflicts. So if we consider Koinon, the decrease of violent conflict, does not tell us anything about other types of conflicts. The number and type of them can be uncertain at a theoretical level and it should be traced case by case.

We can make a similar description of the situation in modern times. We shouldn't think that every conflict is the product of nation-state. Since the end of the cold world we are over expanding the concepts of ethnicity and federalism.

For example, in the case of Myanmar, the ethnic/national competition is very destabilizing but the long lasting presence of the military forces at the upper level positions of the state and the authoritarian and violent dimension of the governments suggest that there is a deep problem of democratization and rights. Of course there are links between the problem of democratization and the ethnic/national competition, but they are not the same and blending them in a theoretical analysis does not help to untangle the ball.

Another example is illustrated in paper of Nicolini (2016) where he describes the case of Cyprus. Once a British colony, Cyprus acquired independence on the bases of a multilateral treaty in 1960 signed by the newly created Cyprus representatives, Greece, Turkey, UK and USA. At that point a democratic constitution was written and each ethnicity was given political relevance. By incorporating

“manifold power-sharing mechanisms, and “recognized […] the sense of two distinct cultural communities living together in as single polity” [the 1960 constitution] accentuated their “separateness” (Nicolini 2016)What do Greek

 Nicolini (2016) does not tell us anything about what did the Greek and Turkish Cypriots really want and need at that time. Was it really all about the access of a newly formed central government?

He argues that 1960's constitution failed in accommodating the two communities mainly because ethnic groups were mixed in one imbricated territory so geographical accommodation was absent. 

“... accommodation of divided societies is usually the outcome of power-sharing and geographical mechanism, which have proved to be successful in holding together diversity” Nicolini 2016

 In this statement Nicolini is confirming that every nation needs (if not a state for its own) at least a territory to govern. 

I think that we are somehow trapped in the Nation-state idea.* What do Greek and Turkish Cypriots really want and need? Is it really all about the access of an nonexistent central government?

I am sure that federal tools can be of great help in many conflict, but not because all the conflicts are somehow ethnic (or ethnic linked) but because Federalism enhance peaceful accommodation of different interest groups (whether ethnically defined or not) and support the empowering of institutions that by definition respect at least some rights: those of the constitutive units. 

In addition Federalism combines very well with democracy and give us a theoretical alternative to the classical idea of Nation-State.

Let's go back to the question at the beginning of the post: What does the idea of conflict applied to Ancient Greek tell us about us? That ethnic conflict is not the only type of relevant political conflict that we can have nowadays such as we cannot easily blend war and non-violent conflicts into one category without loosing relevant information in the case of Ancient Greeks.

* In spite of Nicolini's insistence on the idea that Cyprus can be reunited by a binational/bi communal Federation, I appreciate his theoretical efforts to overcome the nation-state concept through the Legal Geography.

Legal Geography: The study of the relationship between community and its territory. Involves creating or empowering regionally defined constituent unit to respond to the demands of a territorially concentrated population. Presuppose a close geographical interrelation between community and territory. It is considers physical, anthropic, economic and social features (linguistic, religious and ethnic factors). But above all territorial identity. Legal Geography assumes that the aspect of identity confers legal significance to physical geography. As territory is source of identity, many ethnic groups may claim exclusive relation with the disputed territory marginalization the other ethnicity.

Bibliography

Nicolini M. (2016) “Territorial and Ethnic Divide: A new Legal Geography for Cyprus” Chapter 14 in Nicolini M., et al “Law, Territory and Conflict Resolution. Law as a Problem and Law as a solution” Leidn. London: Brill Nijhoff