By Toyin Falola
Conflict is the Oldest Man
Long before the first post-ape man invented the machete, the old brain and the new brain had always united in creating and settling conflict as a necessary mechanism for survival. A conflict-free world has always been and will only ever be theoretical. As long as commonality and dissimilarities exist, struggle will coexist simultaneously. This simple fact should disarm the fear of conflict in society.
At its core, conflict is essentially a function of diversity—differences in religion, culture, thought, philosophy, race, biology, and much more. It is the product of the collusion of these and many more interacting factors and opinions.
Democratic societies such as Nigeria, the United States, Canada, and many other nations have institutions set up and empowered by law for the settlement of conflicts within the country. Disputes may involve a disagreement between individuals, individuals, and organizations, organizations, organizations, or any person or organization and the state. The role of resolving conflict is primarily the job of the judiciary and law enforcement officers who are charged with maintaining law and order.
Just like a bacterium or a virus that invariably helps the body build its own immunity pre- and post-infection, conflict properly managed helps to create a better and stronger society. Without conflict, extreme elements and intolerance will erode the very fabric of society, leaving nothing in their wake.
The trick, then, perhaps, is learning to understand the different types of conflicts because not all conflicts are the same. As you may have suspected, some conflicts are tolerable and needed for societal growth, while others are like hot eba in the harmattan, which society cannot swallow nor tolerate.
Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish between violent and non-violent conflict. Violent conflict involves the destruction of lives and properties. Avoid it at all costs. But healthy and constructive conflict—the kind where people respectfully challenge the ideas and opinions of others—is essential. The right type of conflict can initiate a spark that drives growth, innovation, and stronger connections. Without it, conflict communities stagnate, development ceases, and civilization collapses.
There is also a fundamental psychological need for conflict, which is practically an evolutionary function. In the absence of conflict, anger remains unaddressed and can metamorphose into ‘internal’ conflict in a way that harms the organs of the body, raising blood pressure and causing hypertension and related medical issues.
All Disputes Can Be Settled Amicably
For civilization to exist and society to function, there must exist the fundamental belief that all disputes can be settled nonviolently. Without this belief and its subsequent enactment and enforcement as a critical law in society, society will not exist. The strong will rule the weak, and there will exist very little semblance of peace and justice.
A closer look at the history of the world will reveal an even greater and yet much-ignored truth: all wars are settled nonviolently. Now imagine for a moment the lives that would have been saved throughout the centuries if only communities had made up their minds to resolve their differences amicably without causing the loss of lives and properties in the first place.
In modern societies, such as Nigeria, the primary method of dispute settlement is through the judiciary, as provided for in the country’s constitution. Citizens and everyone residing in a country, big or small, are advised to approach the courts to settle any issue. This also includes any dispute between institutions and institutions, individuals and individuals, and institutions against individuals.
The current case of former governor of Kogi state, Yahaya Bello, who was invited by the Economics and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and the case of Godwin Emefiele, who was charged and tried for forgery, conspiracy to commit forgery and felony, procurement fraud and criminal breach of trust, brings to bare the powers of the Court as the primary mechanism for dispute settlement in the nation. In both instances, two different organizations acting on behalf of the state accused two citizens of crimes. The citizens, in turn, maintained that they were innocent, and the courts, pursuant to the provisions of the constitution, were tasked with the settlement of this quarrel between institutions of the state and private persons.
From the basic unit of the family to the highest echelons of the state, conflict is constant. All around the country, parents may practically be heard barking angry orders at their charge every day. For one reason or another, adults find themselves with conflicting perspectives. However, almost instantly, in the majority of cases, a non-violent solution is reached.
As Nigerians say in local parlance, “dem no dey throw pikin with baff watter.” Simply reiterating the fact that no matter how disappointed, angry, pissed, or mad the parent is at the child, there will always be a way to welcome the child home; the same principle applies to the broader society at large.
Imagine teaching without debate, without the necessary differences in opinion to help inspire creativity. Picture a bland world absent new ideas and excitement simply because no one has the courage or ability to possess a varying perspective—a world of stagnation and retrogression. If we do not desire that reality as a society, then we must undoubtedly return to that foundational ethos: ” All disputes can and will be settled amicably.”
Tools of the Trade
Easy: respect, contrition and restitution, tolerance, obedience to law and court order, and a little laughter. Laughter should be first on the list, being the most important yet least respected tool for de-escalation of tense situations.
Contrition and restitution imply empathizing with victims, especially when we are the individual perpetrators. They involve feeling the pain felt by others even when we are neither victims nor perpetrators. Restitution involves doing everything possible to restore victims to their original state prior to the conflict that brought about the harm, whether that harm is mental, physical, or emotional. This might involve apologizing, buying or fixing damaged property, or any other equivalent form of service.
Respect and tolerance should go hand in hand, like fufu and egusi soup, beans and rice, or the national fast food—groundnut and banana. Where the rights of individuals are respected, and dissenting opinions of others are tolerated rather than extinguished, society will begin to heal. Extrajudicial killings by law enforcement officials, violent domestic incidents, and crime will reduce significantly where respect and tolerance coexist.
Proper application of the above tools will consistently ensure that conflict serves its evolutionary purpose, which is to build a better and stronger society through conglomeration.
A Laugh in Time Saves Lives
Perhaps that is the final lesson. That no one should be afraid of conflict goes without saying. It is a natural part of life that is so fundamental that it is practically impossible to have any form of society or organ without it.
Conflict abounds, from internal decision-making conflicts to external stimuli of miscommunication, anger, and pain. Consequently, no one should be afraid of conflict. Growth and development are among the benefits of conflicting opinions and dissenting orders, as long as there is a tether, a de-escalation protocol, some hope, dogma, or a mechanism for settling that dispute.
So, if you ever find yourself traipsing down that rabbit hole of conflict, remember that just in case things start getting out of hand, a laugh in time saves lives, and the light at the end of the tunnel is a strong and better society.
Who is Afraid of Conflict
For violent conflicts, I have told you to avoid them, but constructive conflicts are the anvil and the hammers through which our iron shines the brightest. The “gbas – gbos” with constructive specificity is more important than the silent lies told the best of men. Yoruba would always say that when siblings come out from within with smiles, they have not told themselves the truth, but the dragging of legs and frowning of faces after some constructive criticism helps the bloodline grow. So, I would rather have a friend who would intelligently and respectfully tell me when I am wrong than a pleaser who says “yes, sir” and “ that’s right” at everything I say or do without care for balancing rights or wrong.
This is the fundamental problem of contemporary Nigeria – sorry, the world. The leaders of today are too afraid of the truth and fear the criticism of their citizens and stakeholders when they do obvious things. Examples are the various reactions the leadership of the Nation has shown to public outcries to their policies. The bloodbath in EndSARS protests, the EndBadGovernance protest, and other instances of criticism. The victimization of people who have summoned the courage to point the government to their inefficiencies and the silencing of the youth who hold hope for our future.
I have also been victim to several aggressive and covert attempts at putting my pens down; while I survived, thousands have lost their lives and careers to despotic institutional resilience. But can ideas sharpen, nations grow, mistakes avoided, and issues prioritized if there are no one or two instances of conflict? Citizens must see the need for divergent views, leaders must embrace criticism, and you must come down from your high horse and embrace the reality of the possibility of being wrong.
Let there be conflicts, but let it be constructive.
PS: This is a long answer to a question posed to me by a student of Gombe State University on December 10, 2024. While I gave a coherent oral response, I decided to do a written version, which I sent to him.