Conflict Resolution At Election Time – Archive Article
December 13, 2008

RADIO 2GB NEWS COMMENTARY BROADCAST ON FRIDAY MARCH 5 1999 ON RADIO 2GB’S “BRIAN WILSHIRE PROGRAMME” AT 9 PM, AND ON MARCH 7 1999 ON “SUNDAY NIGHT LIVE” AT 10.30 PM.

Elections are usually a time of discord and name-calling. Can we have elections that are based on conflict resolution?

The Conflict Resolution Network in Sydney has launched its own campaign for this month’s State election. The Network is encouraging all candidates to adopt a more conflict resolving approach in their seeking office.

In particular, each candidate is being asked to make the following commitments: I will:

. address community issues, refraining from personal attacks on others;

. promote my policies firmly and discuss dissenting views without abuse;

. seek common ground, acknowledging and building on the contribution of others;

. work for change to make political discussion and behaviour more respectful.

These are important commitments. A 1996 McNair opinion survey showed that 69 per cent of voters are less likely to vote for a politician who denigrates their opponent’s ideas. Only six per cent are likely to vote for those politicians who do.

Therefore, political candidates have a clear interest in lifting their game. There are votes to be had.

Of course, there will be some people who will claim that this is a waste of time. Politicians, after all, approach all issues with an open mouth. They claim that politicians will not be interested in a more conflicting resolving approach.

This is wrong. First, as shown by the McNair survey, there is an increasing feeling within the community that politicians ought to lift their game. Voters are getting smarter. They want sophisticated discussions and not just personal abuse.

Second, Mrs Stella Cornelius, a Director of the Conflict Resolution Network, has been involved in conflict resolution in Australia for over a quarter of a century. She is one of this country’s pioneers. When she began that work, conflict resolution was also seen as a wildly ambitious cause and bound to fail. But she has kept on keeping on – and now conflict resolution is a recognized solution in many situations. Therefore, she has a good track record for publicizing the cause of conflict resolution. She is in for the long haul and she already has some runs on the board.

Third, taking the conflict resolution philosophy into election campaigns is a natural prolongation of her pioneering work. As the McNair survey showed, there is a widespread community interest in conflict resolving elections.

Politicians must hope that her campaign will be successful – if only to save the integrity of the political process. As Mrs Cornelius has said: if there is a conflict resolving approach to politics, then “…we will be able to encourage our children to watch parliament on television for a model of how a diverse society conducts a conversation”.

Therefore, on March 27: vote “one” for conflict resolution.