How Do Experts Differ from Politicians in Understanding a Conflict? A Comparison of Track I and Track II Actors

• Published date: 01 December 2017
• Author: Özden Melis Uluğ,J. Christopher Cohrs
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21208
• Date: 01 December 2017

C R Q, vol. 35, no. 2, Winter 2017 147

© 2017 Association for Confl ict Resolution and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21208

How Do Experts Di er from Politicians in

Understanding a Con ict? A Comparison of

Track I and Track II Actors

Özden Melis Uluğ

J. Christopher Cohrs

 is article explores the confl ict understandings of Track II actors in the

Kurdish confl ict context and compares them with confl ict understand-

ings of Track I actors to identify similarities and diff erences between

these actors.  e results highlight two diff erent confl ict understandings

among Track II actors: a democracy and identity viewpoint, and a

democracy and economy viewpoint. Integrating these results with previ-

ous results for Track I actors highlights four diff erent confl ict understand-

ings across Track I and Track II actors: a Kurdish rights viewpoint, a

democracy and freedom viewpoint, a conservative-religious viewpoint,

and a terror viewpoint.

U nderstanding politicians’ positions in a confl ict context is crucial due

to their tremendous impact on the course of the confl ict.  e public

knows politicians very well, and this gives politicians the political power

to change a political situation in a short period (Zannoni 1978 ). However,

although Track I diplomacy is important for resolving confl ict, it is not

enough on its own (Lederach 1999 ; Saunders 2001 ). A sustainable peace

and transition agreement requires the broader inclusion of diff erent actors

from various segments of society such as religious, nongovernmental, civil,

academic, and legal actors (Lederach and Appleby 2010 ; Paff enholz 2015 ).

 is is especially true if those actors from various segments are able to

infl uence the quality of agreements and/or push for starting negotiations or

signing agreements (Paff enholz 2015 ). For these reasons, recent approaches

have emphasized the complementary role of Track II diplomacy in confl ict

ARTICLES

148 Uluğ, Cohrs

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq

resolution.  ey emphasize that Track II enables some activities such as

interactive problem-solving workshops that are very useful but hardly pos-

sible to implement within Track I (see, e.g., Kelman 2000 ).

Although Track I and Track II can complement each other in resolv-

ing confl icts, actors within Track II might see the confl ict diff erently from

Track I actors. Track II actors might know the context of the confl ict and

people who experience this context better than top-level leaders (Lederach

1999 ).  ey can also be more fl exible due to not having a high-pressure

agenda; they can travel more easily especially in confl ict-ridden places and

might have connections to the leaders of confl icting parties due to connec-

tions with diff erent NGOs and other organizations. As they add expertise

on what the confl ict is about and how it should be resolved, their perspec-

tives on the confl ict carry utmost importance for resolving the confl ict.

As people from these segments of society need to work together in

creating a lasting peace (Saunders 2001 ), we should try to understand their

diff erences which may make cooperation more diffi cult. Identifying dif-

ferences among various segments is crucial because these diff erences, on

the one hand, have the potential to exacerbate the confl ict. According to

Kelman ( 2009 ), internal divisions within societies impose constraints on

political leaders who try to fi nd a way for confl ict resolution. On the other

hand, these diff erences within society might also mitigate the confl ict and

initiate a change in the confl icting relationships (Kelman 2009 ).  erefore,

it is a major task of researchers to understand the diff erences between vari-

ous tracks in a confl ict situation.

In addition to diff erences between segments, confl ict researchers

should also focus on fi nding similarities across segments of society. Finding

similarities across segments of society helps contribute to the solution of

a confl ict (see Lederach 1999 ).  ese similar points across segments help

develop further steps in confl ict resolution and peacebuilding.

In this study, we argue that Track II actors—in other words, experts

(e.g., scholars and journalists)—might see confl icts diff erently from Track I

actors—in other words, politicians (e.g., members of parliament). We aim

to investigate both similarities and diff erences within and between these

two segments of society. We use the Kurdish confl ict as a confl ict context

that allows investigating exactly these points. We argue that within each

segment, diff erent people might have diff erent priorities and concerns,

which results in diff erent confl ict understandings. We also compare politi-

cians’ and experts’ confl ict viewpoints to see how their understandings of

the Kurdish confl ict are diff erent.