Suchergebnisse

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to suggest to the conflict study scholars a new instrument – the "conflict volcano" that could be an effective and appropriate tool for conflict analysis.Design/methodology/approach– The "conflict volcano" model was designed as a qualitative method for conflict analysis with a focus on cause analysis. It was developed on the basis of "conflict tree" which underwent modifications.Findings– The benefit of the "conflict volcano" is that it covers all aspects of conflict starting from root cause to catalysts and can reveal a wide range of causes: material, immaterial, institutional. It clearly frames factors; this helps practitioners to determine what should be considered as causes and effects. Moreover, the "conflict volcano" reflects major theoretical representations of the conflict and its aspects. While the "conflict volcano" model can study conflict phases from latent until open violence, it cannot reflect the dynamic of conflict and cannot demonstrate its evolution to post-conflict phases.Practical implications– The "conflict volcano" can be used as a conflict analysis tool by practicing experts and scholars. Academicians can use it in order to understand conflict and especially to reveal its causes. Practicing experts can use it in order to design a conflict transformation strategy.Originality/value– This instrument does not pretend to be a new invention in the field of conflict studies, but rather a new conceptualization, schematization of old concepts and instruments.

This article compares causes and mechanisms of the mass mobilizations which took place in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 and 2010. The upheavals of 2005, the so called "Tulip Revolution," led to the ousting of President Akaev who was replaced by Kurmanbek Bakiev. In 2010, Bakiev himself had to flee the country after violent social upheavals. As this analysis shows, the causes for both series of events were similar: neopatrimonial rule and the elite's control of resources together with oppressive tactics stirred up discontent among wide parts of the population and instigated violent protest. The mechanisms of mass mobilization, however, differed considerably. While the revolution of 2005 was carried out as the concerted action of varied political forces and NGOs, which, supported by patronage networks and traditional institutions, offered material and solidary incentives for the crowds, the great mass of people who took part in the 2010 protests were spontaneously mobilized through purposive incentives when news of the killings spread through the media.