Poverty and Conflict

Civil Unrest and Conflicts

The fact that there is a strong link between poverty and armed conflict is indisputable. Half of the states experiencing such conflicts since 1989 fall in the bottom quartile of the countries included in the UNDP‘s HDI. The key economic characteristics that these countries share include: low levels of income per head, and high unemployment and/or underemployment levels. Not surprisingly in most of them over 40 or even 50 percent of the population is ranked as poor. As a result, their levels of literacy, education enrolment ratios, health standards and life expectancy are well below those in high or even medium income countries – making it extremely difficult for those living under these conditions to escape the poverty trap through their own efforts. Yet links between conflict and poverty are not as simple as it appears. Not every poor country experiences civil conflicts. None of this cause civil unrest and conflict If the general feeling is that the burden of low development is shared fairly, that there is a steady improvement in the country’s economic performance which is benefiting all, and that those caught in the poverty trap can expect with confidence that they will be able to escape from it in the foreseeable future.

The problem is that in many low income countries none o these conditions is satisfied. Income inequality has increased over the last thirty years globally. To t the extent that governments have become either unable or unwilling to compensate for this through income transfers, this means that the inequality of opportunity and outcome has also gone up both within and between countries. No wonder that the feeling of economic insecurity has increased internationally, particularly among low income countries. People feel less prosperous, and generally less optimistic about the future. The pessimism about their own and world future is now shared also by the majority of those living in highly industrialized, prosperous countries. If nothing is done people especially inhabitants of the poorest countries, can easily become caught in the vicious circle of impoverishment, despair and hate.

The low level of development limiting the capacity of the country to produce the required products to satisfy the needs and aspirations of its population, consequently, employment opportunities are become limited so that unemployment, actual and disguised, is invariably high. Unemployment reduces income of those directly affected and through the multiplier effect of the country as a whole. An already low level of economic welfare then increases insecurity and growing dissatisfaction with the existing order. Political instability and the risk of conflict increase. This encourages emigration of highly skilled and educated labor, therefore the vicious circle of poverty and stagnation continues, and with it the likelihood of conflict.

The ease with which despair and violent can be translated into action shows the degree of the country’s social cohesion and the nature of its political institutions. The best way to understand the origin of tensions that may lead to conflict or war is to start with a simple model that eliminates some of the most common causes of social divisions and frictions. A sovereign state will normally be protected against disintegration into a multitude of warring factions if the population is homogeneous and the existing inequalities are not a divisive issue. There is no state imposed discrimination against any section of society. Everyone enjoys the same legal rights, has equal access to state institutions ;and influence on the way they are run. Equally important existing economic inequalities are generally accepted as fair. History shows that even a high degree of demographic and cultural homogeneity may not fully eliminate the possibility of civil unrest and war in conditions of large and widening economic and social inequalities. This may take different forms such as uprisings or revolutions to change the status quo, military coups to protect it. What ever the overall state of the economy, the likelihood of conflict will increase if economic inequalities are the result of discrimination against certain groups of society because of their nationality , race, religion, class or gender. Where this is the case members of the dominant social group invariable ensure that the most attractive and lucrative jobs, including key political offices at all levels are occupied by those who belong to their group.

Again past experience show that even if the ethics of such discrimination could be justified, the longer it persist, the more violent is the eventual civil conflict likely to be. This is particularly true of the coutnriesinwhi9chthe state actually institutionalizes such inequalities. The laws and the coercive power of the state are then used to promote and safeguard the discrimination in favor of a particular group.