ABSTRACT
The role of grassroots leadership, initiatives, and ownership in promoting positive relationships in the communities in Laos is the underlying theme of their confl ict resolution system. Grassroots mechanisms include op-lom confl ict resolution processes conducted by parents, relatives, elders, village leaders, and the Neoy Gai Geer and the confl ict resolution ceremonies and symbols in the soukhouan and soumma . A male Khammu nei ban told me the following story, demonstrating how ingrained grassroots confl ict resolution is in the Lao culture:
There was a confl ict in the rice fi elds involving a shortage of water. The rice fi elds closest to the water supply got water fi rst, and those farmers would fi ll up their fi elds so they could sow the rice paddies (see Figure 6.1 ) . Unfortunately, there was not enough water for the fi elds farther down the water supply, and these farmers were not able to sow their crops. After some tense situations in the village, the farmers gathered to op-lom with one another. The village authorities also attended the meeting and encouraged discussion and options, but did not force the farmers into any decisions. Early in the conversation, the farmers agreed that, should a consensus resolution not be possible, they would hold a vote on several different options. The fi eld owners farther down the water supply asked for the water to be released to fl ow down to the next fi elds. Much of the discussion centered on “gaining together and losing together.” Through the course of discussion, several options were presented that would allow all farmers to have access to a smaller amount of water and still have a reasonable chance of having a successful crop. This helped the farmers to come to an agreement, and water was released to the other fi elds without the need of a vote. In the end, the individual yield for each farmer was not as high as it would have been if they had a full amount of water. But the farmers agreed that the total community yield was considerably higher than it would have been if only the fi rst farmers had a full yield and the other farmers had none.
