To download this html , select the link and save it as a html file. This page and related links are temporary. Do not bookmark or link. Click here for details. The history of change has been a prominent stage for both builders and battlers.
Conflict is the catalyst.
Disagreement with the status quo is plainly necessary to stimulate the process of reforming it, and the more substantial the change, the more significant the conflict it engenders. On the other hand, the drive to change an institution presumes its continued existence, an ironic position since the unrest that drive inspires also conspires to threaten that continuity. More to the realistic point, for policy change to stick in a democratic society, it must enjoy fairly broad support, or at least tolerance. Change requires unity that becomes jeopardized during rancorous conflict, but without the conflict the change doesn't happen. The question itself seems a bit disingenuous, since neither conflict nor unity obviously lends itself to quantification or even less numeric measurement.