This article attempts to answer the question of how decentralization in the political (and also administrative and economic) structure can lead to a reduction of internal conflicts and strengthen peaceful relations between people in different regions of a country. Initially, peace is defined here as the absence of war and conflict. Decentralization is also hastily defined as “the transfer of responsibility for planning, management, and allocation of resources from the central government to local units and agents, such as states and semi-autonomous government agencies or civil society organizations” (taken from the definition of Rondinelli and colleagues, 1984). Both definitions are vague and insufficient, but we accept them for now and will revisit them later in the article.

As long as the discussion revolves around these two broad definitions of peace and decentralization, both supporters and opponents can present scenarios to support their claims. Opponents of decentralization argue that the relative political independence of each state leads to increased competition over resources, especially if there are disputed borders or

Peace is a balance of power.
There are two possible concepts of peace: on one hand, there is the idea of peace as a golden age in which both sides express relatively complete satisfaction with their situation and interactions, and on the other hand, there is the notion of peace as simply the absence of open war and conflict, even if some may be oppressed and under the control of others. I believe that the more realistic and practical concept of peace that should be considered is peace in a state of balance of power. This means that although both sides may not be completely satisfied with the current situation and there may still be unresolved issues, neither has been forced into a peaceful state due to complete subjugation by the other. In fact, there are conditions in which both sides, despite their dissatisfaction, find that the benefits of maintaining a peaceful state outweigh the costs of continuing conflict. I believe that a general study of history would confirm that in most cases, these conditions have been present during periods of peace. (A notable example of this

Reconceptualization of decentralization

However, our conclusion may be somewhat premature. It seems obvious that any group with voluntary membership should be able to establish conditions in which the benefits of maintaining peace and staying in the group outweigh any conflicts or defections. But the question here is how, in theory, a government with political decentralization (which preserves the relative independence of states) can create such conditions. We have just reached a crucial point in the discussion. The problem lies in our superficial and inadequate understanding of decentralization.
According to game theory and decentralized systems in financial technology, decentralization is not just about transferring power and responsibilities from a central unit to members. In this inadequate (and perhaps wrong) definition, decentralization is defined as a system in which a unit operates relatively independently in the system, meaning it does not need information or interaction with other units to function. A decentralized system, while eliminating or reducing the power and control of a central unit, must also ensure that members act according to the regulations defined in the system