"The international community has shown great interest in the Rohingya1Muslims problem, especially in the aftermath of the violence in June and October 2012.While scores of writers in international media have focused on the subjectivity of the conflict, there are academics and policy-makers pondering what could be done to achieve long-term solutions to the inherent problem. Myanmar2 has experienced myriad ethnic conflicts since its indepen- dence from the British in January 1948, but what makes the Rohingya problem unique and why has it caught the attention of the wider international community? Is it because the Rohingya Muslims are less fortunate community than the other groups or is it because they are distinctive? It is puzzling to see some social or cultural groups within a society tend to express themselves more radically than the others. It is equally intriguing to see how governments often respond differently to such phenomenon. A society may be divided along the lines of culture, religion, political affiliations or other forms of divisions. One dominant theor- etical model social scientists employ to study political stability in a segmented society is “consociational democracy”. 3 Arend Lijphart defines consociational democracy as a “government by elite cartel designed to turn a democracy with a fragmented political culture into a stable democracy”. 4 Under such political arrangement, the elites attempt to form a stable government by accommodating or integrating diverse views and interests of people belonging to different cultural groups. A successful consociational democracy requires that the elites have the “ability to accommodate the divergent interests and demands of the subcultures” and also have the “ability to transcend cleavages and to join in a common effort with the elites of rival subcultures”. The possibility of such cooperation between rival elites would depend on their “commitment to the maintenance of the system and to the improvement of its cohesion and stability” provided that the elites understand the “perils of political fragmentation”.5 Consociational democracy emphasizes the role of “elite behavior” in diverse societies.6 Cooperation between elites within the same group and also with elites of other groups or cultures is essential. In successful consociational democracy, the elites find ways to accommodate different sections of the society by sharing power as well as reaching decisions by means of “consensus” or “unanimity”. 7 In an attempt to find a common ground to establish a grand coalition government, the elites try to achieve two objectives. First, the goal of elites is to settle “conflicts of interest” that may exist among the parti- cipating members. Second, by settling conflicts of interest, the elites also want to achieve a settlement or result that is “most favorable” to their own supporters. The extent to which the elites can reach a consensus agreement is dependent upon how much each participating elite can make “concessions”. The elites know that they cannot solve conflicts of interest unilaterally, and therefore, need to make a strategic “bar- gaining”. One elite’s interest may not necessarily be the same as that of the other elites and vice versa. Such differences would give each elite a chance to bargain for the best possible outcome that involves “competition as well as cooperation”.8 Purpose of Study This article attempts to understand the nature of conflict between Rohingya Muslims and Rakhine9 Buddhists of Rakhine state in the Western part of Myanmar in 2012. The violent conflict first started in June, and seemingly subsided for three months, but later erupted again in October. While the two groups blamed each other for inciting the violence, they could not find a mutually acceptable peaceful solution among themselves. The Rohingyas accused the Rakhine state government and the central government of deliberately attempting to eliminate their population and termed the violence as state sponsored ethnic cleansing. The central government denied such allegations, but failed to produce a concrete plan for long-term solutions. In this article, I attempt to explain the underlying factors causing such mayhem and argue that consociational democracy should be pursued to achieve long-term solutions to the problem. However, I must be clear here that consociational democracy cannot work effectively or may even be irrelevant without first addressing the Rohingyas’ citizenship and identity problems. In order to understand the nature of violence in 2012, I will briefly discuss the historical context of the problem. I will then analyze the policies of the Myanmar government toward the issue, and discuss the general perception of the Myanmar people toward the conflict. I will also study the reactions of international community vis-à-vis the Rohingya conundrum. After presenting the different perspectives, I will discuss why I believe consociational democracy is the ideal approach to solve the problem..."