bertha z. osei-hwedie and treasa galvin kwaku …home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/heiwa/pub/e29/e29.pdfbertha...
TRANSCRIPT
Contents
Preface-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Bertha Z. Osei-Hwedie and Treasa Galvin, Chapter 1: Introduction: The Socio-
Cultural Bases of Conflict, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding in Africa --------2
Jannie Malan, Chapter 2: Indigenous Dispute Resolution and Reconciliation: Past,
Present and Future -----------------------------------------------------------------------------13
Kwaku Osei-Hwedie & Morena J. Rankopo, Chapter 3: Indigenous Conflict
Resolution in Africa: The Case of Ghana and Botswana -------------------------------33
Lewis B Dzimbiri, Chapter 4: Indigenous and Modern Disputes Resolution
Procedures: A Comparative Analysis of the Lomwe and Workplace Disputes
Resolution Processes in Malawi --------------------------------------------------------------52
Hideaki Shinoda, Chapter 5: The Principle of Local Ownership as a Bridge between
International and Domestic Actors in Peacebuilding ------------------------------------66
1
Preface
This collection of articles in this volume is a development of the outcome of the
conference under the title of “Indigenous Methods of Conflict Resolution in Africa”
held by the University of Botswana at Gaborone in September 2010. This is also a
product of joint research by researchers of the Institute for Peace Science, Hiroshima
University, Japan and the University of Botswana led by the Centre for Culture and
Peace Studies housed in the Department of Political and Administrative Studies. This
collaboration goes beyond cooperation in the area of research, Mr. Gabriel Malebang, a
University of Botswana lecturer is registered as a Ph.D. student at Hiroshima University,
attesting to the ties of friendship that exist between the two institutions.
Africa is a continent fraught with many conflicts, the resolution of which has
often times relied on external interventions from both state and multilateral actors such
as the United Nations and other regional bodies such as the African Union. This
approach has neglected the wealth of valuable indigenous and traditional methods
which have been time tested and have proven to do less harm in warring communities.
Research has proven that there is a wealth of indigenous and traditional conflict
resolution practices from across the vast and varied cultures found on the African
continent. This volume has been given impetus by the visible shortcomings of external
conflict resolution interventions, mostly Western led. It thusly seeks to intensively
investigate the basis, nature and content of indigenous conflict resolution approaches as
well as their interface with international norms and standards. The contributors wish
that this volume will help those who are interested in the topic to find some critical
research agendas to tackle in the future.
2
Chapter 1: Introduction: The Socio-Cultural Bases of Conflict,
Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding in Africa
Bertha Z. Osei-Hwedie and Treasa Galvin
University of Botswana
This series focuses on the interface between indigenous culture and conflict resolution
and peacebuilding. African culture, viewed as knowledge, practices and institutions,
does not form a large part of the tools and mechanisms for resolving conflict and
building peace in Africa. This is due to the prominence of external initiatives of conflict
resolution and peace initiatives based on liberal values of democracy and capitalism,
and institutions including the United Nations system of organizations and Western
donor governments. The continent needs effective approaches to resolve conflict and
create peace in parts of Africa mired in continued violence. Culture is seen as a very
useful approach as it does not only identify the sources of conflict in terms of groups
holding steadfast to their ethnicity, but also offers effective solutions as culture
determines how groups perceive conflict and its resolution (Avruch, 1998; Avruch and
Black quoted in Culture & Conflict Resolution, 2008; Lederach, quoted in Culture &
Conflict Resolution, 2008). Therefore, there is need to integrate mainstream culture in
conflict mechanisms, peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts in the
African context if durable peace and security are to be realized. This would pave the
way for both state and human security, and provide the necessary environment within
which socio-economic development could take place..
1. Culture, Conflict Resolution and Peace Nexus
For African culture to play its role as the solution, the underlying causes of conflict have
to be discerned. In Africa, the culture of conflict and violence stems from tribal or
3
ethnic, religious, regional, racial differences and class divide. These reflect the diversity
of cultures, and increased economic inequalities between the haves and have nots.
Oftentimes, cultural and economic factors intertwine as causes of conflict, highlighting
the complexity of conflicts in Africa. An example is the post-election violence in Kenya,
following the December 2007 polls. While the Kenyan conflict is explained in terms of
Kikuyu-Luo/Kalenjin/Luhya confrontation, it is also about poverty, economic inequality,
unemployment, class divisions, and access to land and social amenities which cut across
ethnic lines. However, the land question disadvantages one ethnic group most, in this
case the Kalenjin, because the government settled the Kikuyu in the Rift Valley, the
home of the Kalenjin.
Also, the elite or leadership often times appeal and manipulate tribal loyalties in
the struggle for power, dominance and resources. Bass (quoted in Brown, 2001) argues
that leaders use the ‘ethnic card’ and glorify a particular group to promote their selfish
group interests; mobilize support; compete for political power; secure economic
resources; and achieve social status (Levy, 2001: 16; Brown, 2001: 211). An example is
the conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda which resulted in genocide. What
makes culture potent is that cultural affinities are emotive and have everlasting
historical roots (Brown, 2001: 211).
Cultural and economic diversities, capitalized upon by the elites, explain why
intra-state conflict is the most common phenomena in the post-Cold War era, with the
decline in inter-state conflicts. However, it should be appreciated that tribal conflicts can
be manifested as interstate conflicts as well, especially, when members of a particular
ethnic group traverse boundaries as in the case of Sudan and South Sudan. Scholars
have paid most of their attention to explaining the causes of intra-state conflicts, the
ways of resolving them, and determining and justifying the role of international
intervention in ending internal conflicts (Levy, 2001: 16). Intra-state conflicts are
assumed to be ethnic or ethno national in origin, hence increasingly attributed to
cultural factors. Therefore, conflicts must be understood in the context of culture which
determines behaviour, and is also critical to resolving conflicts and building peace.
The utility of culture lies in being both a cause of conflict and the basis of
4
conflict resolution. Therefore, it is critical to creating sustainable peace and security.
Lasting peace, it is argued, can only be achieved if there is a better understanding of the
root cause of intra state conflicts as the basis of conflict resolution and building and
managing of peace (Banseka, 2006). Proponents of the cultural model of conflict and
peace argue that human conflict and conflict resolution are cultural phenomena, and
culture shapes a group or people’s perception, evaluation and choice of options for
dealing with conflict (Fry and Bjorkqvist, 1997: 10). For instance, group perceptions
and historical memories are said to account for the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda,
which Hutus regard as self defense not genocide (Brown, 2001: 218). Different cultures
develop their own formal and informal ways of resolving conflict. Culture becomes of
utmost urgency when groups or people from different ethnic, racial, religious, and social
backgrounds are engaged in resolving their conflicts. This means that conflict resolution
requires sensitivity to cultural differences because there is no universal manual for
resolving conflict (Avruch, 1998; Avruch and Black quoted in Culture & Conflict
Resolution, 2008). Therefore, conflict should be studied from different cultural settings.
This will lead to conflict resolution processes that may apply to specific cultural settings
(Fry and Bjorkqvist, 1997: 3).
Avruch and Black’s (quoted in Culture & Conflict Resolution, 2008: 4) cultural
analysis of conflict resolution requires four things to be taken into account: what the
contenders’ ‘cultures tells them about the nature of conflict and appropriate behaviour
when in conflict’; a mediator trusted by all parties to the conflict; the ‘cultural common
sense of parties’ regarding issues at stake; and culturally accepted process or mechanism
desired by parties to resolve conflict. Similarly, Lederach (quoted in Culture & Conflict
Resolution, 2008: 3) argues, succinctly that conflict resolution ‘must situate the conflict
in the disputant’s frame of reference, understanding how the participant interprets the
boundaries and context of the conflict’.
However, while sensitivity to uniqueness of cultural settings is applauded, it is
also possible to search for general principles to conflict resolution that cut across
cultures, especially, where there are shared values and norms such as ubuntu among the
Bantu-speaking people in Southern Africa, that has been included as part of the
5
governments’ visions in South Africa and Botswana. Another example is that (the
African) cultural approach to conflict resolution requires the participation and
involvement of those individuals, groups or communities who are affected by the
conflict. This is akin to the common sense understanding of conflict resolution as
advocated by Avruch and Black (quoted in Culture & Conflict Resolution, 2008).
2. Practical Examples of the Utility of Culture
In Africa as a whole, institutions of chieftaincy, village assemblies, elders; mechanisms
of mediation, negotiation and reconciliation; and gender role specialization in conflict
resolution and community relations as a whole have been instrumental in promoting
peace, harmony and prosperity. Indeed, the use of reconciliation in some post-conflict
societies have paid dividends such as in the case of the Truth and Reconciliation in
South Africa and Liberia, and Gagacha traditional courts in Rwanda. Unfortunately, in
some post-independence African countries, such institutions, values and mechanisms
have been either subordinated to Western ones or eliminated. Botswana is one of the
few African countries that have ingeniously blended traditional institutions and
practices with modern ones to create a relatively sound basis for peace, security and
development (Osei-Hwedie, 2010).
In African cultures, females have a role in peace efforts which has not been
capitalized upon by Western institutions involved in peace missions, including the UN.
This partly accounts for the dismal record of UN peace efforts in Africa. For example,
traditionally, through inter-clan marriages, Somali women have acted as intermediaries
between opposition clans, and through traditional women’s networks that support
women and their families during conflict. Therefore, women would provide a source of
information on how traditional practices could be alternative means to conflict
resolution and promoting peace (‘Gender’, 2008). Mutamba and Izabiliza (2005) argue
that in Rwanda’s cultural context, women are the mediators, restorers of peace, and
preemptors of violence.
6
In African societies, gender role differentiation allocates the responsibility for
food production to women and finances to men (Banseka, 2006). Thus in areas of
conflict, humanitarian food aid, which is part of complex peace missions, should be
distributed by women to fellow women with sensitivity and understanding to ensure that
the needy have access to the necessary food rations, thereby taking care of their welfare
needs. This would undoubtedly lessen or eliminate the negative consequences of the
current practice of food distribution through men as in the DRC, Liberia, Sierra Leone,
Somalia and Mozambique (Nkechi, 2008). Similarly, when it comes to election
assistance as part of peacekeeping, women to women interaction during voter education
would facilitate voter mobilization as women feel more comfortable with their own
gender, a reflection of African cultural practices and socialization. In this way the
political or voting rights of women are safeguarded and contribute to political equality
among gender. Furthermore, mobilization of women by women contributes to
expansion of women’s participation in the political process, allows women to support
each other through information sharing, and give each other moral support based on
common interaction and shared experiences.
In addition, networks, support and solidarity as practiced among the Somali
women would serve as building blocks for cooperation for development purposes. Sen
(2007) argues that social solidarity and mutual support, as cultural products, are
important means of social and economic development because they form the basis of
community cooperation in development projects. Increasingly, the World Bank has
shown interest in understanding how cultural factors impact on development, including
gender roles.
3. The Case for Indigenous Knowledge and Institutions
The intractable and resilient nature of conflicts has precipitated the need to identify and
understand the sources of conflict, and search for effective approaches to conflicts,
peacebuilding and security. This has led to considering African culture as an imperative
7
for effective and sustainable peace. The call and urgency for inclusion of indigenous
knowledge and institutions to conflict resolution and peacebuilding is premised on a
number of factors. It is in part a response to Africa’s desire to determine its destiny and
take responsibility for the continent’s conflicts by using initiatives suited to Africa.
These are popularly known as ‘African solutions for African problems’ or according to
the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), ‘African
solutions for African challenges’. This is the motto which is supposed to guide the
activities of refurbished regional and sub-regional organizations mandated with conflict
resolution and prevention on the continent. These include the Organization of African
Unity and African Union, and sub regional organization such as the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) and ECOWAS/ECOMOG. These organizations are
increasingly expected to play important roles in the promotion of peace, stability, and
security to supplement the UN role (Bonyongwe, 2000: 89), and to create conditions
conducive to socio-economic development.
There are already indications that continental and sub regional organizations are
willing to adapt new peace initiatives. These include the hybridization of peace missions
that combines AUPSC peace force and UN technical and logistical support to resolve
the Darfur crisis, and the use of women peacekeepers for Liberia. The hybrid
peacekeeping mission for Darfur, the first of its kind, is meant to allow Africans to take
up more responsibility for peacekeeping on the continent in line with the desire to solve
their own problems and the belief that Africans would understand and resolve African
conflicts better than foreign peacekeepers. ECOMOG’s successful peacekeeping efforts
in Liberia provide a strong argument and practical example for a cultural approach to
peace in Africa. ECOMOG’s successful end to hostilities and civil war, and a return to
an elected government have been attributed to its appreciation and sensitivity to specific
characteristics of the Liberian situation. Bonyongwe (2000: 89) argues succinctly that
“Due to cultural affinity and common social and historical configuration …”
ECOMOG “…had more intimate knowledge of the evolution and political sensitivities
of the conflict in question”. The same argument applies to the mini ECOMOG mission
in Sierra Leone. ECOMOG refrained from applying resolution techniques developed in
8
different cultural setting to Liberia or Sierra Leone.
The prevalence and dominance of Western approaches, practices and institutions
to the search for peace is an added motive. The liberal approach, premised on
democratization and markets, has had limited success as conflicts continue to rage on
the continent as witnessed in the long drawn conflicts in the DRC, Uganda, and Niger
Delta in Nigeria. Pre- and post-elections violence in Kenya in 2007, Zimbabwe in 2008
and the DRC in 2011; the new and vicious religious violence, between Christians and
Muslims, characteristic of Nigeria recently; and poverty and delivery protests, have
added other dimensions to the causes of conflicts. These illustrate that democracy does
not always translate into peace as argued by democratic peace theorists (Doyle, 1997;
Newman et al, 2009). Instead, democratic elections contribute to recurrence of conflicts
and preclude the nurturing of a culture of peace.
The UN has been most visible in the continent’s peace efforts which have
evolved in line with the needs of different intra-state conflicts and civil wars. The UN
has relied on a range of measures including negotiations, mediation and military force,
resulting in a government of national unity and peacekeeping, respectively. However,
the fact that the UN has a checkered record of conflict resolution and peace efforts; not
prioritized African conflicts; and has been reluctant to readily intervene in African
conflicts, especially, following the debacle in Somalia and Rwanda in 1994, has
prompted African security organizations to seek ‘home grown’ strategies.
The UN does not rely on local culture in its peacekeeping and peacebuilding
operations. Darfur is cited as an example of the absence of effective peacekeeping due
to insensitivity of peacekeepers to local culture which would have helped in creating a
close relationship with the population. Fry and Bjorkqvist (1997: 5) contend that one of
the reasons for the failure to resolve conflicts or negotiate for peace is the fact that
mediators impose their own premises and assumptions about conflict and conflict
resolution to opposing group which do not share them. Similarly, the gender question
has not been relevant until the inclusion of the first all-female contingent of UN
peacekeepers from India in Liberia in the 2000s. The UN has embraced local
participation and collaboration in response to accusations of neo-colonialism and neo-
9
imperialism as well as to augment the legitimacy of its missions; and to pave the way
for sustainable peace and development (Wilen and Chapaux, 2011: 531). Unfortunately,
local participation and collaboration is faced with three major challenges of identifying
local participants and collaborators, inherent mode of operations of the UN as an
organization, and the practical problems of implementation. Burundi is cited as an
example of the inability by the UN and the government to collaborate to the extent that
the government asked the UN to leave. The government in the DRC also requested the
UN to depart. Liberia is a classic good collaboration between the government and the
UN. However, in both Burundi and Liberia there are problems of local participation in
UN peacebuilding activities (Wilen and Chapaux, 2011: 543-545).
The urgency, therefore, to use culturally appropriate conflict resolution and
peacebuilding process stems from the intricate relationship between peace and
development as peace guarantees conditions within which development can take place.
As a late developing continent and characterized by poverty, peace is of utmost
importance to Africa, and to enable it to concentrate efforts on socio-economic
development.
4. The Imperative for Research
There is recognition of the urgency to mainstreaming culture in peace and security
mechanisms in the African context; and that adoption and practical application of
indigenous methods, no matter their utility, ultimately depend on their acceptance by
international organizations and donor agencies as key actors in Africa’s peace initiatives.
The main task remains one of availability of in-depth research that identifies indigenous
approaches that are applicable to resolution of conflicts in modern systems. The efforts
in this volume are meant for this purpose. In chapter two, Malan provides the principles
and processes of indigenous methods of conflict resolution in Africa, highlighting
relevance to, and practicability in, modern society. He argues for the need to ensure that
the past approaches are not romanticized, rather, outdated elements should be modified
10
to supplement modern national and international ones. In chapter three, Osei-Hwedie
and Rankopo, using the Akan of Ghana and Tswana of Botswana, detail the underlying
principles, institutions and processes of indigenous conflict resolution in modern
systems. They demonstrate that chiefs and traditional courts play critical roles in
resolving conflict at the individual and family levels, including spiritual matters.
Dzimbiri, in chapter four, compares and contrasts indigenous conflict resolution at the
family level among the Lomwe and dispute resolution mechanisms in modern
organizations. He concludes that indigenous methods serve as a supplement to modern
ones. The final chapter five by Shinoda tackles the sensitive yet topical issue of local
ownership to close the gap between outside and inside methods. He illustrates his
arguments with reference to international peacebuilding agencies, such as the
OECD/DAC, UN Peacebuilding Commission, and indigenous methods of Afghanistan,
Sierra Leone, and Rwanda. The basic problem highlighted by Shinoda is the fact that
many traditional methods do not involve peacebuilding within the concept of the nation-
state.
References
Avruch, K. 1998, Culture and Conflict Resolution, Washington, D.C: United States
Institute of Peace Press.
Banseka, C. 2006, ‘The new era of African Union Peacekeeping and the Culture
Question’, available at
http://www.hollerafrica.com/showArticle.php?catId=1&artId=122&PHPSESSID
=18813b, retrieved on 27 February 2006.
Bonyongwe, H. 2000, ‘Employing African Forces in Peace Operations in Africa’, in
Rotberg, R, E. Albaugh, H. Bonyongwe, C. Clapham, J. Herbst and S. Metz,
Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement in Africa, Cambridge: The World peace
Foundation, pp. 84-97.
Brown, M. 2001, ‘Ethnic and Internal Conflicts: Causes and Implications’, in C.
11
Crocker, C, F. Hampson and P. Aall (eds), Turbulent Peace, Washington, D.C:
United States Institute of Peace Press, pp. 209-226.
‘Culture and Conflict Resolution’, available at
http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/confres/dislearn/3_part3.html, retrieved on 28
April 2008.
Doyle, M. 1997. Ways of War and Peace. New York: W.W. Norton.
Fry, D and B. Bjorkqvist. 1997, ‘Introduction: Conflict Resolution Themes’, in Fry, D
and K. Bjorkqvist (eds.), Cultural Variation in Conflict Resolution, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc Publishers, pp. 3-7.
‘Gender issues in conflict resolution’. 2008, available at
http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/confres/dislearn/3_part3.html, retrieved on 28
April 2008.
Levy, J. 2001, ‘Theories of Interstate and Intrastate War: A Levels-of-Analysis
Approach’, in C. Crocker, C, F. Hampson and P. Aall (eds), Turbulent Peace,
Washington, D.C: United States Institute of Peace Press, pp. 3-27.
Mutamba and Izabiliza. 2005, ‘The Role of Women in Reconciliation and Peace
Building in Rwanda: Ten years after genocide 1994-2004’, available at
www.nurc.gov.rw.
Newman, E, R. Paris & O. Richmond. 2009. New Perspectives on liberal Peacebuilding.
Tokto: United nations University Press.
Nkechi, O. 2007, ‘Civilian Protection in African Peacekeeping: A Gender Perspective’,
The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), 4,
16-22.
Osei-Hwedie, B.Z. 2010. “Botswana: Indigenous Institutions, Civil Society and
Government in Peacebuilding in Southern Africa”. Journal of International
Development and Cooperation, 16, 2, 115-127.
Sen, A. 2007, ‘Culture and Development’, available at
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=culture%2Bdevelopment&btnG=Googl
e+ Search, 25 April 2008.
Wilen, N and V. Chapaux (2011). “Problems of Local participation and Collaboration
12
with the UN in a Post-conflict Environment: Who are the ‘Locals”’? Global
society, 25, 4, October: 531-548.
13
Chapter 2: Indigenous Dispute Resolution and Reconciliation:
Past, Present and Future
Jannie Malan
University of Botswana
Introduction
In this chapter, thoughts are shared about the disposition towards indigenous methods of
dealing with conflict, and about timelessly valid values and features embodied in them.
The emphasis falls on the realism and pragmatism with which conflict and its resolution
were approached, and on the objective of restoring social harmony. Furthermore,
suggestions are made about elements of indigenous methods that are still undoubtedly
relevant, and those that obviously need to be changed.
In the current context, in general terms, ways of dealing with conflict refer to the
insights and techniques that have developed in the human sciences and applied human
sciences over the past fifty or more years. Indigenous methods, however, tend to take a
leap back into the fairly remote past, and feelings may vacillate between commiseration
with primitiveness and commendation of timeless wisdom. In simple terms,
indigenousness is categorized as either good or bad.
1. The Inevitability of Ethno-cultural Belongingness
‘Indigenous’ is not just a scientific tag; it is a reality-based term. But the human reality
on which it is based is an identity-related one which has always been a problem-beset
phenomenon. Bauman (1996:18-19) has justifiably said: ‘at no time did identity
“become” a problem; it was a problem from its birth’. Taking this metaphor a step
further, it can be said that in many, if not most, cases the two factors that define identity
14
are insecurity and superiority. Bauman (1996:19) elaborates on the insecurity aspect:
‘One thinks of identity whenever one is not sure of where one belongs’. A striking
example of ‘struggles for identity’ was for instance found in the period when colonies
became independent states (Niezen 1999:150).
The superiority aspect is a result of the fact that identity perceptions do not arise
in isolation, and that they inevitably lead to comparisons. It is indeed so that ‘identity is
a consequence of the interaction of self-conception and the perceptions of others’
(Alperson 2002:68). But the self, or the own group, does not only take note of
perceptions by others; it anyway forms its own perceptions of others (Jordaan and
Jordaan 1998:644). The resulting identity concepts are therefore not only about ‘who we
are’ and ‘who they are’ but especially about ‘how much better we are than they’.
There is thus good reason to call ‘identity’ an ‘uneasy concept’ (Taylor and
Spencer 2004:1). But then, the same can be said of ‘indigeneity’, a concept which
usually arises where there is a contrast between (past) settlers and indigenes or between
outsiders and local population groups. In such a situation, the tendencies are to compare,
compete and oppose. Such tendencies are deeply rooted. They cannot be wished away
or preached away. So also, these ‘uneasy’ concepts cannot be ignored or sidelined, the
phenomena they denote should be understood.
It is necessary to accept inevitable belongingness to the group (or groups) into
which each person is born. Each person’s belongingness is a comprehensive and
ongoing loyalty to, or captivity in, his/her nature and his/her nurture. As people grow up,
however, they may venture into critical thinking about their ethno-cultural upbringing
and perhaps develop misgivings about it. That was what some white South Africans felt
obliged to do with the horridly unjust apartheid their ethno-cultural group expected
them to uphold. Apartheid was a pertinent and extreme example of exclusiveness
embedded in a cultural system – and, moreover, it was entrenched as divinely instructed.
But any culture can be marred by customs of exclusivity and superiority. All
these understandable realities about inevitable ethno-culturalities can therefore be
convincing that no group should go overboard with loyalty to their ‘superior’ way of life,
but that each group should also become fearlessly honest about its cherished traditions.
15
There is a rare but very commendable example from Africa in this regard: ‘…the
Borana community [a pastoralist group in Kenya] spends much of its time thinking
about their culture and making deliberate attempts to modify their customs’ (Duba et al
1997:16). It should be remembered that it is possible to complement appropriate loyalty
to one’s own group with fellow-human inclusiveness towards other groups.
It is such open-mindedness that should be practised when we are dealing with
the ‘uneasy’ concepts of identity and indigenousness. In daily life, people may
constantly be surrounded by own-group members who think, talk and act as if their
‘identity’ is better than the ‘identities’ of others, and as if ‘indigenousness’ is timelessly
good or primitively bad. However, people should venture out of everyday stereotypes
and enter into frank dialoguing about indigenously traditional ways of thinking,
communicating and doing.
2. The Normality of Everyday Problems and Disputes
From the mere fact that so many societies have developed and are maintaining their
traditional methods of dealing with conflict, important inferences can be drawn. For
instance:
Our ancestors seem to have taken conflict as a reality that had to be approached in a
realistic way and had to be addressed in a common-sensical way.
Apparently they did not regard conflict as an embarrassing phenomenon that had to
be denied or brushed aside. They seem to have accepted it as something that had a
valid reason, or was at least perceived to have had a valid reason.
Therefore, instead of idealistically sermonising to the parties in a top-down way,
they encouraged them to frankly talk the problematic things out in a bottom-up
way.1 The parties had to identify the underlying cause, or if this was common
1 ‘Traditional African approaches are predominantly bottom-up processes, while the national and
international conflict resolution mechanisms are essentially top-down processes’ (Murithi and Pain
2000:viii, 38.
16
knowledge already, they had to call it by its name. If there were different perceptions
or perspectives about the real problem, these had to be talked out and listened out.
Such honesty (or assisted honesty if necessary and if possible) could then lead to
understanding (preferably mutual understanding) and consensus (or at least some
bilaterally acceptable agreement).
The important point to note is that the indigenous methods seem to have developed
where experienced elders and socially cohesive communities accepted the normality and
the resolvability of conflict in everyday life. They must have been realistically minded
about ways in which conflicts between individuals or groups can arise and escalate.
Some of the causes could have been understandable ones, related to various kinds of
injustice (or perceived injustice), while others were probably unacceptable ones, based
on selfishness or own-groupishness. But then, our ancestors were apparently also
definitely oriented towards resolving the conflicts by penetrating to root causes and
moving to satisfactory agreements. When the cause seemed to have been an
unacceptable one, they did not begin by condemning the guilty party, but by providing
an opportunity for frank talking and receptive listening. The learning we can probably
derive from most traditional methods is that a conflict should be approached in a matter-
of-fact and ethically unprejudiced way.
Related to the issue of avoiding ethical pressurising, there is an urgent but
difficult question to be confronted, however: Are the increasingly popular peace-plus-
participle terms (such as peace making, peace keeping and peace building) appropriate
in all situations? This set of terms (Miller 2005:56-60, 61-62) has been coined in a
United Nations context and seems to have gained a world-wide usage. Conflict-
resolving organisations tend to make less use of the conflict-plus-noun terms (such as
conflict prevention, conflict management and conflict resolution) and more of the
peace-plus-participle ones. Obviously, there are important arguments in favour of these
peace terms. They positively emphasise the objectives of attaining and maintaining
peace. They are endorsed and supported by peace promoters who undoubtedly make up
a global majority.
The problem is, however, that the peace terms may estrange the conflict
17
propagators who care little or nothing about peace and are only focused on the demands
and objectives of the conflict they are waging. They may be an insignificant minority,
but they can violently nullify or even reverse the apparent achievements of the peace-
seeking majority. In situations where there are strong anti-peace sentiments, it may
therefore be wise to shift the emphasis from the goal of peace to the goal of justice,2 and
to use appropriate wording to acknowledge the valid role of justice-seeking conflict,3
but then point the way to non-violent ways of moving from conflict to coexistence.
It is not only on conflict-oriented people that an obsession with peace may have
an unwanted influence. Such an approach may also tempt some of the peace-oriented
people to take shortcuts to ‘peace’.4 With good intentions they may try to rush to peace.
They may think that it is a waste of time to identify root causes, or to take trouble to get
a difficult party at the talks. They, especially if they are religiously minded, may try to
sermonise antagonistic parties into a forgiving friendliness.
Terms such as ‘peace making’, ‘peace keeping’ and ‘peace building’ may not be
appropriate in all situations. Therefore, it is necessary to: remember that these terms are
misunderstandable – both by those who are bent on continuing the struggle5 and by
those who are pushing for a quick-fix peace,6 and recognise that there may be valid
reasons for an aggrieved party to instigate a conflict and carry on with it until the
grievance-causing party’s eyes have been opened.
And as a clinching emphasis in this regard, it is useful to note what Davies and
Kaufman (2002:3) say about citizens’ diplomacy and its objective of ‘a dynamic and
2 Or ‘justpeace’, as recommended by Jean Paul Lederach 1999:27-36.
3 Twenty three years ago, when we were still in the protracted struggle against apartheid, we were
planning to introduce a post-graduate course in conflict resolution at the University of the Western
Cape (UWC). We did not even think of calling it ‘Peace Studies’, but thought that ‘Conflict Resolution’ would be suitable – especially since we emphasised that nothing less than root cause-
removing resolution was meant (Malan 1987:1-2). If a key word in the title would appear to be
against the struggle, it would discredit the course. So we called it ‘Conflict Studies’. 4 ‘Establishment parties (e.g. mayors, police chiefs, and college presidents) seem most eager to
resolve conflict, for they generally wish to stop it as quickly as possible so that their institutions can
“get back to normal”’ (Laue 1981:68). 5 Under the widely popular slogan of ‘A luta continua!’
6 Who, if they are Christians, may do it under the banner of ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ (Matthew
5:9) – while they conveniently forget that in the same paragraph blessedness is also promised to
those who ‘do hunger and thirst after righteousness’ (Matthew 5:6). (Quotations deliberately from an
older, more literal translation of the New Testament.)
18
just peace’:
The field aims, therefore, not merely to contain or manage violent conflict but to
prevent or resolve it through addressing its root causes, transforming violent or
contentious relations into sustainable working partnerships dealing constructively with
those root causes. There is no effort to resolve or eliminate conflict as such, since social
conflict (the perceived incompatibility of the interests or aspirations of two groups) is an
inevitable feature of social relationships.
3. The Possibility of Solving Problems and Resolving Disputes
It seems our ancestors accepted the normality of conflict, and also the possibility of
resolving it. The indigenous methods seem to have accepted conflict as an
understandable phenomenon in normal inter-human interaction. They obviously had to
cope with several ‘normal’ phenomena about which they could do little or nothing, such
as illness, physical and mental disability, accidents, drought, and adverse weather. But
when a dispute appeared on the scene and threatened to disrupt relationships,7 they
seemed to have approached it as a type of problem about which something could indeed
be done. According to Ngwane (1996:51), [t]he desire to solve problems amicably is the
main thrust of the African character’. Thus, the main objective of the indigenous
methods seems to have been to resolve a conflict by reaching consensus on the most
effective way of dealing justly and fairly with its root cause(s) and the best possible way
of reconciling the parties and restoring social harmony.
Dealing with conflict has probably never been a pleasant, easy or quick job. It is
a challenging task, and usually an urgent one. But our ancestors apparently took up the
responsibility to do what they could. They seem to have looked further than the
difficulties and complexities of the conflict situation and been pulled by the prospect of
restored harmony. And when elders or chiefs were called upon to deal with a conflict –
7 Most probably the common sense of the elders prevented them from trying to intervene in each and
every squabble or quarrel in their community.
19
by a party or by the community or by their own convictions – they were probably
pushed by encouraging incentives. They had their experience of life, and of the value of
talking things out. If an ethno-cultural group already had developed a method of dealing
with conflict, it knew how satisfactory outcomes had been reached and implemented.
They could therefore undertake the daunting task with accumulated wisdom, by means
of a home-grown method, and in a problem-solving mode. Even if a particular case
appeared to be a very revolting and difficult one, the elders could have felt somewhat
relieved and reassured by the fact that they would not be required to deliver judgement
as in a court of law. They would be assisted by the outspoken contributions of the
parties, witnesses and members of the public. The drive towards consensus would
hopefully prevent the process from reaching an erroneous outcome.8
What clearly seems to have been a core element of the indigenous methods was
that the matter concerned was unhurriedly talked out and that the talking was oriented
towards eventual consensus. In a generalizing way, it may be said that the indigenous
methods did not function as a court of litigation, but rather as a truth and reconciliation
commission. The initial objectives were obviously to expose the truth about what had
gone wrong and who had been responsible. Free and frank talking apparently formed
the core of traditional methods – although elders seem to have had the option of giving
a party (or parties) a pep talk when they (and the community concerned) found it
necessary. This means that indigenous methods accepted conflict as something that has
to be talked about and talked out.9 The subsequent objectives, however, were to rectify
the wrong through restorative justice and restorative reconciliation,10
but if the situation
demanded it, retributive justice could be pursued. There was no obsession with the
punishment of the guilty party, but rather a concern about admission of guilt,
appropriate compensation, possible forgiveness, and especially about restored
8 ‘Consensual agreement was the hallmark of conflict resolution in the traditional societies’ (Murithi
and Pain 2000:19). 9 In ACCORD’s training of learners and educators, we have used (as hand-out) a 50-page booklet
with the title Conflict – something to talk about (ACCORD 1997). 10
A comparison between litigation and reconciliation always tends to open up the perennial debate
about retributive and restorative justice. We have to admit, therefore, that at all times there must have
been the cases where public opinion called for a punitive verdict instead of reconciliatory re-
integration. We still have such cases.
20
relationships and social harmony.
To endorse the aptness of these comparisons, an interesting present-day example
may be mentioned to show how and why people prefer a traditional institution to state
courts – that is, of course, in cases where such a choice is possible. Zeleke (2010: 63-
64) states:
Apart from the lack of capacity under which it suffers, the state legal
system can also be criticised for a high degree of preferential treatment due
to corruption, so that justice is provided only to a few. Furthermore, the
ideology of the state legal system is drawn mainly from the western legal
philosophy which is highly influenced by an individualistic orientation and
does not fit the strong social orientation on the ground where it is being
implemented… The strong social tie existing in the community makes the
significance of reconciliation, the key role of traditional institutions,
indispensable.
According to Zeleke (2010:71), there are four main reasons why people prefer the
traditional institution. It focuses on reconciliation and re-establishing social harmony, it
is well embedded in the culture of the society, and it allows flexibility in its procedures
where needed. It can be trusted – while the effectivity and trustworthiness of the state
legal system are under suspicion. There are obviously cases of more serious offences, in
which – in our time at least – formal court procedures are essential. However, well
established and historically based (on Western philosophy) these legal procedures may
be, they are surely not perfect.11
4. The Desirability of Restoring and Sustaining Social Harmony
11
In cases where retributive justice has to be applied, the traditional methods may have an advantage.
They are not bound by technicalities and legalities that often cause an obviously guilty party to walk
out of a sophisticated court scot-free.
21
With regard to indigenous methods of dealing with conflict, it is necessary to find our
way in a field full of diversity, but also full of commonalities. While it is important to
steer clear of superficial generalization, some degree of generalizing is inevitable. In my
opinion, the landmark All-Africa Conference on African Principles of Conflict
Resolution and Reconciliation held in Addis Ababa in 1999 provided a sound, Africa-
developed and Africa-owned synopsis, which may be used with confidence.12
In
particular, a ‘Summary of Principles from across Africa’ was drawn up in consensus
style (Murithi and Pain, 2000:95-96; Appendix)
The ‘Summary of Principles from across Africa’ (Appendix) has provided us
with a quite authentic and very significant frame of reference. The linkage between
conflict resolution and reconciliation was clearly emphasized. But justice and fairness
were also stressed.13
The context implies that restorative justice was meant, but in light
of the emphasis on ‘open agenda’, ‘accountability’ and ‘consensus’ one may assume that
retributive justice could also have been applied where necessary.14
It is interesting to note that the orientation to reconciliation was apparently not
only present in cases of family and neighbourhood conflicts, but also in more ‘political’
situations. Assefa and Wachira (1996:57-58) point out that ‘[r]econciliation
politics…seems to be more consistent with many African traditions, which emphasize
community rather than individualism and competition’.
5. The Validity of Time-proven Ways of Resolving Disputes
Traditions were handed down from generation to generation. But no group remains
12
Twenty-one African countries were represented, and of the 123 participants, 113 were from Africa.
Of the 64 presentations, 70% contained descriptions and discussions of traditional methods of
particular groups or areas. The conference was co-organised by eight organisations. 13
See 2.7 and 3.4 (Appendix). 14
See the summary of Prof Hannah Kinoti’s presentation on Lessons from the traditional Gikuyu
administration of justice (Kihooto): Special reference to lawsuits and litigation (Murithi and Pain
2000:29-30).
22
unchanged through the decades and centuries of its history. Tensions may therefore
develop between conservatism and progressivism. Members of a group, perhaps as
smaller groupings or as individuals, may find themselves hesitating between long-
established customs and up-to-date practices.
There are no (well) documented records of the indigenous methods in the past.
What are available are oral traditions handed down over long periods, and our own
imaginations with which we may think ourselves into the history concerned. Where the
existing narratives do not reach back to the origins of a method, we may, tentatively but
confidently, use clues from our own experience. After all, although our early ancestors
lived in very different circumstances, we may surely assume that they were as basically
human as we are. We know how new ways of doing things come into being in our time.
We know, for instance, the difference between democratic and autocratic processes.
These modern names did not exist in the remote past, but in the behaviour of human
leaders a similar distinction could have been possible. What this means that some of the
indigenous methods could have taken shape in a truly consensual way, but there could
also have been some methods or some aspects of a method that were imposed on a
group by a dominating leader. Dominating leaders can of course come up with ideas that
may be to the benefit of all, but too often they tend to impose their own, or their own
group’s ideas on subservient followers and/or disempowered minorities.
On the whole, the indigenous methods that have survived to the present day
were based on carefully pre-meditated ideas and practices, accepted by consensus, and
embraced by the communities concerned. It should be remembered, however, that
sudden ‘inspirations’ of charismatic leaders could have found their way into such
methods and could have been adopted unthinkingly. Moreover, general mindsets of
those days, particularly patriarchalism, could have been tolerated uncritically. The only
‘proof’ of the soundness of a method may be found in its effective implementation over
the years.
It can indeed be said of these traditional methods that they essentially consist of
applied values and insights that are of timeless validity. The methods may contain some
procedures or ceremonies, usually around the confirming of a final agreement, that were
23
of a local nature. But aspects as the following can be approved and used in any situation
and at any time: Taking time to talk things out - the talks were usually started without
wasting time, so that escalation of the conflict could be prevented. Talks could even be
started at the stage of early warning signals, since prevention was taken very seriously.15
But during the talks ample time was allowed to everyone from the parties, families,
neighbourhoods or communities who wished to take part. Dealing with root causes of
conflicts - the obvious objective of the unhurried talking was to penetrate to the cause(s),
and especially the underlying one(s), in order to resolve the conflict effectively and
satisfactorily.
Typical causes long ago were poverty (scarcity of food and other resources),
land issues (as trespassing), livestock issues (as robbery) and personal issues (as
rivalries). Being oriented toward consensus - the expression of ‘talking things out’ is
usually used for talking from all perspectives, through all the difficulties concerned, and
out of them. As problems and grievances are frankly emphasised, discussed and
understood, the difficulties may diminish and a consensus about a solution may develop.
Promoting relational interdependence - the concern with relationships seems to have
been one of the core elements of indigenous methods. Note was taken of how the pre-
conflict relationships were disturbed by the conflict, and a solution was sought that
would at least restore the relationships, but perhaps even improve them.
The undoubted value of procedures like these is that they are clear
manifestations of the orientation to togetherness in the spirit of ubuntu (authentic
humanhood and genuine humaneness).16
In an increasingly materialistic world they
deserve to be upheld and implemented.
6. The Adaptability of Traditional Ways in the Contemporary Context
15
See the underlying principle at the beginning of the quotation of ‘Summary of Principles from
Across Africa’ in section 1.4 above. For a contemporary emphasis on conflict prevention, see Toure
1999:23-26. 16
Cf. Murithi and Pain 2000:76-77.
24
A question may be asked as to why we delve into remnants from the remote past while
we have access to all the novelties and niceties of today’s world - information and
technology, multiplying at exponential rates. After all, in seconds we can get to millions
of information packages about everything – including conflict resolution and
reconciliation. Moreover, in the past fifty years,17
a contemporary discipline of dealing
with conflict has been established and developed. It is made up of interdisciplinary
scientific theory and pragmatic methodology.
A responsible reply may be that in the entire field of human interaction and
interdependence, the wisdom of the past cannot be simply ignored and we cannot
become obsessed with the tools of the present. It is not a matter of either-or but rather of
both-and. But then, not both-and in the form of adding on or joining things that are
incompatible. Also, it is not a matter of eclectically putting together agreeable features
of different approaches. What would be necessary, is first, a distinguishing between
ephemeral peculiarities and timeless insights and meanings, and second, a very well
considered process of integrating the relevant and meaningful elements of traditional
methods and of current theories and practices.
The objective All-Africa conference of 1999 was not to romanticise and
prioritise the indigenous methods of the past. ‘These approaches would not seek to
replace current modern approaches but rather they would complement the on-going
efforts and support existing mechanisms that aim to build a culture of peace in Africa’
(Murithi and Pain 2000:v).
While an integrating and complementing perspective should be adopted, there is
another perspective that should also be taken seriously. There is the South post-colonial
perspective (Wa Thiong’o 1986) according to which the science of Conflict and Peace
Studies that has developed in the 20th century appears to be a neo-colonial import into
Africa. Although the struggles of disadvantaged groups against socio-economic and
political injustice played a prominent part in the coming into being of this science, these
same people tend to deplore the fact that the ‘new’ techniques of negotiation, mediation,
17
Or even more than 80 years, if the introduction of collective bargaining and mediation in the field
of labour-management relations is taken into account (Henderson 1974:59-91).
25
arbitration and conciliation were mainly cultivated in the cultural contexts of the West
and the North.
Fortunately, however, there are people in the North and the West who
acknowledge that the new science of dealing with conflict cannot only be attributed to
their own expertise, but is definitely based on inputs from other sectors of the globe.18
And there are people from the South who admit that ‘[o]bviously, not all traditional
values are good; nor are all colonial or Western values bad’ (Murithi and Pain
2000:15.19
To deal with ‘the challenge of integrating indigenous approaches into national
and international mechanisms for conflict resolution (Murithi and Pain 2002: viii),
preparatory research should be done in three directions: a general study of such methods,
a study of representative examples from all over the globe, and a concentrated study of
methods used by particular groups in the country or area concerned. A few
representative examples that can be recommended are:
The Wajir peace initiative, where ‘women [took] the peace lead in pastoral Kenya’
(European Centre for Conflict Prevention 1999:243), and which has been
summarised as follows: ‘In essence, the Wajir peace initiative has taken the region
back to the future, by reviving basic methods of conflict resolution used in pre-
colonial times to encourage the equitable sharing of the region’s limited resources’
(European Centre for Conflict Prevention 1999:244).
The Ho’o Ponopono20
process in Hawaii, where the community, including
perpetrators, victims and others, and ‘wise person’ moderates gather in a circle, and
where the process is one ‘through which the community will reach a consensus
agreement on how to resolve the conflict’ (Partners in Conflict in Lesotho Project
2004:14).
18
Davies and Kaufman (2002) have even given their book (and its introductory article) a combined
north-south title: Second Track/Citizens’ Diplomacy. (Their explanation is given at Davies and
Kaufman 2002:183.) 19
Quoted from the summary of the very first presentation (after the keynote speeches) at the All-
Africa conference. It was by Ms Titilayo Ogundipe-Leslie, and on the topic ‘The necessity of
African principles of conflict resolution and reconciliation’. (It was my great privilege to deliver the
second presentation, on ‘Africa’s attitudinal, relational and traditional art of dealing with conflict’.) 20
A Polynesian concept meaning ‘to put right’.
26
The ‘big meeting’ (Kacoke Madit) tradition in northern Uganda, in which
‘[c]onsensus leadership allows everyone to contribute to decision making of their
society. A major function of the traditional chiefs is to act as arbitrators and
reconcilers when disputes occur in order to restore peace and maintain harmonious
relations between families and clans. The process ends in a significant ceremony of
“Mato Oput”, the traditional drinking of a bitter herb of the Oput tree’ (Lanek
1999:2). In cases of murder or war, this ceremony is followed by “the bending of
spears” ‘to symbolise a total end to the conflict’ (Lanek 1999:4).
When we focus on traditional methods in any particular area, there is of course the
reality that not all societal or ethno-cultural groups have their own specific methods of
dealing with conflict (or that two groups in conflict, may each have its own method21
.
There may also be the problem that although there is a local method, the present
generation may be disowning their ownership of their indigenous method. One
particular reason for abandoning a once trusted method may be that it is tainted with an
old-fashioned patriarchalism which can no longer be tolerated, or was not inclusive.
Instead of rejecting a whole method, however, it is possible to modify it from outdated
elements. At the All-Africa conference, three sets of strategies were formulated for
‘developing and integrating African principles of conflict resolution and reconciliation’,
and one of them was a set of ‘strategies for enhancing the participation of women in
peacemaking in Africa’ (Murithi and Pain 2000:100).
6. Conclusion - The Implementability of Appropriate Approaches on our Way
Forward
Indigenous methods in general and specific examples in particular, have definitely
values, approaches and practices embodied in them that deserve to be maintained and
perpetuated. However, there are also criticisable aspects, such as old-fashioned ideology
21
For instance, the Mato Oput tradition is used by the Acholi, but the nearby Langi have a different
tradition (Nabukeera-Musoke 2009:122).
27
(for instance, gender inequity) or methodology (for instance, pressurising mediation).
While accepting the need for change in a constantly changing world, we should
be able to dispense with methods and ceremonies that have become incompatible with
contemporary ways of dealing with conflict, and to endorse and promote the spirit that
vitalised the traditional ways and still radiates from them. After all, if those traditions
arose in realistic and pragmatic ways, we may surely be realistic and pragmatic in our
context. The only problem lies in the nature of conflict and their historical root causes.
What society, especially those who were not brought up in an ubuntu culture of
inter-human interrelatedness, should realise, however, is that relational conflict
resolving and relational living have to be internalised. A societal way of living cannot
simply be added onto an individualistic way of life. Ubuntu rhetoric without ubuntu
coexistence misses the point. Coexistence as a duty and therefore as an effort, is a mere
show.
Therefore, to improve current methods by integrating indigenous methods with
them, scholars and society have to fully understand what should be done. It will not be a
matter of adding an extra chapter to our training manuals. It will probably have to be
nothing less than rewriting almost everything with a changed mindset. Those who think
this is unnecessary may carry on doing good work or even very good work by means of
current best practices. Excellent material is available on up-to-date theory and practice.
Malan (2003:2) made an astute observation on ‘significant inputs from our global
village’: ‘In this regard we happen to have the very recent and very useful results of a
survey about ‘best practices’.
It is not uncommon, however, that contemporary material does include
perspectives from traditional methods. In the world-wide field of dealing with conflict,
there are signs of more attention being given to relationships. A very good example is
found in Kriesberg’s (1998), where there is a consistent focus on the relationships
between people. Kriesberg (1998:42-47, 133-139) gives due attention to the relationship
between adversaries, which is frequently ‘the crucial component of a conflict’s origin’.
He also focuses on changes in relations (Kriesberg 1998:157-159, 194-196, 261, 318-
324), and regards ‘[a]n improved relationship between former adversaries’ as ‘another
28
marker [in addition to equity and justice] of constructive outcomes’. Nevertheless,
however, a determined and committed search for insights into and learnings from
indigenous methods of dealing with conflict can be surprisingly rewarding, and can be
strongly recommended to researchers and practitioners.
In actual practice the unwillingness of a party to listen, understand, admit, and
consequently accept an agreement – and implement it – can lead to a deadlock, even
when the most appropriate method and most experienced facilitators have been used.
Therefore, if an unwilling party-friendly method could be used by unwilling party-
friendly facilitators, it might lead to a breakthrough. That is why I would like to
conclude by emphasising that we should internalise, from indigenous methods or from
any contemporary influence – which might be building blocks for a new approach:
an unprejudiced attitude about group-belongingness and group-loyalty,
a commitment to be outspoken about discriminatory aspects in our own cultures,
an open-mindedness about the reasons and purposes of conflicts,
an unrelenting standpoint against superficial pursuits of ‘peace’,
an allegiance to interconnected justice and peace,
a willingness to get together and talk problems out, and
a commitment to coexist as diverse but interrelated human beings.
References
African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD). 1997. Conflict
– something to talk about: Training manual for a conflict management
programme in high schools in the Bellville area. Bellville, ACCORD.
Alperson, Philip ed. 2002. Diversity and community: An interdisciplinary reader.
Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Assefa, Hizkias and George Wachira eds. 1996. Peacemaking and democratisation in
Africa: Theoretical perspectives and church initiatives. Nairobi, East African
Educational Publishers.
29
Bauman, Zygmunt 1996. From pilgrim to tourist – or a short history of identity. In: Hall,
Stuart and Paul du Gay eds. Questions of cultural identity. London, Sage. Pp.18-
36.
Davies, John and Edward (Edy) Kaufman eds. 2002. Second track/Citizens’ diplomacy:
Concepts and techniques for conflict transformation. Lanham, Rowman &
Littlefield.
Duba, Kana Roba, Yara G. Kalacha, John Rigano, Fred Lesekali, Mohammed A
Seikhow, Francis Nikitoria ole Sekuda, Jonathan Akeno and Sammi Emweki 1997.
Honey and Heifer, Grasses, Milk and Water: A heritage of diversity in
reconciliation. Nairobi, Mennonite Central Committee Kenya, with assistance
from the National Museums of Kenya.
European Centre for Conflict Prevention 1999. Women take the peace lead in pastoral
Kenya: Back to the future. In: European Centre for Conflict Prevention, People
building peace: 35 inspiring stories from around the world. Utrecht, European
Centre for Conflict Prevention. pp. 243-247.
Henderson, George 1974. Human relations: From theory to practice. Norman, OK,
University of Oklahoma Press.
Jordaan, Wilhelm and Jackie Jordaan 1998. Mense in konteks (‘People in context’)
Third edition. Johannesburg, Heinemann.
Kriesberg, Louis 1998. Constructive conflicts: From escalation to resolution. Lanham,
Rowman and Littlefield.
Lanek, Richard 1999. ‘Mato Oput’, the drinking of bitter herb. Paper presented at the
All-Africa Conference on African Principles of Conflict Resolution and
Reconciliation, Addis Ababa, 8-12 November 1999.
Laue, James H. 1981. Conflict intervention. In: Olsen, M.E. and M. MIcklin, Handbook
of applied Sociology: Frontiers of contemporary research. New York, Praeger. pp
67-90.
Lederach, Jean Paul 1999. Justpeace: the challenge of the 21st century. In: European
Centre for Conflict Prevention, People building peace: 35 inspiring stories from
around the world. Utrecht, European Centre for Conflict Prevention. pp. 27-36.
30
Malan, Jannie 1987. A Conflict Resolution course at UWC? A proposal submitted to the
Academic Planning Committee of the Senate of the University of the Western
Cape, May 1987.
Malan, Jannie 2003. On designing a Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies. Paper
presented at the SADC Experts Consultative Meeting on the Establishment of a
Centre for Peace Studies at the University of Botswana, Gaborone, 13-15 August
2003.
Miller, Christopher E. 2005. A glossary of terms and concepts in Peace and Conflict
Studies. Second edition. San José, Costa Rica, University for Peace.
Murithi, Timothy & Dennis Pain eds. 1999. All-Africa Conference on African Principles
of Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation, November 8-12, 1999, United Nations
Conference Centre – ECA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Final Report. Addis Ababa,
Shebelle-Ethiopia Conference Services.
Nabukeera-Musoke, Harriet 2009. Transitional justice and gender in Uganda: Making
peace, failing women during the peace negotiation process. African Journal on
Conflict Resolution, 9 (2), Special issue on Gender and transitional justice in
Africa, pp.121-129.
Ngwane, George 1996. Settling disputes in Africa: Traditional bases for conflict
resolution. Yaoundé, Buma Kor.
Niezen, Ronald 2004. A world beyond difference: Cultural identity in the age of
globalization. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Partners in Conflict in Lesotho Project. 2004. (National University of Lesotho,
Moshoeshoe Center for Diplomacy and Conflict Management, and University of
Maryland, Center for International Development and Conflict Management).
Hand-out at Workshop on Integrative Approaches to Peace-building and Conflict
Transformation in the Region, Maseru, 26-29 February 2004.
Taylor, Gary and Steve Spencer eds. 2004. Social identities: Multidisciplinary
approaches. London and New York, Routledge.
Toure, Amadou Toumani 1999. Mastering African conflicts. In: Adedeji, Adebayo ed.
Comprehending and mastering African conflicts: The search for sustainable
31
peace and good governance. London, Zed Books. pp. 22-30.
Wa Thiong’o, Ngugi 1986. Decolonizing the mind: The politics of language in African
literature. Nairobi, East African Educational Publishers.
Zeleke, Meron 2010. Ye Shakoch Chilot (the court of the sheikhs): A traditional
institution of conflict resolution in Oromiya zone of Amhara regional state,
Ethiopia. African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 10 (1), pp. 63-84.
Appendix: Summary of Principles from across Africa
1. Underlying Principle:
1.1 To prevent latent conflict escalating into violence, through open dialogue and
consensus decision-making, and, where required, to reconcile all parties and to re-
establish non-exploitative relations or re-incorporate offenders into the community and
to maintain social harmony.
2. Values:
2.1 Consensus leadership with views being heard from all and debated exhaustively
with the leader expressing the consensus once reached;
2.2 Counsellors and judges consist of those showing wisdom, integrity and maturity
in a spirit of calmness;
2.3 Participation by all, men and women;
2.4 Open agenda where no perspectives or parties are removed from public
discussion of grievances except by the parties themselves;
2.5 Transparency and accountability to the community – no decisions behind closed
doors;
2.6 Equal access to and sharing of resources as God-given gifts to all;
2.7 Emphasis on justice and fairness;
2.8 Eradication of economic injustice;
2.9 Non-violence against women, children, the old and the weak;
2.10 Respect for life;
32
2.11 Forgiveness, tolerance and co-existence;
2.12 Acknowledging and celebrating diversity.
3. Processes:
3.1 Investigate total context and all roots to a conflict or offence. This was
traditionally carried out by elders, initially behind the scenes, with evidence being broad
and unbounded. This tradition can be reflected in the modern choice of respected
experts and leaders;
3.2 Build consensus around expected outcomes that will emerge from any public
discussion of the conflict/offence and the attitudes of the parties towards a resolution;
3.3 Public admission of responsibility and expression of remorse/repentance for
negative actions, including sharing of the responsibility by the family/group/clan;
3.4 Determination of damage and redressing the victim/aggrieved party by way of
reparation, including compensation, whether symbolic or proportional;
3.5 Public act of reconciliation entered into by all parties which is binding on the
parties with the sanction on breaches being exclusion from society;
3.6 Importance of mediation and third-party principle;
3.7 Use of expressive arts – poetry, song, dance, dramatic representations.
4. Strengths:
4.1 Addresses latent conflicts and removes bitterness and suspicion and
accommodates interests of various groups;
4.2 Emphasises impartiality through participation;
4.3 Dignity and value of individual maintained;
4.4 Focuses on future harmony, not past discord;
4.5 Recognition of importance of relationships and of harmony in the community;
4.6 Rooted in local structures and more likely to survive than externally negotiated
solutions;
4.7 Cost-effective and sustainable.
33
Chapter 3: Indigenous Conflict Resolution in Africa:
The Case of Ghana and Botswana
Kwaku Osei-Hwedie and Morena J. Rankopo
University of Botswana
Introduction
Traditional conflict resolution processes are part of a well-structured, time-proven
social system geared towards reconciliation, maintenance and improvement of social
relationships. The methods, processes and regulations are deeply rooted in the customs
and traditions of peoples of Africa. The importance and utility of the processes lie in
the fact that they strive “to restore a balance, to settle conflict and eliminate disputes”
(Choudree, 1999:1). Traditional processes are relatively informal and thus, less
intimidating. Those who use them are also more at ease in a familiar environment. The
role of chiefs, elders, family heads, and others is not only to resolve conflicts but also
to anticipate and stop/or intercept conflicts. Group relationships and rights are as
important as individual ones as emphasis is on restoring relationships and reconciling
groups (Choudree, 1999).
Botswana and Ghana have been selected primarily because of their comparable
social development progress, political stability, and respect for indigenous knowledge
and institutions (Fosu, 2009; Naude, 2010; Robinson, 2009). Further, the two countries
have interesting contrasts. Ghana is a small country (238,533km sq.) with a large
population (23.8 million – 2009 estimates)(World Factbook, 2010) while Botswana is a
large country (581,730 km sq.) with a small population (2 million – 2010
estimate)(World Factbook, 2011). Both were former British colonies with Ghana
gaining independence in 1957 and Botswana in 1966 (Naude, 2010). The two countries
have established traditional and religious systems of leadership which continue to
shape the behaviour of individuals and families in the contemporary era (Economic
34
Commission for Africa, 2007). Most importantly, the leadership systems are based on
the specific socio-cultural contexts of these nations.
This study adopts a qualitative approach which allows for the use of selected
cases to explore a social phenomenon of interest based on the researcher’s curiosity
(Yin, 1994). A case study is intended to describe, understand and explain a research
phenomenon. However, unlike quantitative research, the findings of a case study are
not generalized to the rest of the population. Therefore, the question of representative
sampling does not arise (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Thus, the number of participants in a
study does not matter for a case study to be considered acceptable, provided the study
has met its objective of describing the phenomenon being studied (Tellis, 1997).
This chapter discusses the indigenous conception of conflict resolution; the
actors; and the institutional context of conflict resolution at the grassroots level. The
emphasis is on traditional structures for conflict resolution in Ghana and Botswana. In
the case of Ghana, reference is made to the Akans, found mainly in the Ashanti, Brong
Ahafo, Central, Eastern and Western regions of the country. They include mainly the
Akim, Akwapim, Asante, Brong, Fante, and Kwahu. They form about 45 percent of the
Ghanaian population (Okrah, 2003). A qualitative study involving four traditional
chiefs, two queen mothers, two clan heads and two heads of households were
conducted in Ghana while four chiefs, two traditional healers and two heads of
household were interviewed in Botswana all from the Tswana speaking stock. The
Tswana constitute about 79 percent of Botswana’s population (World Factbook, 2011).
These respondents were asked to describe indigenous processes of conflict resolution
in their respective communities. The findings were synthesized and presented
systematically to reflect their views. In the case of Botswana, the focus is on the
Tswana speaking ethnic groups as they share many commonalities including language,
customs and traditional religions. Together, they are the dominant ethnic groups which
were recognized by the colonial government and endorsed by the national government
at independence. To a large extent, the country’s local government districts were based
on the boundaries of these groups (Schapera, 1970; Vaughan, 2003).
35
1. The Indigenous Concept of Conflict Resolution
Traditional conflict resolution mechanism is a social capital, defined as the “capability
of social norms and customs to hold members of a group together by effectively setting
and facilitating the terms of their relationship… sustainability facilitates collective
action for achieving mutually beneficial ends” (Fred-Mensah, 2005:1). Over the years,
there have developed inter group conflict over land; increasing reliance on formal
contracts to regulate relationships and create understanding; and shifts in methods of
conflict resolution in that mediation seems to have given way to more confrontational
statutory approaches based on formal court procedures (Fred-Mensah, 2005). Despite
these, traditional methods still prevail, especially at the grassroots level.
Conflict resolution comprises a complex network of forces surrounding the
parties in the conflict. It is a healing process in which all stakeholders contribute
positive energy. The task is to re-establish the energy flow within individuals, families
and communities so as to re-build social harmony. In this context, reconciliation often
requires symbolic gestures and associated rituals including exchange of gifts, and
slaughter of animals (chickens, goats, sheep, cows) (Ndumbe III, 2001).
Conflicts may be managed so that they do not escalate and lead to crisis.
Conflict management is different from peacebuilding which seeks to prevent conflicts
from developing in the first place by engaging all stakeholders in processes that
facilitate peaceful coexistence. Conflict resolution deals with settlement of conflicts
that may already exist. The spiritual dimension of conflict resolution refers to creating
and restoring impaired relationship with God, the spirits, ancestors, family and
neighbours as the case might be (Kealotswe, n.d.; Mbiti, 1991). This is critical in
restoring other relationships at the physical level. In this context, rituals play an
important role in the reconciliation process. They help to link people to the past,
present and future.
Conflicts must be understood in their social context, involving “values and
beliefs, fears and suspicions, interests and needs, attitudes and actions, relationships
36
and networks…” (Brock–Utne, 2001: 6). Thus, the root causes of conflicts must be
explored to emphasize shared understandings of the past and present. Brock–Utne
(2001:9) notes that: “The immediate objective of such conflict resolution is to mend
the broken or damaged relationship, rectify wrongs, and restore justice”. Another aim
is to ensure the full integration of parties into their societies again, and to adopt the
mood of co-operation. The objective of conflict resolution, therefore, is to move away
“from accusations and counter accusations, to settle hurt feelings and to reach a
compromise that may help improve future relationship”. The effectiveness of the
process and sustainability of the outcomes, generally, are attributed to such factors as
simplicity, participatory nature, adaptable flexibility, complete relevance, and
comprehensiveness (Brock–Utne, 2001).
Roles of the key players may change from time to time as the situation
demands since there is no standard model. Thus, the approach is flexible and dynamic
and the whole process and content are influenced by the social context. The social
situation of those involved is also important. Thus, the social surroundings, feedback
into or influence the process. The approach also seeks to build consensus. Often, this
requires tact and patience. When agreement is reached, it is shared with all parties
including the general community. This social perspective on conflict transformation
has general advantages including the “shared understanding of the conflict.” It also
encourages harmony through active participation in the process by all parties (Brock–
Utne, 2001:13). According to Okrah (2003), traditional societies resolved conflicts
through internal and external social controls. The internal social controls use processes
of deterrence such as personal shame and fear of supernatural powers. External
controls rely on sanctions associated with actions taken by others in relation to
behaviors that may be approved or disapproved.
Indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms focus on the principles of empathy,
sharing and cooperation in dealing with common problems which underline the
essence of humanity (ubuntu) (Murithi, 2006). Cultural approaches to resolving and
managing disputes play a vital role in promoting peace and social order in
communities. Cultural values and attitudes provide the basis for interaction and the
37
norms by which individuals and communities live. These also promote sharing and
equitable distribution of resources, thus promoting a climate for peace. African cultural
principles relate to the very essence of existence and being human and how all humans
are inextricably related. Therefore, peacemaking is underscored by the principles of
reciprocity, inclusivity and a sense of shared destiny between people. It provides a
value system for giving and receiving forgiveness. This is because society places
greater emphasis on communal life. Therefore, creating and sustaining positive mutual
relations, are shared tasks involving everyone. It is believed that people are linked to
each other including disputants as perpetrators or victims (Murithi, 2006).
Conflict is a situation whereby individuals, groups, or countries are involved in
disagreement over an issue. A conflict, as a state of disagreement may lead to crisis or
violence (Peters, 2006). Peters (2006) notes that conflict, at all levels, may arise due to
the desire for political, economic and social advantages, greed, ego-related problems,
injustice, inequitable distribution of resources and plain mischief. Edossa, Awulachew,
Namara, Babel and DasGupta (2007) and Grimble and Wellard (1997) indicate that
conflicts may be categorized with respect to whether they occur at the micro-micro,
micro-mezzo, mezzo-macro or micro-macro levels (among individuals, individuals and
groups, groups and communities, and between community groups and government); or
within private or civil society organizations.
Usually, conflicts are the result of problems created by people. However, in the
current global age, a period of greater cooperation and inter-dependence at all levels of
society, a peaceful and sustainable conflict resolution process is very critical (Okrah,
2003). The goals of conflict resolution may be classified as preventive or corrective.
Preventive goal deals with convincing individuals and groups “to choose to negotiate
rather than resort to rancor in all matters of disagreement; thereby increasing the level
of peaceful existence…” Corrective goal, however, focuses on measures to resolve
existing conflicts “with less violence and more understanding of human nature” (Okrah,
2003:1).
Generally, conflict resolution is a community process involving the
identification of the root cause of the problem, and bringing all parties involved to
38
address the underlying issues. This usually ends with the guilty accepting wrong doing,
leading to reconciliation which may include compensation or just forgiveness (Brock-
Utne, 2001; Murthi, 2006). The process of conflict resolution has to do with how
indigenous structures and systems ensure action in bringing peace at the individual and
community level relationships. In this respect conflict resolution procedures are
generated from general cultural life and daily experiences of living. In this context,
indigenous “refer[s] to the structures and the units of organization in a community and
encompasses also the norms, values, beliefs and cosmovision that guide social
interaction’’ (Kendie and Guri, 2006:333).
2. Cultural Processes of Conflict Resolution in Ghana
Traditional conflict resolution is a structured political, judicial and arbitration
mechanism. Traditional leaders play a vital role in local and grassroots communities in
relation to socio-economic development and the administration of justice in the
modern political system. This is part of the cultural heritage of the people. The
institution of traditional leadership plays critical roles in promoting and sustaining
social cohesion, peace and order in societies. Traditional institutions play two
important roles: a proactive role to promote social cohesion, peace, harmony, co-
existence; and a reactive role in resolving disputes which have already occurred
(Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, 2008:30).
Actors
There are many actors involved in the conflict resolution process. At the state
level (regions/towns) the chieftaincy (chief) is the key institution for conflict resolution.
Among the Akans, the leader of the traditional state is the paramount chief (omanhene)
followed by the divisional chiefs (ohene), and the head of villages (odikro - literally
meaning the owner of the village). Villages consist of a number of family groups or
clans/lineages. Each family group or clan is headed by an elder of the family (abusua
39
panyin). This is distinct from the head of household (ofiepanyin) (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Process of Conflict Resolution among the Akans in Ghana
Paramount Chief (Omanhene)
Divisional Chiefs (Ohene)
Sub-Divisional Chiefs (Apakanhene)
Mediation Chief (Dwanetoa hene)
Odikro
Abusua Panyin (Head of Clan)
Ofiepanyin (Head of Household/family)
Source: Kendie and Guri (2006)
From the paramount chief to the odikro level there is a queen mother who is
also critical in conflict resolution at the family, through community to the state level.
At the clan and household levels there is also a female head (obaa panyin). Chiefs at
all levels have a council of elders which helps in governance as part of the formal
structure of chieftaincy. Other actors may be drawn from across all sections of society
40
including clan, traditional, youth, women, singing, and self help groups/associations.
Also, of significance are the traditional priests/spirit mediums, herbalists and
soothsayers.
Process
Conflict resolution can be processed through either the courts, (western
judiciary model) or the indigenous system through the customary process. When there
is a dispute, the elders discuss the issue to find a solution. If they fail, then the issue is
passed on until it reaches the chief. It must be noted that the indigenous and the
western models of conflict resolution co-exist and compete for allegiance and control
(Kendie and Guri, 2006). What is evident is that at the community level, there is a well
established traditional leadership and consultative structures and processes through
which disputes are settled.
The traditional court, the main seat of authority, among the Akans, consists of
the chief, his elders, the queen mother and the linguist. The elders represent all the
people in the division. The Akans believe in democratic rule based on consultation,
open discussion, consensus building and coalitions. The composition of the traditional
authority also demonstrates the Akan notion of participatory democracy (Okrah, 2003).
Some conflicts may be resolved before getting into the stage of arbitration or reaching
the chief’s court. The traditional process of conflict resolution is based on the notion
that whatever decision is arrived at should improve the relationship between the parties
and that the judgement should be wise and practical (Okrah, 2003).
Conflicts may be solved directly by the chief, his elders or actors selected by
any of the parties. The process, according to Okrah (2003) includes the following:
Arbitration – This is where the parties formally present their cases at the chief’s courts
for determination. This includes conflicts over land, and other property. All land cases
are referred to the chief’s court since the chief is the custodian of the land and its
boundaries. All cases that are reported to the chief but not withdrawn for mediation go
through the formal process of conflict resolution at the chief’s court.
41
Mediation – There are several ways of mediation:
Dwanetoa - literally meaning running to a mediator to intervene on your behalf.
Mediation is regarded as very important to the extent that there is a chief for mediation
(dwanetoa hene). In this case the mediator goes to the complainant and pleads on
behalf of the wrong doer. “It is a conflict abating process that implies the avoidance of
conflict” (Okrah, 2003: 2). In this respect, one party may admit guilt and plead for
mitigation. The mediator would plead on behalf of the offender. In another instance,
one may plead through a mediator for the use of, for example, land or other property,
thus avoiding a situation that may potentially lead to conflict. Where mediation is used,
the mediators are sought within the community of the parties. Mediators are people
with status, recognition, integrity and experience in the community. The elders and
mediators may use pressure, persuasion, recommendations, suggestions, and relevant
norms, and rules to arrive at a solution (Brock–Utne, 2001). A conflict in the making or
which has just started can be stopped before it escalates by a peace loving third party
who offers to intervene as a mediator. A case that is pending hearing at the chief’s court
can be withdrawn for “settlement at home.” The chief may in his own accord refer the
case to the elders or clan heads for resolution. Alternatively, a third party may plead to
withdraw the case for settlement at home. The mediators accept responsibility to settle
the dispute outside the traditional court and to report back to the chief.
3. Spiritual Dimensions of Conflict Resolution in Ghana
Conflicts that have spiritual dimensions involve incantations, curses, witchcraft and
oath-taking, among others, are brought before the traditional and spiritual leaders
including the fetish priests, custodians of deities, herbalists and soothsayers. For
example, one party may invoke a curse by using the name of a river or a deity to harm
another person for perceived wrong doing. Once the afflicted party realizes through
divination that they have been cursed, the accused is requested to reverse or remove
that curse by performing the necessary rituals at the appropriate fetish/shrine and going
42
through the necessary cultural processes.
It is also common to invoke an oath during conflicts. A litigant may swear an
oath to support his/her claim. When that happens, it is expected that the other party, if
innocent will also swear an oath against that claim. In that case, the contending parties
having sworn the oath have to go to the paramount chief, fetish or river, etc to perform
the necessary rituals and settle the dispute. However, failure to respond to an oath is
perceived to be admission of guilt until reversed by the custodian of the oath (eg.
chief/fetish priest) (Kendie and Guri, 2006).
4. Cultural Processes of Conflict Resolution in Botswana
Tswana culture is built on consultation (therisanyo) and resolution of conflicts through
open discussions between the parties, hence the adage, ntwakgolo ke ya molomo
(literally, great battles are fought verbally)(Ngcongco, 1989). However, Botswana has
a dual legal system based on state law while the other reflects the cultural norms and
values of the local people referred to as customary law (Molokomme, 1995; Otlhogile,
1992). These two systems run parallel. Once a matter is presented to the courts the
chiefs do not have authority to withdraw it to settle at their own courts. However, cases
presented before the customary courts can be transferred to the magistrate’s court if
one party chooses. The discussion focuses on customary processes of conflict
resolution based on the norms, practices and traditions of the Tswana societies.
Actors
The actors in conflict resolution include the paramount chief (kgosi-kgolo) even
though the ConsTitution abolished the term paramount chief in 2000 (Gazette, 2011); a
chief’s representative/senior tribal authority (moemela kgosi-kgolo); headmen
(dikgosana); headmen of records (batshereganyi) and household leaders (batsadi ba
lolwapa).
43
Figure 2: Process of Conflict Resolution among the Tswana of Botswana
Customary Court of Appeal
Paramount Chief (Kgosi-kgolo)
Chief’s Representatives / Senior Chiefs (Baemela Kgosi-kgolo)
Village Chiefs (Dikgosi)
Ward Headmen (Dikgosana)
Headmen of Records/Arbitration (Batshereganyi)
Head of Household/family (Batsadi ba Lolwapa)
Process
The lowest level of conflict resolution is the household (lolwapa). However,
disputes that are not resolved at this level may go to the kgotlana comprising of elders
from the extended clan families. This is the lowest level of the customary courts and
emphasizes mediation processes. The next level, the kgotla (customary court) is the
beginning of the formal process with court-like procedures. The court hears both civil
and criminal cases. Despite this, the dikgotla (customary courts), though more
44
formalized are arbitration authorities that use well known traditional values and
procedures to deal with conflicts. Both dikgotla and dikgotlana work with traditional
associations such as the village development committees. Both men and women may
participate in the deliberations. The relatives of the parties involved are free to attend
and participate in the deliberations. Any aggrieved party who is not satisfied with the
outcome at any of the levels may appeal all the way to the Customary Court of Appeal,
the highest cultural institution in conflict resolution. At every level, there is a council
of elders (bo-ralekgotla) who help the traditional leaders to make appropriate rulings
on cases.
The conflict resolution institutions and the related processes are briefly
described below:
Lolwapa (household): Several families comprise their own household ward (Kgotla ya
lolwapa) where distant relatives are involved in dispute resolution. The idea is to bring
in relatives who are familiar with customs of the specific extended families to help
resolve the issue. The focus here is on arbitration. Usually, nuclear family issues are
addressed by the paternal uncles, aunts and siblings. In extreme cases, the maternal
uncles, aunts and their children may be brought in. If there is no agreement between
the parties then the issue is referred to the next higher level.
Kgosana (headman): Large villages are usually divided into several wards (dikgotla)
under a ward headman. This is the final level of arbitration which refers cases to the
main village Kgotla for formal dispute resolution.
Kgosi (chief): This is the highest level of dispute resolution at the village level. The
proceedings are formalized and paid public officials used to guide them. Both civil and
criminal cases are heard at this level. When any party is dissatisfied with the decision
at this level, the matter may be referred to a senior chief resident in another village but
within the same tribal region.
Kgosi-kgolo (paramount chief): All cases within a given tribal region are referred to the
kgosi-kgolo who sits at the tribe’s headquarters. This is the highest level of conflict
resolution within a region. However, decisions of this chief may still be appealed to the
Customary Court of Appeal.
45
Customary Court of Appeal: This level was created by government after realizing that
some cases could not be satisfactorily resolved within tribal boundaries. The President
of this court is appointed by the government. The court employs traditional leaders
from various ethnic groups. This body is equivalent to the High Court in terms of
making final determination and setting precedents on Tswana customary law.
In the process of conflict resolution, dikgotla (customary courts) seek to not
only adjudicate or mediate on conflict issues but are also oriented towards
reconciliation and the maintenance or improvement of social relationships (Choudree,
1999).
5. Spiritual Dimension of Conflict Resolution in Botswana
Traditional healers, diviners, herbalists (dingaka tsa setso) and spiritual healers/seers
(baporofiti/balebi) also play an important role in conflict resolution at the individual,
family and community levels. They are a medium between the living, the ancestors and
God (Fako, 1979). Traditional/spiritual healers may use herbs, animal sacrifices and
water to perform rituals aimed at resolving a conflict between the living, and between
the living and their ancestoral spirits. Traditional healing may be a strictly private
family affair or an open community function depending on the issues involved
(Amanze, 1998; Kealotswe, n.d). Conflicts arising from witchcraft are usually resolved
between the traditional healers and the affected parties. A person may choose to
revenge the evil that has been done (go busolosa) or just strengthen/protect themselves
(go ithatafatsa/itshireletsa) against similar attacks in future. According to tradition,
dikgosi (chiefs) could consult traditional healers to seek their views on critical issues
including various kinds of conflict in the community (Schapera, 1970).
Today, the role of traditional healers, especially, in helping to identify suspected
ritual murderers is prohibited by law. The local media have reported on clash of values
between traditional healers, community members and law enforcement agencies over
the use of traditional healers in assisting the police in their investigations of criminal
46
activities. A well known case was that of the disappearance of a little girl, Malebogo, in
1987, in the low-income suburb of Bontleng in Gaborone. A traditional healer was
imprisoned after trial for misleading the nation and inciting riots. The traditional healer
had stated publicly that Malebogo had been abducted by another traditional healer in
Bontleng for ritual murder purposes. The little girl was later found in another part of
the city where she was believed to have been lost.
6. Ghana and Botswana’s Conflict Resolution Processes
Similarities
The two traditional processes of conflict resolution from Ghana and Botswana show
the importance of cultural views and processes in promoting peace at all levels of the
society. Thus, the processes focus on reconciliation, stability, harmony and safety; and
try to reconcile individuals and groups based on cultural norms and practices. Both
systems have become part of the modern governance and administration systems.
Though enshrined in the indigenous cultures, they function as regular parts of national
governance and are recognized and accepted and used by the governments. In both
cases there is high respect for the traditional authorities and institutions. Generally, the
conflict resolution process is transparent, publicly performed, and the evidence,
discussions and solutions opened to all. Due process is also emphasized including the
right to appeal to the next authority.
Conflicts and their resolution at the grassroots are a public matter, and through
these people learn the rules, norms, values, histories and philosophical discourses
necessary for harmonious living. The young are able to learn from the elders traditional
laws, language, and mannerisms, fit for public discourse. The value of dialogue in
resolving differences is also espoused throughout the process. Indigenous processes of
peacemaking show the importance of public participation; the utility of supporting
victims to enable them to forgive; encouraging perpetrators to understand the value of
acknowledging guilt and showing remorse; and using unity and interdependence as a
47
reference point in promoting social harmony. Both Botswana and Ghana have adopted
a dual legal system which recognizes the practice of customary law. The customary
processes are well understood by the people and allow them to fully participate in the
conflict resolution processes. Chiefs, queen mothers, elders, family members and other
community actors play a crucial role in promoting peace among conflicting parties.
Differences
Although the process of conflict resolution among the Tswana and Akans is
similar, the Tswana process has unique cultural nuances. The Botswana system is
different from the Ghana system in that customary courts do not deal with land
disputes as their role is only advisory. The role of chiefs as custodians of communal
land was reassigned to the Land Boards after independence. Historically, chiefs were
custodians of tribal land. Land Boards manage land on behalf of the government in
consultation with various tribal administrations (Republic of Botswana, 1968).
Regarding spiritual dimensions of conflict resolution, the major difference
between Botswana and Ghana is that in Botswana witchcraft is outlawed and as such is
regarded as a private matter. It is in this light that all spiritual conflicts including those
related to witchcraft are not tried by the customary courts. Rather, the affected
individuals and families find a traditional healer to either reverse or protect them
against any curses that may have been pronounced on them by their enemies. However,
in Ghana, traditional priests are allowed to hear and resolve spiritual conflicts and their
decisions are respected.
7. Conclusion
The chapter has demonstrated the importance of cultural processes, institutions, and
values in conflict resolution and peacebuilding among the Akans of Ghana and the
Tswana of Botswana. It is evident that most individuals, families and communities still
prefer indigenous conflict resolution processes in the two countries because they are
based on cultural concepts, values, and procedures that are understood and accepted.
48
This has also made it easy for the indigenous system to be incorporated into the
contemporary conflict resolution system. People are familiar with their cultural
dictates and therefore it is easier to come to grips with responsibilities that emanate
from them. It is in this context that the customary courts with allowance for arbitration
and substantially informal procedures which are less intimidating, and understood by
the local people, work extremely well. The two case studies show that when conflict
resolution and peacebuilding mechanisms are based on principles cherished and
internalized by a community, and are contextualized to capture their collective
knowledge and experiences, they yield positive results. It is in this context that the
principles of social cohesion, harmony, openness/transparency, participation, peaceful
co-existence, respect, tolerance and humility, among others, are emphasized as core
issues in indigenous conflict resolution among the Akans and Tswana.
References
Amanze, J.,N. (1998) African Christianity in Botswana. Gweru, Mambo Press.
Balopi Commission, The (2000) The Presidential Commission on Sections 77, 78 and
79 of the Constitution of Botswana. Gaborone, Government Printer.
Botswana Law Reports, (1988) State v. Mbaiwa 1988 BLR 314 (HC). Gaborone:
Botswana Lwa Reports.
Botswana Law Reports, (2004) Sekobye v. Attorney General 2004(2) BLR 294 (HC).
Gaborone, Botswana Law Reports.
Brock-Utne, Brigit (2001) “Indigenous Conflict Resolution in Africa”. A draft
presented to week-end seminar on Indigenous Solutions to Conflicts held at the
University of Oslo, Institute of Educational Research, 23 – 24 of February 2001.
Choudree, R. B. G. (1999) “Traditions of Conflict Resolution in South Africa”. African
Journal on Conflict Resolution. (1).
http://www.accord.org.sa/publications/;/choudree.htm. Accessed 20th
August
2010.
49
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (2008) Republic of South
Africa. Policy Framework on the Traditional Justice System under the
Constitution. Pretoria, RSA, DOJ & CD.
Economic Commission for Africa (2007) Relevance of African Traditional Institutions
of Governance by the Economic Commission for Africa. Addis Ababa, Economic
Commission for Africa.
Edossa, D.C., Awulachew, S.B., Namara, R. & DasGupa, A. (2007) “Indigenous
Systems of Conflict Resolution In Oromia, Ethiopia. In B. Van Koppen, M.
Giordasw and J. Butterworth (eds.). Community-Based Water Law and Water
Resource Management Reform in Developing Countries. CAB International, pp
146 – 157.
Fako, T.T. (Ed.)(1979) Proceedings of the Seminar on Health/Illness and the Socio-
Cultural Background. Held at the National Museum, 24-26 April. Gaborone,
National Institute of Development and Cultural Research (Botswana)
Documentation Unit.
Fosu, A. K. (2009) Country Role Models for Development Success: The Ghana Case.
WIDER Research Paper 2009/42. Helsinki, UNU-WIDER.
Fred-Mensah, Benk. (2005) “Nugormesese: An indigenous basis of social capital in a
West African Community”. 1K Notes, No. 86, November. World Bank.
http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/default.htm. Accessed 14th July 2010.
Grimble, Robin and Wellard, K. (1997) "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource
management. A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities,"
Agricultural Systems Journal, 55(2), pp.173-193.
Kasongo, Alphonse (200). “Impact of Globalization on Traditional African Religion
and Culture Conflict”, Journal of Alternative Perspective in the Social Sciences,
2(1), pp.309–322.
Kealotswe, O.N. (not dated). “Acceptance and rejection: The Traditional – Healer
Prophet and his Integration of Healing Methods”.
http://www.ubrisa.ub.bw/bitstream/handle/10311/352Ikpe. Accessed: 14th
September 2010.
50
Kendie, S.B. & Guri, B. (2006) Indigenous Institutions, Governance and Development:
Community Mobilization and Natural Resources Management in Ghana. Cape
Coast, Ghana, Centre for Development Studies, University of Cape Coast.
Mbiti, J. (1991) Introduction to African Religion. Oxford, Heinemann.
Midweek Sun, The (2010) “Segametsi’s murder 16 years on”, by Joe-Brown Tlhaselo,
The Midweek Sun Newspaper, 09/09/2010, Accessed 22nd
February 2011.
Mmegi/Reporter, The (2004) “Reliving the Bontleng riots” by Lekopanye Mooketsi,
Mmegi Newspaper, 2/12/2004. Accessed online 22nd
February 2011.
Murithi, Timothy (2006) “Practical Peace Making Wisdom from Africa: Reflections on
Ubuntu.” The Journal of Pan African Studies, , 1(4), June, pp.25–34.
Naude, W. (2010) Development progress in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from
Botswana, Ghana, Mauritius and South Africa. Working Paper No. 2010/07.
Helsinki, Finland, United Nations University and World Institute for
Development Economics Research.
Ndumbe III, Kuma (2001) The spiritual dimensions of resolution mechanisms in
African countries. University of Oslo, Unit for comparative and International
Education, Institute for Educational Research, Accessed 23/02/01.
Ngcongco, L.D. (1989). “Tswana Political Tradition: How democratic?” In J. Holm &
P. Molutsi (Eds), Democracy in Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana Society, pp.42-
47.
Okrah, Kwadwo Asafo-Agyei (2003) “Toward Global Conflict Resolution. Lessons
from the Akan Traditional Judicial System”. Journal of Social Studies Research,
fall http:www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3823/is_200310/ai_nq304242.
Accessed 17th August 2010.
Otlhogile, B. (1992). “Criminal Justice and the Problems of Dual Legal Systems.” A
paper presented at a conference organized by the Society for the Reform of
Criminal Law on Criminal Law Reform in Southern Africa, Windhoek, Namibia,
June 15-17, 1992.
Morapedi, G.W. (2010) Demise or resilence? Customary law and chieftaincy in twenty-
first century Botswana. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 28(2), April,
51
pp.215-230.
Peters, I. (2006) “Conflict Management”. Paper presented at a workshop on conflict
Resolution Organized by Nigeria Network of Non-Governmental Organizations
(NNGO) held at the Institute of Medical Research and Training, Biode Building,
College of Medicine, University College Hospital (UCH), Ibadan, on Thursday,
March 16th
, 2006.
Republic of Botswana (1968) Land Board Act of 1968, Gaborone, Government Printer.
Robinson, J.A. (2009) Botswana as a role model for country success. WIDER
Research Paper 2009/40. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER.
Schapera, I. (1970) A handbook of Tswana law and customs, London, Frank & Cass.
take, R. (1995) The art of case research, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Tellis, W. (1997) “Introduction to case study”, The Qualitative Report, 3(2), July.
http:www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html. Accessed 12th
January 2011.
Vaughan, O. (2003) Chiefs, power, and social change: Chiefship and modern
politics in Botswana, 1880s-1990s. Eritrea, Africa World Press.
World Factbook (2011). “Botswana People”.
http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/botswana/botswana_people.html
Accessed 04/01/2012.
World Factbook (2010). “Ghana Geography”.
http://www.workmall.com/wfb2010/ghana/ghana_geography.html
Accessed 04/01/2012.
Yin, R. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods (2nd
edn.), Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publishing.
52
Chapter 4: Indigenous and Modern Disputes Resolution
Procedures: A Comparative Analysis of the Lomwe and
Workplace Disputes Resolution Processes in Malawi
Lewis Dzimbiri
University of Botswana
Introduction: The Concept and Significance of Resolution of Conflict
According to Fisher (1990), conflict is an incompatibility of goals or values between
two or more parties in a relationship, combined with attempts to control each other and
antagonistic feelings towards each other. It is contended that this difference might be
real or perceived by the parties involved. In industrial relations, two extreme
perspectives are dominant - consensus and conflict. The unitary perspective of
industrial relations views the existence of consensus as a major societal norm and
conflict as a social disequilibrium requiring immediate control. It views the
relationship between employers and employees in a work organization as characterized
by harmony, common objectives, common values, interests and a single centre of
loyalty and authority (Burchill, 1997).
The Pluralist and Marxist perspectives view conflict as inevitable in modern
organizations due to diversity and divergent interests between workers and employers
(labour and capital). Pluralist theory sees the work place as a microcosm of society
which is replete with diversity in social groups, social interests, values and beliefs that
have the potential to generate conflict. Proponents of this view acknowledge diversity
and often-conflicting interests among people in society and workplace (Fox, 1966).
Workers' motive for higher wages, increased leisure, autonomy, enhanced fringe
benefits and work flexibility, differ markedly with the employers’ desire to make
profits (Dzimbiri, 2008). The employer would want as much as possible to implement
cost-cutting mechanisms, such as low wages and minimal incentive packages to ensure
53
higher profits for re-investment.
Conflict of interest between management, that pays and make decisions, and
workers, who are being paid and must live by the decisions made by management, is
an inevitable ingredient of the workplace (Summers, 1991). For Karl Marx, class
conflict arises primarily from the disparity in the distribution of and access to
economic power within the society. The principal disparity is between those who own
capital and those who supply their labour. Marxists believe that the nature of society’s
social and political institutions is derived from this economic disparity and reinforces
the position of the dominant established group. The argument is that conflict in
whatever form is merely an expression of the underlying economic conflict within the
society.
In spite of the prevalence of conflict in modern society, there is some degree of
consensus or agreement between individuals and groups solicited through processes of
negotiation and compromise. If societal conflict was left uncontrolled, the whole world
would have long disintegrated. According to conflict theorists (Kornhauser et al.,
1954; Fisher, 2000) there are several sources of conflict including economic, value and
power. Economic conflict involves competing motives to attain scarce resources. Each
party wants to get the most that it can to maximize net gains. Union-management
conflict, for example, is rooted in the incompatible goals of how to slice up the
‘economic pie’. Value conflict involves incompatibility in ways of life, ideologies- the
preferences, principles and practices that people believe in. Power conflict occurs
when each party wishes to maintain or maximize the amount of influence that it exerts
in the relationship and the social setting. Power conflict occurs between individuals,
groups or nations. According to Fisher (2000), most conflicts are a combination of
these sources - economic, value and power. An example of this is labour-management
conflict which may be both economic, value difference and power oriented.
Fisher (2000) categorizes levels of conflict as ranging from interpersonal, role,
inter-group, multi-party to international. Methods of resolving conflict are described as
win-lose approach, the lose-lose strategy and the win-win approach. The win-lose
approach involves careful strategy to outdo the other through a learned judge, majority
54
vote, competition, etc. The lose-lose strategy results in each party accepting a less
satisfactory solution with a larger portion of its interests sacrificed. The win-win
strategy attempts to maximise the goals of each party through collaborative problem
solving. The conflict is seen as a problem to be solved than a war to be won.
1. Significance of conflict at the workplace and in society
Conflict plays both positive and negative roles in society. First, conflict is functional
because it makes explicit the grounds for conflict and enhances group unity. It also
brings into the open the subject of social control and a rapid solution to the problem.
Some conflict theorists like Kornhauser (1954) argue that society would have been
static if relationships were codified and anarchy would result if the fundamental
relationships were sympathetic in character. For Cozer (1956:31) ‘far from being
dysfunctional, certain degree of conflict is essential for group formation and the
persistence of group life’. Conflict, he argues, ‘tends to be dysfunctional for a social
structure in which there is insufficient toleration and institutionalisation of conflict’
(Cozer, 1986: 31). Within the management-labour relations, Dubin (1954) asserts that
conflict is inevitable but it is successfully transformed into resolutions through
collective bargaining. On the contrary, the unitary perspective views conflict as
pathological and caused by ‘agitators and troublemakers, misunderstanding or
personality clash’ (Burchill, 1997:7). Conflict is to be removed at all costs in the same
way a dentist has to extract a decaying tooth before it affects the others. Managers in
this persuasion would rely on power, dismissal, disciplinary procedures or transfer of
troublemakers to other sections.
2. Conflict and Conflict Resolution at the Workplace
The relationship between the employers and the employee is both a source of unity, as
55
well as of conflict. It is the source of unity because each of them depends on the other
for their survival. The employer creates the factory and own capital, finance and other
resources except the worker. The employer depends on the hardworking spirit of the
worker to produce goods and services for sale. The employee depends on the employer
for his pay. For the continued happiness of everyone, productivity must proceed
uninterrupted.
Conflict is latent because of the differing interests and perspectives. The
employer wants a hardworking employee, lower labour costs including lower wages
and fringe benefits. The employer would wish to re-invest profits while employees
want good bonuses out of the profit. They also want leisure time or rest periods,
reduced working hours of work, salary advances, loans, education loans and different
types of leave entitlements and above all, higher wages which are a cost to the
employer. They want to participate in decision making process that has direct or
indirect bearing on their lives. Yet the employer wants to have the prerogative to
manage.
While these potential sources of conflict can be looked at from an individual
employee point of view, there are also collective conflicts that relate to employees as
organized groups. For example, where employees are organized into trade unions,
friction is also most likely; where the employer is anti-union, delays in providing
feedback or implementation of agreed upon deals, refuses to sign a recognition
agreement or has victimized a union leader in one way or the other, could be a
potential source of conflict. Both individual and collective conflict at the workplace
have to be resolved or managed to ensure that partnership between the employer and
the employee continue to yield mutual benefits to all.
There are both written and unwritten procedures for resolving collective and
individual conflict at the workplace. Unlike in the family context where most rules and
procedures are unwritten, there is a legal framework provided by the state for resolving
disputes. First, there are established grievance procedures that employees will follow
and ensure they exhaust. There may be a discussion with the immediate supervisor
with opportunity to go to the supervisor’s boss should it fail in the first place. If the
56
organization has a trade union, the shop steward will handle the matter with
management to the point where the grievance has been resolved. In the unlikely event
that it has not been resolved, then the employer and employees might agree to involve
a third party who could be a labor officer or a prominent personality with expertise in
the area of conflict. This might be in the form of conciliation, mediation or arbitration.
The legal framework provided in the labour law is very clear on trade disputes
settlement and arbitration. The process can go as far as the industrial relations court.
Some individual employees lodge their complaint with the ombudsman beside the
industrial relations court. Where matters remain unresolved, workers have the right to
withdraw their labour, hence the strike. The latter is legally expected to be the last
resort after all procedures have been followed and the dispute remains unresolved. One
typical characteristic of the conflict resolution mechanism at the workplace is the
predominance of formal procedures.
3. The Lomwe Traditional Conflict and Conflict Resolution Mechanism
The Lomwe tribe, prevalent in Mulanje, Phalombe, Thyolo and some part of Zomba
and Chradzulu districts of Malawi, has its origins in Mozambique. There are several
sub-groups such as Amihavani, Atakwani, Ameeto, Amanyawa, to name but a few. The
Lomwe are a matrilineal society with descent traced through the mother. The man stays
at the home of the wife and builds a house there. There are several things in a marriage
set-up which can cause conflict. First, inter-personal conflict is inevitable between the
man and the woman considering that each of them was brought up in a different family
background. Their moral, economic and social upbringing, and most significantly,
personality characteristics, can be a potential source of conflict. More importantly, as
most of the marriages during the pre-colonial and colonial and part of post-colonial
period used to be arranged by parents (and even where they made their own
arrangement), the absence of a dating period is a potential source of future conflict as
each did not have time to understand the other well. Lack of skill to build a house,
57
mere laziness and unwillingness to work in the garden, make a hoe handle and other
manly chores, were potential sources of conflict.
The experience of the author is that some of the sources of conflict emerging
from the woman include poor cooking, poor home hygiene, inability to wash clothes or
her body, bear children, and adultery or infidelity. Unwillingness to follow rules and
regulations created by the man- as head of the family was also another source of
conflict. Disagreement over how to use the money obtained from the sale of
agricultural produce was another source of conflict. The way each partner treated
family members of the other was another. All these are important sources of heated
misunderstanding which have the potential to involve other third parties and whole
sections of clans linked with the marriage. Bitter verbal exchanges, insults and even
blows could be exchanged between a married couple when such conflicts reach high
pitch.
There is an elaborate process of conflict resolution in the Lomwe society but
the intensity of formality varies from conflict to conflict. First, minor quarrels over
unwashed clothes or undone chores are resolved through a process of dialogue between
the spouses. However, a word of caution is in order here. Depending on personality
characteristics of the parties, even a minor conflict can lead into serious outbursts. In
some cases it is nopt uncommon to hear of men beating wives on what others would
see as very trivial issues. In general, however, a minor conflict is resolved between the
two through discussion at night in the comfort of a bedroom when children are asleep.
Others would sleep and wake up the other party for a discussion over a
misunderstanding. There is a Lomwe saying that Ukwati ndi anthu awiri, wachitatu ndi
wosokoneza- meaning marriage is for the two people and the third party is simply a
confusionist.
In situations where the same behaviour which brought conflict is repeated over
and over again by the man or woman, and dialogue has failed to cure the situation, a
third party is called in. Naturally, the pattern is that the victim goes to the offender’s
uncle to narrate his or her story and ask the uncle to intervene. In the first place, the
uncle comes alone to listen to the problem from both parties and he tries to give advice
58
on the matter. He visits and briefs the uncle of the plaintiff about the matter, including
how he has mediated over it. This is for information only. The timing of the visit to
either party matters a great deal. One cannot go to communicate a grievance to an
uncle or the man’s uncle cannot go to the woman’s uncle during the day or afternoon.
He has to go very early in the morning around three or four. The timing factor is a sign
of seriousness and formal requirement. Should the problem persist, the uncle who
settled the matter is also called. He listens to both parties and if he feels that the issue
requires his ‘colleague’ to be present, he will arrange that both parties visit the couple.
During the hearing, the parties are allowed to narrate their side of the story. The
two uncles ask questions to both the man and the woman probing enough to detect a
wrong doer. One typical feature of this conflict resolution process is that each party
will be asking thorny questions to his or her relative. That is, the woman’s uncle will
be asking questions to her niece while the man’s uncle asks the man. Questions
include: What did you do after that? Why? Did you tell your wife? Why not? What
then do you expect her to think? The aim of the two parties is always to ensure that the
matter is defused and the couple is reconciled. The two uncles will allow the warring
parties to express their minds freely with no intimidation. The idea is to build the
family and not to disintegrate it.
Where it is clear that the man or the woman is on the wrong, it would be his
uncle who warns her never to repeat such behaviour in future. All that time the other
uncle shall remain quiet. The silent policy is that the advocate of the culprit should be
the one to raise a serious warning. Under normal situations, when the matter is
resolved, the woman prepares a meal for the uncles to eat. This signifies the end of
conflict and the coming of peace in the family. However, should this same conflict
continues, and uncles have tried in vain to settle the matter, they would ask the plaintiff
to take the matter to the village headman. This is where the matter shall be handled by
the village headman through his “counselor”, a carefully selected elder with wisdom
and good standing in the village. This stage is characterized by a wider audience
consisting family members and friends of both the man and woman.
At the appointed day, relatives of both parties gather at the village headman’s
59
ground for a hearing. The ‘counselor’ welcomes all parties and advises them about the
rules to be observed- such as: avoid making noise and that each side should pay a little
money before the case starts. Then the counselor asks the plaintiff to narrate his or her
concern. After he or she has given a narrative of how it started, what has been
happening, and why he has reached this far, the counselor interrogates him/her to
clarify certain grey areas. Then the other spouse is asked to comment or state his side
of the story- ‘you have heard what your husband/wife has said. Do you have anything
to say? Then the husband or wife takes his/her turn-to present his/her views on the
issue. All this time, the counselor and the village head are curiously listening to every
detail. The counselor asks questions to ensure certain areas are clarified. After all have
stated their sides, the counselor asks each uncle one after the other to explain whatever
they know about the matter. Uncles are also subjected to questioning regarding steps
they took or did not take and why. The plaintiff is asked what her/his position is. The
defendant is asked for his view regarding the position of the plaintiff. In the process,
areas of agreements and disagreements are noted.
Differences might ensue and each party is asked to discuss in their groups and
come back to present their view. This is the time when relatives of each party sit
together and brainstorm for a review of the decision made by their relative. They might
decide to uphold it or persuade him/her to change. Relatives of the defendant might
decide collectively to plead for forgiveness. When time for reporting back comes, it is
the neutral party who present the decision made from either side to the big plenary.
Should there be agreement the matter ends there. The couple are advised how to live
and maintain their marriage in a cordial manner. Should there be stiff disagreements,
the village Head intervenes sharply to provide direction. He/she makes his/her
judgment known on who is on the wrong, why and what needs to be done. The man or
woman can be fined in the form of money, goat and chicken to appease the plaintiff.
He/she can also be severely reprimanded depending on the matter. The decision of the
village Head is rarely challenged at that stage. In very exceptional circumstances,
parties might want to end their marriage. In that case, the village Head would find out
if the man has built a house for the woman. If not, the man is told to build a house first.
60
A date can be set when property is distributed in the presence of the village Head and
others. At other times, the village Head would refer the matter to the group village
Headman who can annul the marriage. But the Group Village Headman might wish to
refer the matter to the Traditional Authority (TA) to do that. However, moments of this
nature are rare and far apart.
4. Similarities and Differences of Traditional and Workplace Methods
It is evident that the traditional Lomwe society and that of the contemporary industrial
organization have inherent conflicts due to differences in perspective, goals, values,
expectations and misunderstanding. It is also clear that at the beginning of the
resolution process, both contexts lay emphasis on discussion between the disputing
parties in an attempt to reach amicable resolve without any interference from anyone.
In all, third party intervention comes in when the two have failed to reach an
agreement on their own. In the Lomwe culture, the third parties are advocates who are
relatives of the disputing parties unlike in the industrial context where the third party is
neutral detached and ‘foreigners’. These can be Ministry of Labour officials or a
tribunal created by the law. The legalistic approach dominates contemporary industrial
relations landscape to the extent that decisions made by relatives as in the case of the
Lomwe culture would risk being declared null and void on account of the likelihood of
bias. This is probably so because the industrial setting focuses on a win-lose strategy
contrary to a win-win strategy the Lomwe conflict resolution strategy wishes to
achieve.
This brings in another feature. There is a focus on mending relationships in the
Lomwe approach in contrast to the industrial relations conflict resolution strategy. The
latter is interested in identifying who is wrong and the remedy associated with the
wrong committed. While fines and compensations are highly pronounced in industrial
relations conflict resolution, mere forgiveness is enough in the traditional Lomwe
society. Continued cordial relationships are emphasized more because of community
61
members that live close to each other and have inter-marriages. The two clans or
sorority groups are friends and it is everyone’s prayer that they all reconcile and live
together happily again. That is the more reason why relatives of the disputing parties
come in their numbers to witness the conflict resolution process. That is also why when
there is need to make a thorny decision, each group leaves the plenary and meets as a
family group to deliberate and come up with a group decision. The participation of
every relative present is a very important process which provides a sense of ownership
of the decision made. More importantly, it is an attempt to avoid a radical decision
which might put the reputation of the other clan and their relationship at stake.
This is so because whatever the decision made, the relationship of each
member of the family with the relations of the other party will be affected permanently.
Since they may be drinking from the same well, live in the same village, have to
interact frequently for festivities as well as funeral and initiation ceremonies, to name a
few, they cannot afford to create hostility among themselves. There are no written rules,
regulations and procedures for marriage relationships and conflict management in the
Lomwe tradition.
On the contrary, only the employer and employee’ representatives and the
official third party are present in the industrial relations conflict resolution process.
There is a sense of detachment of community values or friendship groupings at the
conflict resolution scene. Established procedures, relevant labour laws and hard
evidence matter most during the process of conflict resolution. There is little
consideration of the need for parties to continue to work together amicably in the
organization. What matters is the issue at hand and the priority is on ensuring justice
and fair play according to established rules of the game (national constitution, labour
laws, terms and conditions of employment).
5. Lessons from the Indigenous Lomwe Approach?
There are some of the notable lessons that traditional conflict resolution mechanism
62
can benefit modern industrial relations conflict resolutions process. First, the two
parties - employer and employee - could view themselves as a family or a team. The
views held by the unitary perspective of industrial relations make sense. Seeing the
workplace composed of two sides that have common interests- in this case- industrial
peace and harmony for the continuation of the employment relationship is a crucial
starting point. If employers realize that although their concern is to maximize profits,
they cannot do so without workers producing goods and services happily, they will
appreciate the need for compromise and understanding. If employees know that
although they want good conditions of employment and fair wages, they cannot
achieve them without higher productivity and higher sales; they would also be willing
to moderate their demands and therefore meet the employer midway as quickly as
possible. Thus, the belief that each party depends on the other is or would be a starting
point for creating a condusive atmosphere for amicable resolution of a
misunderstanding between employers and employees (like the two families in a
marriage conflict among the Lomwe).
The second lesson worth mentioning is the group decision making process that
takes place in the Lomwe setting when a critical decision is to be made. At the
workplace, decisions are made by a few representatives of management and those of
the employees- though they still consult their principals in the process of the conflict
resolution when they adjourn. The major problem, though, is that each party is looking
for the weak spots or technicality in order to outdo the other. There is a tendency to
practice ‘hide and seek’ (Dzimbiri, 2008). Consequently, harmony does not take
precedence. If harmony between parties was taken as a priority by each side, group
decision would be the norm. This is where each group would brain storm and come up
with a group decision. More often than not, militant leaders of trade unions rush to
threaten a strike thereby creating a sense of ‘anger’ in the employer who becomes even
more adamant to listen any further. Then a vicious circle of misunderstanding and
hardening of hearts comes up.
An arrogant chief executive or managing director working on little information
simply won’t listen and before discussion has been initiated, he threatens a dismissal.
63
This has the tendency to create animosity among workers who harden their hearts
further and as a group would rise up in arms to punish the employer. Such approaches
have been counterproductive leading to costly strikes to both the employer and
employees, customers, and the general public.
The third lesson is the appeal to shared community values such as good
neighborliness, harmony, forgiveness, supportive relationships, etc. in the Lomwe as
opposed to legalistic norms and foreign norms of judgment (borrowed from
international laws and conventions). It is clear that indigenous value systems reside
side by side with foreign values as embedded in the terms and conditions of
employment, labour laws and contract of employment. If employers and employees in
most of Africa worked within the framework of their traditional family values and
systems of conflict resolution, there would be little confrontation and bitter strikes in
most industries and public services. This is evidenced by the absence of strikes and
serious disciplinary cases in family-run businesses and companies.
7. Conclusion
The chapter has compared indigenous approaches with modern approaches to conflict
resolution by examining family conflict resolution among the Lomwe and disputes
resolution mechanisms among employer and employees in modern work organizations
in Malawi. It draws similarities and differences, and assesses the extent to which
indigenous methods provide additional parameters for the management of conflict in
modern society. There are some degrees of similarities in the approaches, especially
the concept of voluntary discussion by the disputing parties and the entry of third
parties thereafter. What is different though is the type of the third parties and the
degree of formality involved. While third parties are independent officials with no
relationship to employers or employees, in the Lomwe conflict process, they are people
related to the disputing parties. Furthermore, there are stages in the traditional Lomwe
system whereby relatives of the disputing parties get involved in the dispute resolution
64
process as opposed to the formal workplace resolution process. Finally, in the Lomwe
tradition, there is emphasis on mutual dependency and continued cordial relationships
between the disputing parties on one hand and relatives of both parties, on the other.
The win-win approach is highly pronounced in the Lomwe conflict resolution
procedure than is the case in the formal employment relationships which tend to adopt
more of a win-lose approach. The spirit of mutual dependency and emphasis on
continued cordial relations between parties, the win-win approach to conflict resolution
and a group approach to dispute resolution commonly adopted in the Lomwe conflict
processes could go a long way in providing a long lasting and productive conflict
resolution mechanism at the workplace than it is the case now.
References
Brock-Utne, B. (2001) Indigneous conflict resolution in Africa. Paper presented to the
weekend seminar on indigenous solutions to conflicts held at the University of
Oslo, Institute for Educational Research 23-24 February.
Burchill, F. (1997) Labour Relations. London: Macmillan.
Coser, L. A. (1956) The Functions of Social Conflict. London: Routledge and Kogen
Paul.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. London:
Routledge and Kogan Paul.
Dubin, R. (1954) ‘Constructive Aspects of Industrial Conflict’, in Kornhauser, A.,
Dubin, R. and Ross, A.M. (1954) (eds.) Industrial Conflict. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Dubin, R. and Ross, A.M. (eds.) (1954). Industrial Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dzimbiri, L. B. (2008) Industrial Relations in a Developing Society: The Case of
Colonial, Independent One-party and Multiparty Malawi Gottingen: Cuvillier
Verlag.
Edosa, D.C., Aulachew, S. B., Nmara, R.E., Babel, M.S. & Gupta, A.D (2007)
65
‘Indigenous Systems of Conflict Resolution in Oromia, Ethiopia’., in Van
Kappen, B. & Giorodano, M(eds.) Community-based Water Law and Water
Resource Management Reform in Developing Countries, Butterworth pp.146-
156.
Fisher , R.(2000) Sources of Conflict and Methods of Conflict Resolution.
International Peace and Conflict. School of International Service. American
University
Fisher, R.(1990) The Social Psychology of inter-group and International Conflict
Resolution. New York. Spring Verlag
Kornhauser, A., Dubin, R. and Ross, A.M. (1954) (eds.) Industrial Conflict. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Regan, A. (ud) Traditional Leaders and Conflict Resolution in Bougainville:
Reforming the Present by Rewriting the Past? Occasional Paper
Summers, C. (1991) ‘Patterns of Dispute Resolution: Lessons From Four Continents’.
Comparative Labour Law Journal 12, 165-177
Wassara,S.S.(2007) ‘Traditional Mechanisms of Conflict Resolution in Southern
Sudan’. Berghof Foundation for Peace Support
66
Chapter 5: The Principle of Local Ownership as a Bridge
between International and Domestic Actors in Peacebuilding
Hideaki Shinoda
Institute for Peace Science, Hiroshima University
Introduction
Regarding the task of exploring “indigenous methods of conflict resolution and peace
building,” this chapter is not directly aimed at identifying examples of useful
indigenous methods for conflict resolution and peacebuilding.1 Rather, it is intended to
provide a conceptual foundation for the need for such methods in conflict resolution
and peacebuilding. Indigenous methods are required, not necessarily because they are
by definition technically superior to any other methods. Indigenous methods are
always important, because conflict resolution and peacebuilding ought to be solidly
rooted in local society; otherwise, we are destined to end up having superficial short-
sighted approaches to conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
The international community correctly recognizes this need. International
organizations and donor countries repeatedly emphasize the importance of local
ownership,2 when they provide any assistance to post-conflict countries. It is true that
they simply do not want to be regarded as interventionary forces. Their mention of
local ownership is sometimes quite superficial. The idea of respect for ownership may
be utilized even to authorize illegitimate regimes in volatile nations or hypocritical
intervention by foreign forces. However, it is also true that there is a widely recognized
importance in the principle of local ownership from the perspective of operational
1 By “indigenous methods” this chapter means social methods rooted in traditional cultures or
customs of society. 2 By “local ownership”, this chapter means the state of affairs in which stakeholders of local society
are willing to take responsibility for activities concerned. See Hideaki Shinoda, “The Difficulty and
Importance of Local Ownership and Capacity Development in Peacebuilding”, Hiroshima Peace Science, vol. 30, 2008, pp. 95-115.
67
strategies of conflict resolution and peace building. Rather, it is an expression of the
international community’s intention to incorporate the issue of indigenous methods in
the strategy of peacebuilding. The principle of local ownership is a conceptual channel
officially recognized by the international community to introduce indigenous methods
to the framework of conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
This chapter argues that the principle of local ownership is rather a bridge
between international and domestic actors who need each other in peacebuilding.
International actors as interveners require a solid foundation in domestic society to
sustain long-term peace as a crystallization of their own efforts. Domestic actors as
recipients require additional external resources to empower themselves to sustain long-
term peace as a fruit of their own efforts. Both need the principle of local ownership
from the opposite sides. Indigenous methods would be bought out by domestic actors
and supported by international actors in the framework of local ownership as a
principle of peacebuilding strategies.
This chapter seeks to illustrate the difficulties and necessities of looking for
indigenous methods of peacebuilding by highlighting the gaps between the assumption
of contemporary peacebuilding based on the theory of the modern sovereign nation
state and indigenous practices of actual local societies. Then, the chapter goes on to
examine how the international community tries to tackle such difficulties by providing
a conceptual framework of the principle of local ownership as a bridge to fill in such
gaps. The chapter also briefly categorizes various examples of indigenous methods in
actual peaecbuilding activities by suggesting that such practices are the record of
efforts to fill in the gaps within the balanced framework of the principle of local
ownership.
1. The Principle of Local Ownership as a Bridge between International Standards
and Indigenous Methods
Despite the obvious importance of introducing indigenous methods, it is not so
68
common to introduce what we can clearly identify as indigenous methods in
mainstream peacebuilding activities. It is because practitioners indentify difficulties in
applying indigenous methods to peacebuilding activities. The gap between mainstream
practices of peacebuilding and indigenous practices in local societies is often perceived
as quite wide. The presuppositions of mainstream peacebuilding in its institutional
settings or behavioral attitudes have international or Western origins and are apparently
different from indigenous circumstances in post-conflict societies where peacebuilding
activities take place.
It is evident that while local ownership is widely recognized as a principle to
coordinate the relationship between the international community and local society,
such a principle does not necessarily promise cultivation and application of any
indigenous methods. Theoretically speaking, it is possible that international actors
adopt certain kinds of indigenous methods without involving domestic actors or local
ownership. It is also possible that domestic actors secure local ownership without
resorting to any kinds of indigenous methods. While the international community does
not necessarily negate indigenous methods, what it really seeks to secure is the
principle of local ownership.
It is fair to say that one essential value of adopting indigenous methods should
be the power of their appeal to local populations. Once local populations welcome
methods of conflict resolution or peacebuilding as their own approaches, it is likely
that they find peacebuilding activities more acceptable. The more local people find
peacebuilding activities as acceptable, the more such activities have a chance of
success. In this sense the utility of adopting indigenous methods is highly relevant to
the utility of promoting the sense of ownership among stakeholders. But this argument
may be highly manipulative and inclined toward a donor-oriented perspective.
The issue of indigenous methods is much deeper than the acceptability of
peacebuilding activities. We know that most contemporary armed conflicts have been
occurring in newly independent states in Africa or Asia. The contemporary tendency is
that internal armed conflicts take place within national boundaries caused by reasons
concerning domestic governance. Most conflict-ridden states are products of the wave
69
of decolonization in the latter half of the twentieth century. Thus, despite their
geographical origins, they often struggle with legacies of colonial periods in the
process of nation-building. Nevertheless, in terms of implementation of international
assistances, construction of domestic political society, etc, peacebuilding efforts in
such states are deeply rooted in the Westernized way of thinking (Paris, 2004). It is
partly because such states inherited institutions of colonial periods. It is also because
our contemporary world is standardized in the Western way of thinking and tends to
impose it upon non-Western societies (Yasuaki, 2010).
In the first place, the modern sovereign nation state system is a product of
modern Western political philosophy, which was developed in the historical evolution
of modern European international society. Even in Europe the modern notion of the
state was unknown until the modern age. Absolutism was based upon the
presupposition that absolute sovereignty was a possession of individual kings. Political
societies were organized upon the understanding that the sovereign rules subjects; the
human relationship between the rule and the ruled was a structural pillar of political
society. It was only after the gradual development of constitutionalism in Great Britain
that depersonalized the system of political governance and the American and French
Revolutions that led to the spread of national sovereignty. In short, the sovereign
modern state is a product of European civilizations in the modern age (Shinoda, 2000).
It is the framework of this modern sovereign nation state that contemporary
international donors and planners rely upon. There is a mistaken myth that sovereign
nation states appeared in the seventeenth century and have been dominating the world
for centuries. The fact is that only after the process of decolonization did we start a
grand project of dividing the entire world into sovereign nation states. The project has
not been completed yet; it rather requires continuous enormous efforts in the forms of
peace operations, humanitarian or development aid. In the face of difficulties in the
way of such efforts, we may sometimes be tempted to ask a question about the validity
of our assumptions. Are our assumptions that the entire world ought to be divided and
organized by a few hundred sovereign nation states really feasible? Are they really
realistic and effective in Africa and Asia? How much should we base our peacebuilding
70
strategies upon such assumptions? These questions may look practically or
diplomatically absurd, but contain significant implications. Once we start questioning
our theoretical assumptions, we must start discussing our peacebuilding activities at the
very fundamental level of presuppositions of peacebuilding.
Do we discuss indigenous methods in order to entirely question fundamental
presuppositions of ongoing contemporary peacebuilding activities? Are there any
realistic indigenous methods that radically go beyond the internationally common
framework of peacebuilding? These are really deep fundamental questions which we
would not be able to answer easily. But they would be worth asking, since we all know
that there are gaps between our theoretical assumptions based on the framework of
Western political philosophy and actual realities of conflict-ridden societies in non-
Western areas (Sriram et al, 2011; Paris & Sisk, 2009).
The so-called issue of the “neo-patrimonial state” prevalent in Africa is often
mentioned in the discussions of contemporary tendencies highly relevant to wars in the
region (Takeuchi, 2009; Medard, 1982). It is true that political leaders not only
monopolize public sectors but also exploit state resources for their own private gains.
The informal tendency of respect for “the Big Man” creates political governance too
much dependent upon personal charisma. It is almost like an African tradition that
Presidents continue to remain in office for decades regardless of constitutional settings,
while many Asian countries used to have similar political cultures. This personalization
of state mechanisms betrays the institutional assumption of the modern state based on
the idea of rule of law. “Neo-patrimonial states” are the hotbed of repeated armed
conflicts, since they often worsen social tensions and stimulate violent struggles for
resources in a state.
Some armed conflicts especially those in West Africa are often described in the
context of the “youth.” The widely recognized observation is that underprivileged
youth tend to join rebel groups against the existing power structure and social systems
dominated by elders. Peacebuilding strategies in the region thus usually address the
issue of the youth as one of the most pressing themes (United Nations Peacebuilding
Commission, 2007). But traditional African societies have social customs of elderly
71
rules in the form of chiefdom or more informal styles. Raising voices of youth might
run the risk of challenging traditional social behaviors. At best, the youth issue is
highly related to the problem of excessive urbanization of capital cities full of job-
seeking youth as well as deteriorating poverty levels in stagnating rural areas. It is a
challenge to revitalize rural social lives by making adjustments in traditional social
customs and values.
The peacebuilding strategy of the rule of law in the context of state-building
sometimes faces informal challenges behind the scenes. Rules of indigenous rituals,
religions, secret societies and witchcraft work against the aim of the rule of law to
establish a modern state. These indigenous social rules do not usually challenge the
attempt of creating a modern state in a visible from. However, they affect people’s
minds and behaviors regardless of official requirements of the rule of law. International
peacebuilders have conversations with local intellectuals on rule of law terms. But it is
often likely that behind such official scenes indigenous social rules and practices
exercise enormous power over the course of society. They may maintain “irrational”
social rules in the eyes of modern state builders. They may solicit tensions among
various social groups or even violent reactions by young gangsters with guns.
These gaps between the assumptions of the modern sovereign nation state and
indigenous social phenomena are not inevitable. This chapter does not insist that
indigenous approaches in Africa are by definition contradictory to the framework of
the modern sovereign nation state. In a way every society has such gaps as in the cases
of well-governed societies like Japan. However, it is also true that simplistic adoption
of Western institutional assumptions does not automatically promise peace, stability
and development in societies where complex indigenous social values and practices are
significant. Peacebuilding strategies must fact such gaps, instead of ignoring them, in
order to identify the way peace is better pursued in conflict-ridden societies.
It is practically too radical to propose to abandon the modern sovereign nation-
state framework, even when we find a history of peaceful society before modernization.
In the twenty-first century, it is so hard to be isolated and risks of such isolation are
apparently so high. Peacebuilding strategies must be pursued in the context of the
72
actual contemporary world. We do not believe that thoroughly simplistic introduction
of alien cultures would lead to long-term sustainable peace. We also do not usually
believe that thoroughly simplistic rejection of all foreign elements would contribute to
constructive peacebuilding. We need a balance between indigenous and international
methods after careful examination of the advantages and disadvantages of both of them.
Local ownership is a standard to screen utility of indigenous as well as foreign
methods for particular practical purposes like peacebuilding. If a certain traditional
custom is discovered to be useful, the principle of local ownership applies to identify it
as an effective indigenous method. The ownership principle is expected to function to
modify traditions as part of peacebuilding strategies of the society concerned. If a
certain foreign intervention is assessed as useful, the principle of local ownership
applies to justify foreign intervention and incorporate it in a newly adjusted framework
of peacebuilding. The ownership principle ought to function to legitimize interventions
as part of the peacebuilding strategies of the society concerned.
This is the reason why respect for local ownership is not really at stake. The
crucial point is to foster local ownership so that it will enrich peacebuilding activities
(Shinoda, 2008). The principle of local ownership is a bridge between those domestic
actors who might bring indigenous methods but lack resources for implementing them
and those international actors who might bring resources for peacebuilding activities
but lack indigenous methods rooted in local society. Both domestic actors and
international actors need such a bridge to compensate for what they lack. Once we
adopt the understanding of local ownership in peacebuilding as the principle to be not
only respected but also fostered, we are strategically able to examine the roles and
functions of external actors for the goal of peacebuilding.
2. International Efforts to Promote Local Ownership
This chapter goes on to look at some characteristic attitudes of international
organizations to advance local ownership as a strategic principle of peacebuilding. In
73
so doing, the chapter illustrates a conceptual channel for the international community
to invite indigenous methods. There are numerous ways international donors for
development aid approach issues of local ownership from their own distinctive
perspectives3 (US Department of Defense, 2007; USAID, Bureau for Policy and
Program Coordination, 2004). But it is noteworthy that the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC),
among others, gives attention to peacebuilding issues. In the context of development
effectiveness in fragile states DAC recognizes that fragile states confront particularly
severe development challenges such as weak governance, limited administrative
capacity, chronic humanitarian crisis, persistent social tensions, violence or the legacy
of civil war. Thus, state-building is a central objective to tackle the issue of fragile
states. “The long-term vision for international engagement in fragile states is to help
national reformers build legitimate, effective and resilient state institutions”
(OECD/DAC, 2007).
“The DAC Guidelines: Helping Preventing Violent Conflict” in 2001 stated
“Speed and ‘efficiency’ in development operations may sometimes need to be
sacrificed to some degree for greater stability and peace, as well as local ‘ownership.’”
It also states that “Be transparent, communicate intentions, and widen and deepen
dialogue with partners at all levels in order to ensure ownership.” It argued that
“External actors – multilateral, bilateral and non-governmental – individually and
collectively need to identify and support local capacities for preventing and resolving
conflict issues and for finding innovative solutions, even in the most grave conflict or
3
The United States is engaged in capacity development programmes in its own peculiar
commitment to nation-building. With regards to its “fragile states strategy”, the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) intends to “enhance stability”, “improve security”,
“encourage reform”, and “develop the capacity of institutions”, by saying that “in some cases, lack
of political will to foster greater effectiveness and legitimacy of government institutions may be
driving fragility. Supporting reformers outside the government may contribute to political
instability in the short term, but may, in the medium to long term, avoid violent conflict and state
failure. Support for economic activities that lead to job creation, improved family incomes, and
better functioning markets can, in most cases, contribute to greater economic stability”. Other
donors include Canada, United Kingdom, & Germany. Numerous NGOs are engaged in various
activities to enhance local ownership, including the International Centre for Transnational Justice
(ICTJ).
74
post-conflict situations….Donors should give particular consideration to understanding
and, where appropriate, supporting indigenous and customary peace-building
capacities and other potential connectors, such as women’s organizations with the
potential to play bridging roles. These can have a major impact on building solidarity
and boosting local confidence and capacity” (OECD/DAC, 2001).
The OECD/DAC sets up the “10 Fragile States Principles” or “Fragile States
Principles (FSPs).” Principle 7 says that “Align with local priorities in different ways
and in different contexts.” According to the OECD/DAC, Principle 7 means that
“Where governments demonstrate political will to foster development, but lack
capacity, international actors should seek to align assistance behind government
strategies. Where capacity is limited, the use of alternative aid instruments—such as
international compacts or multi-donor trust funds—can facilitate shared priorities and
responsibility for execution between national and international institutions. Where
alignment behind government-led strategies is not possible due to particularly weak
governance or violent conflict, international actors should consult with a range of
national stakeholders in the partner country, and seek opportunities for partial
alignment at the sectoral or regional level. Where possible, international actors should
seek to avoid activities which undermine national institution-building, such as
developing parallel systems without thought to transition mechanisms and long term
capacity development. It is important to identify functioning systems within existing
local institutions, and work to strengthen these” (OECD/DAC, 2007).
The OECD/DAC suggests that when there is will on the side of national
governments, the international community should concentrate upon fostering their
capacities. When governments are inappropriate to be prioritized, the international
community should seek partial alignments with a range of national stakeholders as well
as sectoral or regional partners. Furthermore, the international community should avoid
undermining national institution-building and strengthen existing local institutions. All
these have a coherent logic to coordinate aid activities; what is most crucially
important is to strengthen local capacities for peacebuilding.
Regarding the other principles, we can observe some characteristic attitude of
75
the international community toward “fragile states”4. First, there is a significant
recognition that the international community must respect local society and adjust their
policies in accordance with local circumstances. Principle 1 of the FSPs, “Take context
as the starting point,” symbolizes the recognition that fragile states are all distinctive
and the international community must respect contextual approaches. Even at the level
of typology of “fragile states,” the DAC emphasizes the need to distinguish between
post-conflict/crisis or political transition situations, deteriorating governance
environments, gradual improvement, and prolonged crisis or impasse. Principle 2,
“Ensure all activities do no harm,” represents cautiousness to first avoid negative
impacts of international assistance. Respect for local contexts is one the fundamental
philosophical element of the international donor community. “Principle 4: Prioritise
prevention” “will also include sharing risk analyses; looking beyond quick-fix
solutions to address the root causes of state fragility; strengthening indigenous
capacities, especially those of women, to prevent and resolve conflicts; supporting the
peacebuilding capabilities of regional organizations, and undertaking joint missions to
consider measures to help avert crises.” Namely, it is local and regional sources, not
international intervention, which constitute a foundation for prevention.
Second, there is a great emphasis upon the recognition that peacebuilding must
be comprehensive. Principle 5, “Recognise the links between political, security and
development objectives,” most clearly represents the understanding, since the
“challenges faced by fragile states are multi-dimensional.” And the political, security,
economic and social spheres are inter-dependent.” “Principle 6: Promote non-
discrimination as a basis for inclusive and stable societies” as well as “Principle 10:
Avoid pockets of exclusion” indicates desirability of inclusiveness as regards diverse
social groups in the peeacebuilding approach. “Principle 8: Agree on practical
coordination mechanisms between international actors” points to the need for
inclusiveness on the side of actors. “Principle 9: Act fast … but stay engaged long
enough to give success a chance” implies broadness of peacebuilding activities in time.
4
For the other principles, see
http://www.oecd.org/document/12/0,3343,en_2649_33693550_1_1_1_1,00.html.
76
This demand for comprehensiveness requires international actors to keep flexibility to
cope with the complex difficult circumstances of fragile states.
Third, despite the respect for divergent domestic actors and demand for
flexibility, the OECD/DAC believes in “Principle 3: Focus on state-building as the
central objective.” In the first place, by definition, “States are fragile when state1
structures lack political will and/or capacity to provide the basic functions needed for
poverty reduction, development and to safeguard the security and human rights of their
populations.” That is the reason why “International engagement will need to be
concerted, sustained, and focused on building the relationship between state and
society, through engagement in two main areas,” namely, “supporting the legitimacy
and accountability of states by addressing issues of democratic governance, human
rights, civil society engagement and peacebuilding” and “strengthening the capability
of states to fulfill their core functions.” State-building is the key factor of
peacebuilding in the framework of the FSPs.
What kind of local ownership can the OECD/DAC promote through this
attitude? One indication can be seen in the monitoring process of the implementation
of the FSPs, which is organized through a voluntary survey based on national
consultations. Given the nature of the principles, the OECD/DAC concentrates upon
quantitative assessments through dialogue with host countries by using only a limited
number of indicators for illustration5. All the FSPs are not directly addressed to the
issue of local ownership. But the fact that the FSPs lead to the overall consultative
process between national stakeholders and the international donor community indicates
the understanding that fragile states requires extra care for actively cultivating local
sources.6 The “International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding” provides a
forum for policy discussions7.
5
See “Monitoring the Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and
Situations”, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/63/42326410.pdf, 17 April 2009, p. 4. 6The process is facilitated by the “International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF)” as a
sub-organ of DAC founded in 2009 is a “unique decision-making forum which brings together
diverse stakeholders to support development outcomes in the world’s most challenging situations”. 7
“International Dialogue”, at
http://www,oecd.org/document/44/0,3343,en_2649_33693550_42135084_1_1_1_1,00.html.
77
On 9-10 April 2010 the conference on peacebuilding and state-building was
held with the representatives of developing countries and regions, bilateral and
multilateral partners and civil society. They discussed common tasks for peacebuilding
and state-building, for instance, by setting the following goals; Foster inclusive
political settlements and processes, and inclusive political dialogue; Establish and
strengthen basic safety and security; Achieve peaceful resolution of conflicts and
access to justice; Develop effective and accountable government institutions to
facilitate service delivery; Create the foundations for inclusive economic development,
including sustainable livelihoods, employment and effective management of natural
resources; Develop social capacities for reconciliation and peaceful coexistence; Foster
regional stability and co-operation”8.
It can be observed that the OECD/DAC, respecting divergent domestic actors
by keeping flexibility to cope with them while prioritizing state-building, attempts to
secure local ownership by promoting consultation processes with governments and
other local sources of fragile states. It is evident that the OECD/DAC does not
necessarily seek to cultivate “indigenous methods of conflict resolution and peace
building.” It does not talk about “methods.” Instead, it rather appears to seek smooth
implementation of international assistance.
The United Nations, conducting numerous international peace operations, has
multiple functions to foster local ownership in conflict-ridden societies for the purpose
of peacebuilding. The UN Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) was established in
December 2005 with peacebuilding as its main task. Its organizational committee is
composed of 31 member states and its country-specific meetings discuss Burundi,
Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau. The PBC is a forum-style organization and does not
implement programs by itself. But its role to recommend strategies of peacebuilding
should not be underestimated (Shinoda, 2007). The PBC, as mandated by the UN
Security Council and the General Assembly, emphasized that the national government
has primary responsibility for peacebuilding strategies while “ensuring national
8 International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, “Dili Declaration: A new vision for
peacebuilding and statebuilding”, 10 April 2010.
78
ownership of the peacebuilding process”. This was stated apparently for the purpose of
indicating that PBC should not interfere with national jurisdictions9. The Peacebuilding
Support Office (PBSO) is intellectually committed to better implementation of
peacebuilding strategies. In addition, the Peacebuilding Fund appears to be an
important tool to achieve policy goals for peacebuilding.
The UN Peace Operations including peacekeeping missions as well as political
and peacebuilding missions have particular roles in fostering local ownership with its
special functions. The missions contribute, first of all, by implementing operations to
reform domestic institutions including Security Sector Reform (SSR) and
Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration (DDR). Second, the missions usually
help domestic actors implement the peace/political processes, which is expected to
strengthen the capacity of local stakeholders. Third, when the missions take
administrative responsibility, they significantly get involved in capacity development
of local personnel. Peace operations are sometimes channels for local people to obtain
knowledge and skills to develop human resources.
In the field of peace operations by the United Nations, the importance of local
ownership is well recognized. For instance, the “United Nations Peacekeeping
Operations: Principles and Guidelines” or the so-called “Capstone Doctrine” stipulates
that “promotion of national and local ownership” is one of the crucial doctrines of
peace operations. “National and local ownership is critical to the successful
implementation of a peace process. In planning and executing a United Nations
peacekeeping operation’s core activities, every effort should be made to promote
national and local and ownership and to foster trust and cooperation between national
actors. Effective approaches to national and local ownership not only reinforce the
perceived legitimacy of the operation and support mandate implementation, they also
help to ensure the sustainability of any national capacity once the peacekeeping
operation has been withdrawn” (UNDPKO & DFS, 2008).
The PBC, as the organ to emphasize “national ownership,” has been trying to
9 See General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/180, 20 December 2005 and security Council
Resolution S/RES/1645(2005), 20 December 2005.
79
create peacebuilding strategies to solidify peace by promoting “national ownership”.
The PBC set up “country-specific meetings” to discuss peacebuilding strategies on
specific “countries under consideration”. Since the PBC is a forum of diplomats, it also
invites representatives of countries under consideration to secure at least participation
of national governments in the process of consultations of the PBC. The countries
which applied to and were selected by the PBC are Burundi, Sierra Leone, Central
African Republic, and Guinea Bissau. Here, this chapter picks up and concretely
highlights one of the examples, the PBC’s engagement with Sierra Leone.
One major product of PBC’s engagement with Sierra Leone is “Sierra Leone
Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework” of 3 December 200710
. The Republic of Sierra
Leone and the Peacebuilding Commission “determined to strengthen the partnership
and cooperation between Sierra Leone and the Peacebuilding Commission” aimed to
propose “integrated strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery.” They
recognized that “peace consolidation in Sierra Leone requires full national ownership
and the participation of all relevant stakeholders, such as the central and local
governments, civil society, the private sector and international partners.” “The
Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework is based upon the following principles; national
ownership, mutual accountability, and sustained engagement. Here, according to the
PBC, national ownership means that “the primary responsibility and ownership for
peace consolidation and the development of a prosperous and democratic Sierra Leone
rests with the government and people of Sierra Leone.” Then, the government and the
PBC jointly prioritize several strategically important issues like youth employment and
empowerment, justice and security sector reform, consolidation of democracy and
good governance, capacity-building, energy sector, and sub regional dimensions of
peacebuilding.
On 12 December 2007 the PBC and the Government of Sierra Leone adopted
the “Sierra Leone Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework,” which is one of the primary
engagement and partnership instruments between the Government of Sierra Leone and
10
Sierra Leone Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework”, 3 December 2007, Peacebuilding
Commission, Second Session, Sierra Leone configuration, UN Document PBC/2/SLE/1.
80
the international community. Progress in the implementation of the Framework is
reviewed every six months by a formal country-specific meeting of the PBC on the
basis of a report jointly prepared by the Government and the PBC. The review meeting
encouraged the Government of Sierra Leone to make progress on national dialogue,
truth and reconciliation commission, aid coordination, youth empowerment and
employment, energy sector, food security, anti-corruption efforts, illicit drug trafficking,
etc.11
“The Political Parties’ Joint Communiqué” was an agreement signed on 2 April
2009 by the two leading parties of Sierra Leone: the All People’s Congress and the
Sierra Leone’s Peoples Party, as a result of facilitation by the United Nations Integrated
Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone (UNIPSIL). The PBC promoted the consensus
among international actors that the Communiqué ought to be incorporated into the
overall framework of peacebuilding strategy including the way the international donor
community assists the country.
The PBC also intends to incorporate the “Government’s Agenda for Change,”
which is the second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2009-2012) launched by the
government of Sierra Leone in May 2009, into the overall framework of peacebuilding
strategy. “The Peacebuilding Commission calls upon its member States and all
international partners to accept the Agenda for Change as the core strategy document
that will not only determine the future work of Sierra Leone’s national institutions but
will also guide all future work of Sierra Leone’s international partners. Alignment of
all international support with the Agenda for Change will be an important step in
streamlining and refocusing the various separate strategies that have been developed
over time and will lead to increased national ownership and the effectiveness of
international development assistance”12
.
What these efforts of the PBC show is that the international community desires
11
“Conclusions and recommendations of the second biannual review of the implementation of the
Sierra Leone Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework”, peacebuilding Commissiom Third Session
Sierra Leone configuration, 16 December 2008, UN Document PBC/3/SLE/2. 12
Outcome of the Peacebuilding Commission High-level Special Session on Sierra Leone”, Peace
Building Commission Third Session Sierra Leone configuration, 12 June 2009, UN Document
PBC/3/SLE/6, para. 4 (g).
81
to invite domestic sources to making peacebuilding strategies. It may be because they
want to refine their strategies more by absorbing indigenous methods. It may be
because they want to let domestic actors take foremost responsibility of peacebuilding.
Whatever the context is, PBC signifies the international community’s wish to combine
domestic sources of peacebuilding strategies with international ones under the
fundamental guiding principle of local ownership.
3. Examples of Introducing Indigenous Approaches in Peacebuilding
It has been observed that the international community has been seeking indigenous
approaches through the principle of local ownership. It means that indigenous methods
are not welcome for their own sake; they are so only when justifiable in accordance
with the principle of local ownership. Thus, the record of introduction of indigenous
methods in peacebuilding is not straightforward; it contains ambiguities and
compromises. Nevertheless, it is also true that methods and policies inspired by
indigenous practices have occasionally emerged to make peacebuilding more effective.
The foremost category of such examples is the introduction of indigenous
methods in the process of political dialogues. A famous example is the organization of
“Loya Jirga” in Afghanistan. Loya Jirga is the large conference of representatives of
local districts throughout Afghanistan (Otfinoski, 2004). It was traditionally convened
when vital national matters were discussed. After the collapse of the Taliban regime
and the enactment of the Bonn Agreement in 2001, a renovated form of “Loya Jirga”
was convened in 2002 to legitimize the political process set out by the Bonn
Agreement and to further discuss future political agendas. Another version of Loya
Jirga was convened in May 2010 in the name of “a National Consultative Peace Jigra”
in the face of ongoing crises in the country. The Loya Jirga of 2002 seemed to be
successful in the sense that it satisfied the desire of many Afghan people to participate
in the new political process on the way for reconstruction after the war. It functioned to
legitimize the peace process at that time and somehow strengthen stability in the
82
country. Nevertheless, in the period between 2002 and 2010 the situation of
Afghanistan seriously deteriorated due to not simply resurgence of the Taliban forces,
but also diminished trust in the Karzai government and the entire process of
peacebuilding and reconstruction. The Peace Jirga of 2010 does not seem to produce
any tangible result to contribute to long-term peacebuilding (Melegoda, 2011).
The formal governmental system may incorporate consultative process with
indigenous elements. Parliament in Sierra Leone has 12 seats reserved for paramount
chiefs.13
This is an attempt to bring together traditional social governance models in
the formal framework of the modern state. Chiefs are expected to represent
traditionally regional circumstances so that state mechanism can absorb what political
parties do not represent. In Sierra Leone the boundaries of chiefdoms constitute formal
administrative districts with clear intention that state-building should be designed as an
attempt to establish a modern sovereign nation state based on traditional social
conditions to a necessary and useful extent (Fanthorpe, 2006).
The recent case of the agreement between the two political parties in Sierra
Leone exemplifies a new initiative to alleviate modern political institutions in the
context of local society. The All People‟s Congress (APC), incumbent president’s
governing party, and the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), former president’s main
opposition party, signed the Joint Communiqué in 2009 to end the sudden outbreak of
political violence and intolerance concerning tensions between supporters of the two
parties (APC & SLPP, 2009). Party politics is a challenge in Africa and many post-
conflict states fail to maintain or develop party politics to be called “neo-patrimonial
states.” It is quite often because political parties tend to obtain their political bases
according to tribal/ethnic or geographical lines regardless of standpoints of political
ideologies. It is true to say that political parties are not usually constitutional
institutions. American federalists like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton rather
abhorred the dominance of sectionalism of party politics (Madison, Hamilton and Jay,
1987). While the modern ideological struggles consolidated the practice of party
13
Parliament of Sierra Leone, “Overview of the Sierra Leone Parliament” available at
<http://www.sl-parliament.org/>.
83
politics in Western countries, otherwise it is still true to say that party politics
inherently has the danger of sectionalism. In this sense it is no wonder that many of the
newly independent states in Africa either avoid party politics or fall into sectional
struggles of party politics divided by indigenous social group lines. The attempt in
Sierra Leone is a kind of indigenous method, which is rather alien to Western political
practices, to overcome the predicaments of party politics in Africa by resorting to a
more consultative approach to institutionalize the relationship between political parties.
While the justice sector has central importance of state-building, it is often
difficult to create a judicial system at the standard level of the modern state in the
volatile environments of post-conflict societies. Thus, Rwanda’s attempt of gacaca has
critical importance. Gacaca literally means “lawn” standing for discussions among
people sitting on the lawn to resolve problems in local community. It has been a
traditional conflict resolution system in Rwanda. The government of Rwanda after the
1994 genocide introduced a state-oriented version of gacaca to deliver judgments on
thousands of genocide suspects detained after the genocide, which overwhelmed
capacity of normal judicial courts in the country (Takeuchi, 2008). Since the
introduced version of gacaca is a state-led mechanism of extra-judiciary functions, it
remained controversial. In the first place, the real traditional gacaca do not deal with
criminal law issues. The standard of human rights protection is not at the level of the
normal modern criminal justice. The speed of gacaca trials was outstanding due to the
pressure from the central government upon local districts. Still, it would be also true to
say that the resort to some kind of traditional conflict resolution system created a sense
of ownership among local residents over the process of criminal justice on genocide,
thus, it would be correct to say that gacaca contributed to advancement of
peacebuilding in Rwanda in its own way.
Reconciliation is the most emotional and sensitive issue in peacebuilding, so it
tends to require down-to-earth indigenous approaches. But outright resort to
indigenous reconciliatory approaches might be controversial in the eyes of the modern
state framework. It is widely said that after the end of the conflict in Mozambique,
local rituals were many a time used to purify former combatants. No matter whether
84
such exercises had actual impact upon the course of peacebuilding, it had elements of
reconciliation in the direction of social integration of those who otherwise would be
excluded from communities as sinful persons. This is an extraordinary form of
resorting to an indigenous method outside of the sphere of the modern state framework.
More institutional attempts of reconciliation include various kinds of Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions. A wide range of TRCs in countries like Timor-Leste,
Sierra Leone, Liberia, and South Africa, signify their importance in terms of
incorporating local indigenous elements into recognizable, if not legally, initiatives of
peacebuilding. TRCs are usually not state-owned processes, but have some linkages
with state-building activities, although sometimes in dubious ways as in the cases of
controversies of demands to governments on accepting recommendations of TRCs in
countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia.
4. Conclusion
This chapter is still a preliminary work to further develop the idea of local ownership
as a bridge between international and domestic actors in the field of peacebuilding. It
does not simply argue that local ownership should be respected by the international
community or advocated by domestic actors. It is a fundamental principle of strategies
of peacebuilding for both international and domestic actors.
Indigenous methods are not automatically proved to be useful in peacebuilding,
while their possibilities must be pursued with foremost efforts. Pursuit of indigenous
methods would not be simplistic glorification of traditional customs of non-Western
societies or thorough rejection of Western modernization. What should be done is to
correctly identify the importance of indigenous methods of conflict resolution and
peacebuilding and systematically incorporate them in the framework of peacebuilding
strategies with local ownership as the overall indispensable principle.
85
References
All Peoples Congress (APC) and the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP). 2009. “The
Joint Communique” available at <http://unipsil.unmissions.org/portals/unipsil/
sections/signed_jointcomunique20020409.pdf.>
Fanthorpe, Richard. 2006. “On the Limits of Liberal Peace: Chiefs and Democratic
Decentralization in Post-war Sierra Leone,” African Affairs, vol. 105, no. 418, pp.
27-49.
General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/180. 2005. 20 December 2005
GTZ, “Peace Building and Crisis Prevention” available at
<http://www.gtz.de/en/themen/uebergreifende-
themen/krisenpraevention/2435.htm>.
Madison, James,. Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. 1987. The Federalist Papers.
London: Penguin Books.
Médard, Jean-Francois. 1982. “The Underdevelped State in Tropical Africa: Political
Clientelism or Neo-patrimonialism” in Christopher Clapham (ed.), Private
Patronage and Public Power: Political Clientelism in the Modern State. London:
Frances Pinter.
Melegoda, Nayani. 2011. “Peacebuilding in Afghanistan: The Peace Jirga” in Hideaki
Shinoda (ed.), IBSHU English Research Report Series No.25: Peacebuilding in
South Asia: Challenges and Opportunities, Institute for Peace Science, Hiroshima
University and Department of International Relations, University of Colombo.
OECD. 2001. “The DAC Guidelines: Helping Preventing Violent Conflict” available at
<http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-dac-guidelines01.pdf>.
OECD/DAC. 2007. “Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States”
available at < http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/5/43463433.pdf >.
Otfinoski, Steven. 2004. Nations in Transition: Afghanistan. New York: Facts on File, Inc.
Paris, Roland. 2004. At War’s End: Building Peaec after Civil Conflict. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Paris, Roland and Timothy Sisk (eds.). 2009, The Dilemmas of Statebuilding:
86
Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations. London: Routledge.
Shinoda, Hideaki. 2000. Re-examining Sovereignty: From Classical Theory to the Global
Age. London: Macmillan.
Shinoda, Hideaki. 2007. “The Establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission,”
International Law and Diplomacy, Vol. 105, no. 4. (Japanese).
Shinoda, Hideaki. 2008. “The Difficulty and Importance of Local Ownership and
Capacity Development in Peacebuilding”. Hiroshima Peace Science, vol. 30.
Sriram, Chandra Lekha, Olga Martin-Ortega and Johanna Herman (eds.). 2011.
Peacebuilding and Rule of Law in Africa: Just Peace? London: Routledge.
Takeuchi, Shin’ich. 2008. “Gacaca in Rwanda: its Institutions and Significance for
Agricultural Society” in Shin’ich Takeuchi (ed.), Between War and Peace: Africa
after the Conflict Phase and International Society. Tokyo: IDE-JETRO Kenkyu
Sosho, No. 573 <Japanese>.
Takeuchi, Shin’ich. 2009. The Post-Colonial Patrimonial State and Conflict in Africa:
Understanding the Genocide in Rwanda. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. <Japanese>.
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Department of Field
Support (UNDPKO & DFS). 2008. United Nations Peacekeeping Operations:
Principles and Guidelines, available at
<http://pbpu.unlb.org/pbps/Library/Capstone_Doctrine_ENG.pdf>.
United Nations Peacebuilding Commission (UNPBC). 2007. “Sierra Leone
Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework” III. A. “Youth Employment and
Empowerment,” UN Document, PBC/2/SLE/1.
USAID. 2005. “Fragile States Strategy” available at
<http://www.usaid.gov/policy/2005_fragile_states_strategy.pdf>.
USAID. 2006. “Policy Framework for Bilateral Foreign Aid Implementing
Transformational Diplomacy,” available at
<http://www.usaid.gov/policy/policy_framework_jan06.pdf>.
US Department of Defense. 2007. “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, March 2007,
Report to Congress in accordance with the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act 2007. (Section 9010, Public Law 109-289) available at
87
<http://www.defense.gov/home/pdf/9010. March.Final_Signed.pdf>.
United States Institute of Peace and United States Army Peacekeeping and Stability
Operations Institute. 2009. Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction.
Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace.
Onuma, Yasuaki. 2010. A Transcivilizational Perspective on International Law.
Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.