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.