From cold war to hot peace?
Akum Longchari and Babu Ayindo
As people existing in a continuous struggle for truth, we have to examine and question old concepts, values and systems. -Steve Biko
The scene was a Conflict Resolution workshop for refugees from the Great Lakes region of Africa. In the center of the room lay a plant that the facilitators had just uprooted from the garden outside. Like good facilitators who believed in the power of visual aids we had uprooted a plant with yellowing leaves as a discussion starter in reflecting about the nature of conflict in Africa. We asked the participants: Why are some leaves turning yellow?
Theories of photosynthesis were expounded upon. And we, the facilitators, were pleased with ourselves. Then we moved on even the most critical part: what need we do to stop the yellowing of leaves? Again, another torrent of plant biology…but there was this young man who seemed very uncomfortable with the whole conversation. Amid the discussion, he slowly and steadily raised his hand and calmly said: “Paint the leaves.” There was hesitation, then the participants burst into laughter. He did not laugh. “This is what everyone is doing,” he added, “why waste time with water, light and manure – go buy green paint and paint the leaves!”
This discussion has partly led to the reflections in this paper. Conflict Resolution, Conflict Transformation, Peacebuilding, Win-Win Outcomes and Sustainable Peace, to name but a few, have become terms that now dominate the lexicon of social transformation processes in the so-called third world. This discussion is animated by the concern that what appears as an evolution of a culture of peace, inspired by a “universalized” conflict resolution theory is shy about visiting the root causes of most conflicts in the so called third and fourth worlds. Conflict Resolution may well be a process of uprooting of people and painting of leaves. Or, at best, a process of only stopping the yellowing of leaves. Not only is current conflict resolution theory and practice generally ahistorical but it also tends to take for granted indigenous cultures, knowledge systems and realities. We are also prepared to believe that it is not a historical coincidence that the ideology of conflict resolution is being promoted at a time when the socio-political conditions worldwide are unstable.
To start with, we share Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s view that “peace is not possible in an imperialist dominated world…[if] peace [is] the social basis and climate for a truly human community.”
Therefore: [w]riting for peace should at the very least mean raising human consciousness to an uncompromising hatred of all exploitative parasitic relations between nations and between peoples within each nation […] for we must all struggle for a world in which one’s cleanliness is not dependent another’s dirt, one’s health on another’s ill-health, and one’s welfare on another’s misery.
In this paper, we discuss the theory and practice of Western nurtured conflict resolution and its attendant processes now widely being “adopted” in third and fourth worlds. While we recognize the potential of some of the activities and the solidarity being created between people and organizations, we insist that for current conflict resolution theory and practice to be worthwhile, significant and relevant to the reality of the majority of people in the world, it must be placed within the history of the relationship between the so-called North and so-called South. And when we do that, we shall begin realizing that conflict resolution theory and practice, perhaps unknowingly, abets the process of globalism. We are witnessing people’s basic challenges of survival either being turned into problems of ethnicism [or tribalism] or communication. People who are hungry are being told re-state their interest – not position! – and seek win-win outcomes.
People who are oppressed are being regimented to manage their anger and compromise. People who have lived together for centuries are being taught how to listen well for that is important for prejudice reduction. In this paper we shall argue that we do not resolve or transform conflicts by skirting around the root causes of conflict. We venture that while upwards of 80% of global conflicts call for solid advocacy and activist alternatives, conflict resolution practitioners are quick to mediate and negotiate where power imbalances are apparent and even when mediation and compromise potentially become acts of violence.
Incidentally a more “third world” interpretation of Adam Curle’s Progression of Conflict matrix suggests the need for more activist approaches that lead us to confrontation with injustice. As long as conflict resolution is shy about visiting the real causes of conflict, we shall continue betraying the struggle of the poor and oppressed people’s struggle to attain basic needs, rights to life and freedoms. In this regard we shall question whether conflict resolution a la Western culture is not an attempt to deny and suppress the power of indigenous cultures by making them predictable hence oppresseable.
We must begin by asserting that all peoples, in the attempt to come to terms with fellow humans, nature and the supernatural encounter conflicts. In responding to these conflicts and challenges, values are evolved and culture is created. Ideally, any people become makers of history in an ever-continuing process. Therefore “conflict resolution” as produced by the West is but one way of responding to conflict and creating culture. In this respect, therefore, all cultures can be said to be “a conflict resolution/transformation” praxis.
Some “optimists” would argue that with the end of cold war, surely conflict resolution, a la Western culture, is relevant and necessary in a unipolar world. Well, Africans say that when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. And, Ali Mazrui has rendered aptly that when two elephants make love it is still the grass that suffers! Perhaps we can also add that the grass does not suffer any less when the elephants are making love! Since the term culture is at the heart of our discussion, we begin by making introductory remarks on the term under the sub-heading “A Word on Culture.” The second section of this paper titled “Towards Hot Peace?” is devoted to a critical review of conflict resolution theory and practice with particular reference to the widely adopted pyramidal model developed by our professor John Paul Lederach. Our concluding notes are titled “Our Hope, Our Strength.”
In the paper we shall use the terms Conflict Resolution, Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding interchangeably. While we appreciate the theoretical distinctions, our experience shows that in practice the effects are not dissimilar. We shall also use the terms indigenous peoples and third and fourth world peoples interchangeably. These people have common experiences in their history and their current encounters with conflict. And in most cases they are both. Let us now begin by grappling with the simple yet often very confusing term: Culture.
A Word on Culture
Of all our studies, history is well qualified to reward our research – Malcolm X
It seems that dependent upon one’s intention, the definition one gives to the word culture can either propel a people’s capacity to become makers of history or, as is all too common, send them to a museum as spectators of history. Many definitions of culture favor the reductionist perspective, selectively slicing away events and activities and, above all, commodifying them. Consequently, there are many people in the so-called third and fourth worlds who view their culture primarily through capitalistic products, examples of which would include “tribal” dances, masks and yoghurt. With such narrow definitions of culture, it is not surprising that whenever young people from third world assert the power of their culture they are greeted by the cynical refrain: “You mean you want to go back to wearing skins, sticking spears through each other and sleeping on trees?”
The written history of third and fourth world peoples -- written as it was with questionable intentions -- is full of violent conflicts. Little is said about the oral history that has narratives of peacemaking and nation building in abundance. Little written history talks of the values that our ancestors evolved in response to conflict. We need not repeat that the myth that our ancestors were nothing but a bunch of violent, blood thirsty “natives” is still being reinforced at every opportunity. And if there is any good at all then it is “tribal” and not effective in the “modern” era. Unfortunately, this strange logic guides conflict resolution practice today. It seems that there is little in our written history that would offer solid answers to contemporary conflicts. It is on this basis that conflict resolution justifies wanton invasion of other people’s ways of responding to conflict. Yet as Paulo Freire affirmed: “cultural invasion always involves a parochial view of reality and the imposition of one’s worldview upon another.”
Fortunately, written history is not the only history available Steve Biko defines culture as “the society’s composite answer to the varied problems of life.” And more importantly, “we are experiencing new problems everyday and whatever we do adds to the richness of our cultural heritage, as long as it has [humans] as its center.” Indeed, the etymology of the term denotes dynamism and permanent transformation. Bennars and Njoroge inform us that “culture” comes from the Latin verb “cultus” which means to cultivate, or more precisely, act upon the land, transforming it for production. “Cultus” involves human action to transform the world, to make the world human. Broadly speaking, therefore, culture entails human response to three important elements: nature, fellow humans and the world beyond or the supernatural. Through reflection and action, a people -- any people -- would constantly be in the process of evolving culture given emerging challenges from the three elements. It is this capacity to be makers of culture that differentiates humans from animals. “To make culture,” Augusto Boal notes, “is to invent the world so that it responds to our needs, our desires, our dream.”
In the so-called modern era we have witnessed humanity evolve a culture that does not enhance life. In almost every part of the world, greed and insecurity has led to astronomic consumerism and domination. What we have now is a culture of lies and death primarily guided by fear and profit. Humanity has turned anti-life. We are now evolving a culture that does not have humans and life at its center. And, as Ali Mazrui would say, the ancestors are angry.
For people who have endured colonialism and imperialism, questions regarding culture remain in mire. Not only do we tend to doubt our humanity but also our very capacity to “cultus.” Responding to westernization [and globalism] indigenous peoples and those who have survived colonialism are struggling with questions of modernity. Can our traditions and cultures modernize? Should we surrender to globalism [that poses as modern culture]? Or, better still, is it possible to modernize without westernizing? Writing in 1972, the Guyanese historian Walter Rodney captured the impact of this historical struggle when he wrote: [t]he decisiveness of the short period of colonialism and its negative consequences on [the third world] spring mainly from the fact that [the third world] lost power. Power is the ultimate determinant in human society, being basic to the relations within any groups and between groups […] when one society finds itself forced to relinquish power entirely to another society, that in itself is a form of underdevelopment.
Did the colonized peoples of third and fourth worlds lose the power to encounter conflict within their own societies and with other societies? Have third and fourth world peoples become spectators of history? Are the violent conflicts we experience a symptom of our search to regain power? Will the breaking from the yoke of cultural captivity be the most significant step in regaining power? But this may only be one side of the story.
Indigenous traditions and culture are resilient. The resilience may not be found in books or films. Like their religions, it is lived. In times of crisis one may capture the manifestations of its precepts. It is a culture that enhances the capacity to confront the realities not by merely embracing it but by critically determining and modernizing traditions and practices on our own conditions and understanding. And things will get better when more third and fourth world and indigenous people overcome the definitions of culture that suffocate their capacity to transform their world according to their needs as their ancestors did. If a people’s capacity to respond to these elements is disrespected, regimented or entirely replaced, as conflict resolution seems to do, then such a people lose enormous treasure and power – their identity and very capacity to be human, to be makers of culture. In our experience it limits indigenous people’s capacity and space to function within their own paradigm(s) and to pursue and implement their own models of human association, interaction and endeavor. They lose their power for human action for change. They cease to know who they are. As Max Weber would say, they even cease to know who they are not. This leads to uprootedness [especially from land] that cripples people’s capacity for self-reliance. Dependence on State and other external agencies for their very existence; cultural and structural violence and domination are the most obvious consequences. In other words, humans become predictable, dysfunctional and eternally dependent.
We hasten echo the words of Luigi Guissani that traditions are not handed over to us so that we become fossilized within them. Like our ancestors, we should be able to develop tradition, “even to the point of profoundly changing it.” However, in order to develop the capacity to transform tradition we must “act with” what our ancestors gave us. This means using tradition critically, filtering it through our own experience. However, “using tradition critically does not mean doubting its value – even if this is what is suggested by the current mentality.”
Ironically, the more we run away from our traditions and seek to modernize within the precepts of other people’s cultures, the more we become “fossilized.” We must identify and reject the history that sought to portray us as non- humans. At the same time we must trust our true history, experience and capacity to transform. In the preface to Fr. Laurenti Magesa’s prophetic work, African Religion: The Moral Traditions of Abundant Life, Fr. John Walligo’s is insistent that we are obliged to examine our history, culture and morality to excavate the values upon we can anchor our identity and inspire our liberation. “To do otherwise,” he concludes, “is nothing less than communal suicide.”
Babu and Aküm are have both completed their post graduation studies in Conflict Transformation
