Hizkias Assefa

A keynote presentation at the conference on Religion in African Conflicts and Peacebuilding Initiatives

Introduction
I would like to start my presentation by looking briefly at the state of conflict and peacebuilding in Africa and how both have been influenced by globalization. After discussing the role religious institutions and actors have played in the peacebuilding process as well as their potential to enhance peace in the continent, I will conclude by making some recommendations on how these potentials can be realized.

First, a few words about the focus of the presentation and definition of terms. My primary focus here will be on large scale armed conflicts such as wars of insurgency between governments and rebel groups, military takeover of state power, as well as violent communal conflicts. Secondly, I will use the term peacebuilding here in a rather broad sense to mean any initiative to manage, prevent or resolve armed conflicts whether it comes from high political and international level, the grassroots, or in between.

The state of armed conflicts in Africa
Since the 1960s, when most African countries became independent, the continent has been torn apart by armed conflicts. In the 1960s and 70s alone, almost all independent African countries, with the exception of Kenya, Senegal, and Cameroon, had regime changes by military takeover. By the 1980s, seventeen civil wars were raging in the continent. In 1994, one of the most brutal genocides in recent human history took place in Rwanda. Currently we still have about twelve armed conflicts at various stages going on in the continent. These conflicts have caused the death and displacement of millions and resulted in the serious impairment of economic development in the continent. What has been the source of most of these armed conflicts?

As we all know, almost all African countries are colonial creations carved out purely on the basis of how much territory the colonizers were able to grab rather than on logic such as commonality of language and cultural affinity, economic synergy, history of peaceful coexistence among groups etc. After the colonial era, the first task of the newly independent countries became the creation of a state that could exercise self-rule. Either by preference or because there was no alternative model in the international system of the time, all adopted the European model of the “sovereign state” as a social and political organization. Unfortunately, this exercise in state formation has not been easy and has been the cause of conflict, division and civil war to this day. Three major problems have plagued the process of state building: issues of identity, governance and development.

Regarding identity, deep division arose on questions such as: What would constitute the newly independent country’s shared identity of nationhood and “we-ness”, and who would be included and excluded? These disagreements gave birth to all sorts of secessionist and irredentist movements as well as interstate border disputes. Even among those ethnically homogeneous countries, such as Somalia, it was difficult for the population to identify with the new Western style state being forged because it was alien to their traditional culture and world view in terms of values, processes and aspirations.

Another set of problems revolved around how these new states would be governed. Issues of legitimacy of the new power elite, the meaning of politics and how it would be exercised, who would have access to power, succession of leadership, rights and privileges of citizenship, constraints to state power in the face of a weak state needing protection, etc. soon became contentious and that began to tear apart these newly independent countries. Moreover, the continued domination and manipulation of internal governance by former colonial masters (later replaced by the Cold War superpowers) added to the turmoil. Such powers sometimes overthrew regimes that were too independent or they sponsored internal conflicts in an attempt to weaken the societies they still wanted to continue to control, thus making a mockery of sovereignty in the new states.

The third aspect of state formation that created conflict was the role of the state in generating wealth and prosperity for its citizens. Some of the most contentious issues revolved around questions of how development resources were to be generated, the competence of state officials to lead such development processes, issues of corruption and mismanagement of resources in the hands of state leaders, the economic model to be followed for rapid development (eg: centrally planned vs. market oriented systems), and also how benefits of development were to be distributed among the population. High expectations from the nascent national economies that were not performing according to global standards led to rising frustrations when they could not meet rising expectations, thereby generating spiraling revolutions, coups and counter-coups.

Of course these issues of identity, governance and development are not discrete issue categories. They are very interrelated. Those who controlled state power often made their ethnic identity the dominant identity of the state and used it to derive disproportionate benefits for themselves and their kin from the economic development process. Moreover, most of the mechanisms to deal with such problems came from models that were not indigenous. Africans had to bend themselves out of shape to fit into alien models even though it was clear that there was a great dissonance. This, in a way, perpetuated the psychic damage on the population that began with colonialism and even slavery.

Peacebuilding Responses and their Limitations
Two patterns of peacebuilding responses have developed to deal with the armed conflicts of the past forty years. One is post-conflict peacebuilding where initiatives have been undertaken after the end of the armed conflicts. The other pattern is where the peacebuilding initiatives have been undertaken with the aim of ending conflicts.

Regarding the first, a number of the continent’s armed conflicts in the continent were brought to an end by the military victory of one side. Examples are the civil wars in Rwanda, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Namibia. In those circumstances, the vanquished were either decimated, punished, or chased out. Peacebuilding responses, if any, seem to have come after the end of conflict in the form of forgiving the vanquished or giving them amnesty, pacifying some leaders from the defeated side by giving them official positions in government, and demobilizing and integrating the combatants into the power structure of the victors or into the society in general. In a few rare instances, some structural changes were made to respond to the grievances of the defeated groups.

The second pattern involved peacebuilding as a means of managing or settling armed conflicts through mechanisms such as peacekeeping, sanctions, mediation or arbitration. In fact, a substantial proportion of the armed conflicts in the continent (about 13 to date) have ended through such national, regional, continental or global (United Nations) efforts. At the present moment, about a dozen civil wars remain and most of them are in the middle of mediation processes. Aside from military takeovers or insurgency wars between governments and rebel groups, there have been many peacebuilding efforts to end communal ethnic and religious clashes in a number of countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Congo, Sudan etc. This, I would say, is a rather impressive record for peacemaking and peacebuilding in Africa.

However, most peacebuilding efforts have suffered from a major limitation. They are primarily aimed at stopping the armed conflicts rather than at also addressing the underlying root causes so that the conflicts do not erupt again. In most of these initiatives, leaders of the opposing groups are helped to come together and agree to finish the war, the officials of the adversary groups are somehow appeased, combatants are demobilized and reintegrated, and probably some changes in government policy are made here and there. But, the root causes still remain unaddressed. In most instances, the kind of transformation that is needed in the state system to create an inclusive sense of collective identity; a governance system that genuinely fosters a sense of justice, participation and solidarity among all citizens; and an economic systems that generates meaningful wellbeing and equitable development has not been established.

For example, a lot of peacebuilding effort went into bringing the brutal first Liberian civil war to an end. However, as soon as the war was over, and a new government was installed, things quickly reverted to the way they were before the war. Abuse of power, corruption, manipulation of ethnic division, abject poverty and alienation, oppression of a large sector of the population, and hopelessness of the youth were still rampant. In less than a decade a second civil war erupted. The Sudan civil war is another case. The first war was ended through a fascinating mediation effort, but after the war, significant efforts to transform the system and address root causes did not take place. In Somalia, now that the extreme violence in that society has abated somewhat, the international community and some Somali politicians are trying to recreate the very alien and predatory state that tore the society apart and plunged the country into civil war in the first place. I am afraid of what will happen in a few years if they succeed in recreating the kind of state that existed before. In Sierra Leone, the radical changes needed to ensure that country does not plunge into another round of civil war have not yet been made. People are enjoying the respite from the most atrocious violence but seem to be forgetting that unless the root causes are addressed they might go the route of Liberia. One could mention many other examples such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, Congo, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, and some say, even South Africa, where failure to address root causes might gain bring about armed conflict.

Of course addressing root causes is not easy and there are many reasons for not addressing them. It is usually very difficult, and requires a great deal of resources, political will and long-term commitment. As we will see later in our discussion of Globalization, there are external factors that frustrate whatever sincere attempts there might be to address root causes. Moreover, in cases where a war has been ended by the victory of one side, one is lulled into believing that the problems have gone away because the spokespeople of the opposition have been silenced. Ethiopia defeated Somalia twice over the ownership of the Ogaden region, but the problem still exists there. The Eritrean insurgency defeated the Ethiopian government over the issue of the Port of Assab. However, the underlying problem is still there and will keep returning to the extent that Ethiopia remains landlocked. In Rwanda Tutsis defeated Hutus, but the problem will come back to the extent that the Hutus continue to feel that they have been subjugated. Nigeria defeated the Biafran insurgency, but the problem of Biafra is resurfacing. The trap of military victory is that it blinds the victors to the need of addressing the underlying problem. If the victors give in to their adversaries’ demands after having defeated them, then it raises questions about why the war was fought and not handled through dialogue from the beginning. So the problems remain unaddressed thereby creating conditions for another round of armed confrontation when the vanquished restore their strength. As a result, the continent finds itself in a rather unsettling situation — a sense of progress in ending armed conflicts, but fear that those old wars might return since the real root causes are left generally unaddressed, or that the attempts to address them are being frustrated.

Impact of globalization
One of the forces frustrating peacebuilding in Africa has been the globalization process especially since the end of the Cold War. As African economies become more integrated into the global economy, often against their will, states are losing the autonomy to determine their own economic policies in ways that could enhance their “nation-building” agenda. The requirements of Structural Adjustment being imposed on many African governments by global institutions like the IMF and World Bank in order to finance their economies are wreaking havoc by creating large scale public sector unemployment, as well as reduction of social spending on public goods such as education, health and social welfare. The fast liberalization and privatization of African economies being pushed by the new free market orthodoxy of the “Washington Consensus” has created economic polarization. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This has destroyed whatever little economic equity there might have been in those societies and pitted the poor against the rich as well as the poor against the poor. The inability of African states to influence global economic decision-making continues to diminish their terms of trade, to open up their economies, and destroy their production base without ensuring reciprocal concessions from the rich and powerful countries. The cumulative effect has been social unrest, riots, rampant crime, and even insurgencies like in Sierra Leone. These globalization processes are creating new conflicts in a number of African societies and are also frustrating badly needed systemic changes in post-conflict societies thereby encouraging the resurgence of old conflicts.

In other words, it appears that as one is working to build peace in Africa, the forces of globalizations undermine the peace that is being built. A good case in point comes from my homeland, Ethiopia. In the late ’60s and early ’70s, there was a strong social upheaval. At that time, the inequality between rich and poor in the country was so appalling that students and other civil society actors began agitating for rapid social change. However, the social change process spun out of control and created a revolution that ultimately overthrew the government and ushered in a brutal Stalinist dictatorship. The dictatorship managed to bring some level of economic justice and equality. However, this process of change exacted a huge cost in terms of deaths and destruction and long term suffering. After seventeen years, with the collapse of the socialist systems in Eastern Europe, the system in Ethiopia also gave way. The succeeding regime was forced by the international community (IMF and World Bank) to adopt Structural Adjustment and Privatization as a remedy for the country’s economic problems. Now, when I return home, I observe that once again the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. I see cruel history repeating itself. Sooner or later, I am afraid that those who are disenfranchised and excluded are going to hear the siren calls of political demagogues and predictably the whole cycle of agitation, unrest and violence will follow. When will this country be allowed to learn from the mistakes of its past? It is very tragic to see that outside imposition of economic policies could force the society to repeat the very mistake that it would like to leave behind.

The Role of Religious Institutions and Leaders:
Reality and Potential
What roles have religious institutions and leaders played to respond to these armed conflicts? I would like to start by pointing out that although the emphasis of this presentation is on peacebuilding, the part that religious bodies and personalities have played in conflict generation should not be glossed over. The emerging competition between various religious institutions and leaders to expand their faiths and the resulting tensions and violent confrontations between their followers have caused some to worry whether religious rivalries might be replacing Cold War ideological rivalries in Africa. In many instances such movements are being pushed by actors outside the continent. Some even argue that their motives are political than religious. In countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Tanzania (Zanzibar) mutual religious tolerance that had existed for many generations between Christians and Moslems is fast disappearing and being replaced by fear, tensions and sometimes violence. Recently, these tensions are being linked with the new global agenda of “The War on Terrorism”, and this fusion of global politics and religion is making these conflicts more expansive and dangerous. Interestingly, however, these tensions are not only across faiths, but also among different denominations of the same faith.

Focusing on the peacemaking and peacebuilding fronts, it cannot be denied that religious institutions and actors have played some very significant roles in the continent such as mediators; reconcilers; and activists for democracy, justice and human rights. One of their most remarkable achievements was the 2 year mediation effort ending the First Sudan Civil War in 1972. What was particularly impressive about that effort was that up to that time it was one of the very few civil wars in the world that had ended through mediation instead of by a military solution. Moreover, it was Christian actors from the Sudan Council of Churches, the All Africa Conference of Churches, and the World Council of Churches, who successfully mediated an apparently Moslem — Christian conflict. That really indicates the degree of religious tolerance that existed at the time and also the nature of the strategies used by the mediators to transcend the religious division and focus everyone on the goals of the peacemaking process. Such an intervention by a single religion in a conflict of that nature would probably be unthinkable today. In fact, it was the inspiration that came from the Sudan experience which made me study the field of peacebuilding and encouraged me to come back to Africa so that I could work with religious leaders and institutions for peace and reconciliation in this war-torn continent.

Since the Sudan episode, there have been many peacemaking and peacebuilding efforts by religious actors. Examples are the active involvement of church or inter-religious bodies in Mozambique, Liberia and Sierra Leone in national mediation processes as well as in demobilization, reintegration and reconciliation exercises in their respective countries. There has also been the leadership role of religious leaders in ushering in a more peaceful democratic change in South Africa, Kenya, Congo, Benin and Malawi; and the grassroots mediation and reconciliation work facilitated by religious actors in Nigeria, Sudan, and Liberia.

Although these are encouraging examples, efforts still fall short of the huge potential of religious actors to play effective roles in peacebuilding in this continent. There are probably no other institutions that have as many advantages in terms of their ability to work on some deep root causes of conflicts as religious actors have. These advantages could fall into three categories — institutional legitimacy, available methodologies, and structures and networks.

1. Institutional legitimacy
Most often, analyses of social conflict and responses to it focus (sometimes exclusively) on political, economic and social structures and the external behaviour of the parties. Since these elements are visible, they are easier to notice and target. Unfortunately, however, there are also hidden aspects of the parties’ behavior that are equally important in contributing to conflict. The internal mind-sets of the conflict parties such as their sense of superiority or inferiority, difficulty in entering into trusting relationships, deep-seated anxiety, excessive self-centeredness and greed, and extreme need for control underlie many social conflicts including the crises we observe in leadership and governance in the continent. Therefore, just as we can observe in a number of societies, external structures such as forms of government, laws and regulations, or economic systems may change but the same problems of conflict keep cropping up again and again because the internal attitudinal problems have not been addressed. Transformation of such mindsets is critical for the construction of durable peace. However, since these sentiments are usually hidden or denied, they are very difficult for the peacebuilder to work on.

One advantage religious peacebuilders have over secular bodies is that they could be allowed by the conflict parties to go into these inner dimensions since working on values, attitudes and motivations is considered to be a legitimate domain of religion. Parties are much more likely to open up, own up, and work on those sentiments and mind-sets if an initiative to help comes from religious actors than if it comes from politicians or other secular actors.

2. Methodology
A second advantage of religious actors lies in the methodology they can use to address and transform the root causes of conflict. Most secular processes for handling social conflicts (such as adjudication, arbitration and what most people call negotiation) are adversarial and externally focused. In adversarial processes the conflict parties engage in competitive struggles to explain the conflict as an outcome of the other side’s conduct and one’s own behaviour as merely reactive. The implication is that the conflict will disappear if the adversary’s behaviour is changed to one’s liking. Therefore, the aim of each side is to change the adversary’s behaviour, by whatever means, so that it becomes compatible with one’s own objectives or preferences. These conflict-handling mechanisms do not have much room for self-reflection, for taking responsibility for what the parties themselves have done to create or contribute to the conflict, or how they themselves could change their own behaviour to become more compatible with the adversary.

Interestingly, even in the mechanisms traditionally called negotiation, and in the mediation which facilitates these kinds of interactions, the protagonists’ aim is to make the adversary give in to one’s demand by using dialogue accompanied by subtle manipulation, pressure or intimidation. The assumption remains that the problem lies with the adversary and will disappear when the adversary makes accommodations. It is true that in modern conflict resolution literature, we have been talking about other approaches to negotiation and mediation such as “integrative”, “problem solving” or “win-win” methodologies. But, amazingly, the application of these approaches has been very rare.

It is only with mechanisms like “reconciliation” that we have space for an inward focus and can ask questions such as: “What role have we, ourselves, played to create or exacerbate the conflict?” and “What do we need to do to alter our demands, behaviour and attitude in order to encourage the adversary to change?” These are the kinds of questions that are central to reconciliation processes known as acknowledgement (confession), contrition (repentance), and apology (asking for forgiveness). Since responsibility for conflict is usually not entirely on one side, reconciliation encourages the parties to look within themselves as well as at the other to explain the causes of the conflict and possible ways for resolving it.

The outward focus of our social science tools of peacemaking and peacebuilding might succeed in changing the adversary’s outward behaviour but may not necessarily change their inner motivations and attitude. One can silence adversaries through force, but that does not mean that they are converted. It may only be a matter of time for the problem to resurface when power relations have changed. This is one of the reasons why peacebuilding feels like a Sisyphean task, why conflicts that appear to have been resolved come back again, why we feel overwhelmed because we are dealing with the same phenomenon over and over again in different guises.

Religious peacebuilders are much more likely to lead conflict parties to reconciliation and internal transformation through the kind of introspective methodologies described above because they have the language, the concepts, and the legitimacy to talk about such processes than secular actors generally have.

3. Structures
Thirdly, religious peacebuilders have structures and networks of access to conflict parties that very few actors can match. There are not many organizations that can gather their followers on a weekly basis to tell them what they want to tell them. These channels could be very useful for mobilizing people for peacebuilding work. Moreover, religious bodies have wide-reaching networks that could be used effectively used for the benefit of peacebuilding. For example, during the mediation of the First Sudan Civil War, the Sudan Council of Churches (SCC) was able to reach actors and mobilize resources at the national level, while its affiliate, the All Africa Conference of Churches could do the same at the continental level, and the affiliate of both of them, the World Council of Churches, could do the same at the global level. This is an asset unparalleled by many other organizations.

Realizing the potential
An important first step in realizing this peacebuilding potential is to make religious bodies aware of the potential and give them the kinds of skills and support to work on peacebuilding. However, this awareness entails the recognition and acceptance of at least the following fundamental principles:

1. Religion as a unifier rather than as a divider
I do not claim expertise in world religions, but I have not come across any great religion that does not profess justice, morality, integrity, harmony, compassion, respect and the importance of disciplining the impulses of selfishness and greed in human relationships. Although there are doctrinal differences and differences in forms of worship, rituals, and legal codes, all great faiths of the world are preoccupied with helping human beings to aspire towards and be held accountable by these higher-order values. So, if faith institutions and leaders are to be true to what they claim they are they must uplift and amplify these values and make them central to the teachings and practice of their faith. They must revitalize them and teach about them in ways that are pertinent to the world we live in, and motivate their adherents to work towards them. In other words, religious actors must emphasize and focus on the profound spirituality of their faiths rather than just on the outward religiosity. This means going deeper into the intrinsic meaning of the doctrines, dogmas, rituals and worship practices and finding their essence rather than observing those rituals and doctrines as ends in themselves. When we do this, we see that the values of justice, compassion, harmony, and respect that we identified earlier as core elements of peace are also the prime elements of all great religions.

2. Leading by example
For religious actors to contribute significantly to peacebuilding they must be more than technical experts in conflict resolution. They must be examples of moral and ethical integrity, humility, tolerance, compassion, be a voice for the voiceless, and a refuge for those that are suffering. Peacemaking and reconciliation work is not just about doing but rather it is doing out of a certain manner of being. As much as there needs to be an emphasis on technical skills, probably even more than technical skills, peace and reconciliation work requires cultivation of character that embodies the values of genuine peace and reconciliation.

This point cannot be emphasized enough. I believe more and more that a major contributing factor to the wars and suffering in many societies in Africa, and for that matter, in the rest of the world, is because we are experiencing a deep moral crisis in addition to our political and economic problems. There is a void in the world that is crying to be filled by moral and ethical leadership. Sacrificing two million innocent lives in the on-going Sudan war for a political objective is no longer just a political matter. It is a deep moral issue. Stockpiling nuclear weapons on land, the oceans and even outer space for the sake of military supremacy, as the Superpowers of the world are doing, is not just a political matter. It is a deeply moral issue. For humanity to spend close to a trillion dollars a year on weapons of mutual annihilation while there is so much need and suffering in the world that could be permanently relieved with just a fraction of that expenditure — this is not just a political or economic problem. It is a moral crisis.

There is a great need for leadership to save humanity from itself. Religious leaders have a unique opportunity to be the conscience of humanity and help in reestablishing sanity and healing in this broken world. So I believe that the most beneficial role religious actors and institutions can play in the contemporary world is to become the moral beacon to humanity, which is fast losing its sense of direction. This leadership, however, does not come just from preaching or being technical experts in peacemaking but from being living examples of moral and ethical integrity.

3. Inter-religious cooperation
For religious institutions and leaders to make a significant contribution to peacebuilding they must demonstrate respect and collaborate with other religious institutions and leaders. If they are trying to inculcate the values of tolerance, empathy, harmony and respect, which we said are intrinsic in all of the great religions of the world, then religious organizations and leaders should not only work together but should also be seen working together. Their public and visible cooperation could inspire their followers to break the artificial barriers that have fragmented humanity and created isolation, hatred, and demonization of each other. Especially when it comes to the common values identified earlier such as justice, peace, mutual respect, an ethical life, subordination of greed to humanity’s greater purpose, they should be able to speak with one voice. They should advocate the incorporation of those values in public life. When they demonstrate these values in word and practice, they could not be easily dismissed as hypocrites. This would enhance their credibility and capacity to inspire when they begin to speak against the maladies of Africa and our troubled world and when they come up with proposals for how to deal with them.

They should develop common programmes that would operationalize those values — standing for the rights of the oppressed, being spokespeople for the voiceless, being the conscience of humanity, showing harmony by their solidarity and cooperation, showing their wisdom by providing enlightened alternatives to world situations and playing an active role to share this wisdom, etc. All these would show that religious institutions and leaders are able to provide sound alternatives to the current leadership dominating the continent and the global order.

In sum, given the moral and spiritual crisis facing our world, delving into the depth of our faiths and demonstrating the values they stand for by living them could provide a strong antidote to the crises. Deep exploration of the spirituality of our faiths enables us to discover a very significant reality — our “common humanity” which, in my view, is the foundation of all peacemaking and peacebuilding.

Conclusion
Africa’s history has been very cruel. The last 500 years of slavery, colonialism, and the turmoil of post independence would be enough to brutalize and dehumanize anyone. What astounds me about this continent is the realization of how much Africans have been survivors and how they have maintained their humanity against all odds. Despite all that has happened to them, Africans are forgiving people. The examples of post-Apartheid South Africa, post-Biafra Nigeria and post-independence Kenya are just a few outstanding examples. This is an incredible asset and a source of inspiration, not only to Africa but to the world, to humanity. The inner strength to resist oppression and the capacity to view the past with little bitterness are indeed rare qualities. We need to build on them. Forgiveness is an important foundation, but it is not enough. We have to create a new reality based on this strong foundation that would not allow the injustices and suffering of the past to be repeated. This is what I mean by addressing root causes. I hope that religious peacebuilders will take this as a challenge and find their proper niche in the creation of this new reality in Africa.

Hizkias Assefa is Professor of Conflict Studies at the Conflict Transformation Program, Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. He is also the Coordinator of Africa Peacebuilding and Reconciliation Resources based in Nairobi, Kenya. Out of his base in Nairobi, he has been working on peacebuilding and reconciliation initiatives in various countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America such as in Rwanda, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Guatemala. He is currently Senior Special Fellow with the United Nations Institute of Training and Research as well as a Board Member of the International Inter-Religious Peace Council.

Top of Page

Home > Publications > Peace Colloquy > Issue 6, Summer 2004 > Peacebuilding in a Globalizing Africa