Home Grown Mechanisms of Conflict Resolution in Africa’s Great Lakes Region
BY SHYAKA ANASTASE
IN SEARCH FOR JUSTICE, SOCIAL COHESI ON AND PEACE
Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda are among the African countries which have been most affected by violent conflicts in the last twenty years. Elements that characterize the bloodshed in the Great Lakes region include the politicization of ethnic identity, a high degree of internationalization of the conflicts and extensive civilian involvement in the perpetration of atrocities. In recent decades, millions of people of the Great Lakes region have been killed, handicapped or displaced and thousands more have become orphans or widows. The consequences are many: the fracture of social bonds within local communities; collective trauma across huge swaths of society; and rule of law issues related to impunity and the challenges of administrating conventional justice. Other outcomes include the destruction of economic infrastructure and a crisis of leadership and state credibility.
Various national and international instruments have been utilized to respond to these conflicts and their grave consequences, including negotiations and peace agreements to promote power sharing; demobilization and reintegration efforts; military interventions and peacekeeping operations by the United Nations, European Union and the African Union; and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Despite these efforts, significant challenges remain in effectively addressing the issues of peace and security in this region of Africa. It is against this backdrop that communities look to engender home grown conflict resolution strategies to fill the gaps and meet local needs for justice, peace and reconciliation. Various demonstrations of local conflict mediation initiatives can be found in Burundi, eastern DRC and Rwanda.
BASHING ANTAHE IN BURUNDI
Mushingantahe (or Bashingantahe in plural) is Kirundi for “a man of integrity.” Every adult, married man who applies for the status of Bashingantahe goes through a symbolic process of initiation and is ceremonially recognized by the members in his village. Traditionally, Bashingantahe possess moral authority granted by their local community. With this comes a mandate to play mediation roles in their society. The institution of Bashingantahe has a long history in Burundi society and served a double function. First, it promoted moral values among the community members, and, it was an accepted institution for dispute settlement in their society.
This long-established institution was brought to a halt in 1983 by President Jean Baptiste Bagaza. Only in 1991 was Bashingantahe legally revived within the National Unity Charter. This was established under President Pierre Buyoya’s rule and received massive support by Burundians in a national referendum, which lead to its institutionalization in the Burundi Constitution of 1992. Despite this show of public demand for Bashingantahe, the 2005 Burundi Constitution makes no reference to the traditional mediation institution. Bashingantahe remains an informal practice in Burundi and includes both men and women. There is a national council of Bashingantahe and the institution is present in many Burundi villages. Various civil society organizations and Father Ntabona, a Burundian Catholic priest, are among its promoters.
Today’s Bashingantahe face a number of challenges. The first is related to the fact that Burundi society remains deeply divided over identities. This means that the institution is subject to the same “ethnicity illness” that the society at large is facing. The second major challenge is political. There is no political consensus in Burundi over Bashingantahe. Some political parties support use of this institution, while others are opposed to its renewal. All this paralyzes its function and limits its impact as a conflict resolution tool.
The tradition of Bashingantahe offers many opportunities for conflict transformation in Burundi society. Bashingantahe are involved in the settlement of land and other communal conflicts at the grass root level. In some localities, courts of law require the opinions and views of the Bashingantahe prior to settlement of the case. In the socio-political thinking of Burundians, the Institution of Bashingantahe symbolizes a kind of national pride and integrity. This makes it a potential structure of progressive rehabilitation of human values and moral authority. In a divided society like Burundi, this may constitute a powerful foundation for building societal harmony and peace.
BARAZA YA WAZEE IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
Baraza ya Wazee is Swahili for “the forum for the elders.” Due to cultural diversity in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), it is impossible to have a home grown solution originating from one tradition which applies to the whole country. In 1998, more than five African armies and three rebel movements were fighting in the DRC in what was deemed by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as “the First African World War.” The province of North Kivu was rife with ethnic tensions. Under the leadership of then Governor Kanyamuhanga, two community initiatives were established to address the issue of interethnic tensions and insecurity: the Provincial Commission of Pacification and the Baraza Intercommunity forum for dialogue in North Kivu.
The Baraza members represent the various ethnic groups originating from North Kivu province: Nande, Hunde, Nyanga, Kumu, Kano/Rega, Tembo and the Banyarwanda who are broadly categorized in three social categories as Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. Each of the nine communities is represented by three people who are selected by their own community members to serve on the Baraza forum. In 2006, the Forum changed its name from Baraza Inter-community to Baraza ya Wazee and subsequently opened its doors to participation of people who are not originally from North Kivu but are now residents (such as the people from Katanga and Kasai now living in Goma town).
The purpose of Baraza is to engage communities in frank dialogue in order to mitigate conflicts and create an environment that is more conducive for improving social cohesion and creating communal peace in the province. Baraza is also used as a tool for conflict prevention and mitigation. When conflicts arise in a community they are often exacerbated by tensions or rumors that undermine peaceful coexistence. In the Baraza approach, elders meet and discuss problems in order to help reduce such tensions. Baraza ya Wazee has been involved in addressing the conflict between the Army Forces of the DRC and the National Council for the Defense of the People forces led by the dissident general Laurent Nkunda. Although the role of this instrument is primarily symbolic, it remains a commendable strategy which possesses unique potential to ease ethnic tensions in North Kivu in the post-electoral period in the DRC.
HOME GROWN MECHANISMS FOR PEACE BUILDING IN RWANDA
In sub-Saharan Africa, Rwanda offers extensive lessons in traditional mechanisms for conflict resolution. Various factors contribute to Rwanda functioning as a unique case study: the vast reach of the genocide; the failure of the international community to effectively thwart the extensive bloodshed in Rwanda and later, in responding adequately to its consequences; the cultural heritage and people’s belief in pre-colonial traditions of conflict settlement; and political consensus on the importance of home grown solutions. Traditional conflict transition mechanisms found in Rwanda include Gacaca courts and Ingando (or solidarity camps).
GACACA FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Gacaca is needed due to the immense challenge caused by the genocide. It is an unconventional choice for an unusual situation. The 1994 genocide was largely construed as being committed against one identity (Tutsi) and in the name of the other (Hutu). Its legacy is that of about 1 million Rwandans dead, hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows and more than 100,000 in prison as genocide suspects.
Although the Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa entities existed prior to the eruption of mass violence in the 1950s, they were not primary identities, nor were they genetically concrete identities as was advocated by the colonial Hamitic theory. The reality is that prior to the genocide and the 1959 social revolution (which reflected indoctrination of the Hamitic hypothesis by Rwandans), the Rwandan identity reference was the clan first. Every Rwandan belonged to any of 18 common clans in the Rwandan genealogy and none of them was exclusively Hutu or Tutsi. Then, depending on their socio-economic status or their proximity to the monarchy and ruling clans, they could be identified as Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa. Nevertheless, Hutu and Tutsi have now become genocide identities.
A 1996 law and the 2003 constitution called on Gacaca courts to try those accused of genocide. Gacaca literally means “a resting and relaxing green lawn in the Rwandan homestead” where family members or neighbors met to exchange views on issues directly affecting them or their community. Gacaca were traditional councils and tribunals made up of men or elders to resolve conflict, administrate justice, promote reconciliation and consolidate social cohesion. Being communal and participatory, the Gacaca derived its impetus and legitimacy from the unity of Rwandans and cemented the same unity and social cohesion. Members of Gacaca were called impfura, meaning a person of moral integrity, positive role-model and adhering to socio-cultural standards and values.
Todays’ Gacaca, while inspired from the traditional one, are in practice very different. In the past, Gacaca settled communal conflicts in an environment of social cohesion, while today Rwandan society is deeply divided. It deals with genocide crimes, while the traditional Gacaca was related to communal issues but not mass murder. It is also important to note that the traditional imfura were only men of a certain age; today, women and youth 21 years and older have been elected to serve as Gacaca judges.
The Gacaca’s overall strategy can be summarized as follows: eliciting the truth from stakeholders; administering justice and challenging impunity; establishing collective ownership of the tragedy; and finding some measure of reconciliation through mediation. Truth, justice and reconciliation are the very facets of that process. The challenge lies in that justice, peace and reconciliation are not always compatible, but they are all needed in postconflict situations. The ultimate goal of Gacaca is reconciliation.
For Rwanda, this is still a process to build and a battle to win. President Paul Kagame, during his address in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the genocide in 2004, noted that Gacaca “is designed to balance the needs of justice and those of reconciliation, so that through the process of catharsis, a healing process can be cemented through reconciliation.” Gacaca is the forefront of this struggle and its outcome will impact national cohesion and reconstruction.
INGANDO FOR SOCIAL COHESION
Ingando refers to halting normal activities and reflecting in order to find solutions to big challenges affecting one’s community or the nation. Ingando were first developed by the military in ancient Rwanda. Through Ingando, the King of Rwanda prepared and mobilized the population whenever the country was facing disaster. Ingando lost its relevance in the colonial era, together with other monarchic institutions and practices cementing social cohesion.
After the 1994 genocide, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) revived Ingando, which were used to integrate the ex-Armed Forces of Rwanda (FAR) into the new army. When the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission was established in 1999, it formally developed Ingando as a tool for peace building within communities. Primarily, Ingando focused on reintegration of combatants from the DRC and insurgency battles in the North. The program later expanded to students, local leaders and other social groups. Today, solidarity camps are conducted throughout the country. Their focus is on improving governance and development, and establishing the history of Rwanda and genocide related issues. Ingando helps to consolidate social cohesion and strengthen national unity. It stands as a confidence building tool and a forum for political and civic education. It is a powerful transformational tool for a divided society which went through massive criminalization of the people.
COMPARATIVE PRACTICES IN CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
Each of the states in the Great Lakes region has turned to conflict resolution mechanisms rooted in local practice. In Burundi, the Bashingantahe institution is rooted in the national tradition but remains non-binding. In the DRC, Baraza ya Wazee is a completely new intercommunity mechanism of conflict mitigation, functioning only in the province of North Kivu as an advisory organ to provincial and national actors. It does not yet have a national dimension. The specificity of Rwanda resides in the fact that engendered home grown solutions are tradition-born and innovation-driven. Some of them, such as Gacaca, have their own laws and specialized structures both at local and national levels.
In each case, home grown strategies for conflict management offer paths to reconciliation but also face many challenges. The sources of these problems include the complexity of the conflicts; the gravity of their consequences, such as genocide and massive violation of human rights; and the failure of the communities involved in identity based conflicts to empower a critical mass of mediators with moral integrity and authority.
Despite their limitations, these home grown instruments offer windows of opportunity to the concerned countries in the areas of conflict prevention, challenging impunity, communal reconciliation and peace building. These indigenous instruments have played a significant role in preventing the escalation of violence, in reducing fear and mistrust and in increasing dialogue. They have effectively and comprehensively complimented international responses for peace. In the case of Rwanda, they have even contributed to the restoration of hope where international interventions have failed.
Because they are participatory methods, they also increase people’s ownership of their peace process and form a favorable environment for collective social therapy. They are confidence building mechanisms and offer a potential structure for human values’ rehabilitation and promotion in situations where a crisis of moral values has been both a cause and a consequence of inextricable violent conflicts. They constitute constructive tools for communal dialogue, tolerance and community mobilization, which are crucial in the search for restorative justice, reconciliation and sustainable peace. While these many contributions are critically important, the question remains: Will these home grown mechanisms be able to challenge and address the very complex geopolitical aspects of these conflicts?
Shyaka An astase (anasano@yahoo.com) is the Director of the Centre for Conflict Management (CCM) at the National University of Rwanda. Dr. Anastase has worked with a variety of international and national institutions in the area of political development, conflict analysis, and peace building in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Gdansk in Poland. Dr. Anastase was a visiting Fulbright scholar at Mason and NVCC from spring through summer 2007.
