While African conflicts proliferate, increasing efforts are being made by governments, NGOs and international organizations to mobilise local “traditions” and their institutions towards peace and stability. The purpose of this panel is to discuss the workings and effects of these traditionalist attempts
As conflict resolution replaces development as the main target of their action, Governements, NGOs and international organisations that intervene in African conflicts are increasingly turning to African tradition and local culture. The mobilisation of female animist groups and joking relationships in the peace process in Casamance and the gacaca jurisdictions in Rwanda are two notable examples of this trend.
The actors behind the new traditionalist trend follow the development community, that had earlier sought in what Marc Poncelet called a “post-third-worldist utopia” a solution to Africa’s development dilemnas: the grey literature resounded for some time of ethno-knowledges (ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology) and participation. Following the failure of the post-colonial authoritarian developmental state, the disappointing results of the democratisation of the 1990s and their violent offsprings - desocialised youths and greedy warlords, it is now the mobilisation of the ‘people’ themselves, and of the “tradition” typical of them, that offers a credible option.
The purpose of this panel is thus to gather researchers who have observed examples of such mobilisations and allow them to reflect on these observations. How is applied knowledge about ‘tradition’ produced ? Through what apparatuses ? What are the respective roles of local and international scholars, of the Church (and other religious groups), of NGOs, of the agents of decentralisation, of (neo-?) traditional chiefs, of state administrations ? Is the present trend merely an artefact, imposed ‘from above’, the reflection of a Zeitgeist of the international community, a modern recast of the African sort of Orientalism as studied by Valentin Mudimbe ? Or does it illustrate the capacity of African agents to transform and reshape ‘tradition’ successfully ? What forms of local agency does this traditionalism allow, from passive playacting to sheer manipulation or bricolage ? What has thus far been the result of these initiatives in terms of conflict-resolution ?
Ethnic conflicts derive their rationale and configurations from perceived cultural differences. Traditions institutions and customs are therefore crucial in the resolution of inter or intra-ethnic conflicts. However, there are concerns over the extant-ness of traditional structures and the varying interpretations and applications of history and customs. Three Nigerian cases: Ife-Modakeke, Hausa-Yoruba Sagamu, Tiv-Jukun, reflect the varying involvements, successes and limitations of traditional methods of conflict resolutions.
« Abbé Diamacoune, la Casamance entière veut la paix ! ». Ainsi s’adressait, en septembre 2003, Sa Majesté le roi Sibilumbaye Diédhiou, roi d’Oussouye, lors d’une rencontre avec l’abbé Augustin Diamacoune Senghor, figure historique du Mouvement des Forces Démocratiques de Casamance (MFDC), en lutte depuis le début des années 1980 contre les autorités sénégalaises pour l’indépendance de la Casamance. Le roi Sibilumbaye contestait ainsi le monopole de la parole au nom de la Casamance revendiqué par le MFDC depuis vingt-cinq ans.
Alternative à l’échec de l’Etat post-colonial développemental autoritaire, à l’insatisfaisante démocratisation qui lui a succédé et à la contestation violente que l’échec de ces deux formes politiques ont suscité, la « tradition » est en Casamance un champ politique nouveau. Ce champ est traversé à des luttes internes (qui emploient les techniques de la réinvention, mais aussi celles de l’alliance « hors champ ») et des compétitions politico-économiques autour de l’argent des bailleurs de fonds. Si le déplacement des conflits sur ce nouveau champ peut contribuer à entériner symboliquement les transformations des tensions socio-politiques, il ne peut les susciter.
L'accord pour la Paix et la Réconciliation au Burundi, signé à Arusha le 28 août 2000, règle les différentes modalités de la transition post-conflit qui devrait s'achever dans les prochains mois par la tenue d'une série de consultations électorales. Dans plusieurs de ses protocoles, il accorde une place particulière aux bashingantahe, les 'sages' des collines qui ont longtemps protégé l'harmonie des communautés rurales en favorisant le règlement local des conflits et leur prévention. Intensément soutenu par les organisations et les agences d'aide internationales qui ont, ces dernières années, (sur)valorisé les institutions de justice dites traditionnelles en Afrique, le processus de réhabilitation du système des bashingantahe est à l'heure actuelle dans une impasse que seuls ses maîtres-d'œuvre burundais semblent ne pas vouloir admettre, s'agrippant au consensus effectivement acquis dans la société sur les valeurs morales de cette institution informelle. Les controverses suscitées par la réinvention du bushingantahe révèlent pourtant des contradictions politiques et des ambiguïtés sociales profondes qui méritent d'être tirées au clair pour dépasser les blocages actuels et donner une chance réelle aux 'sages' d'intervenir efficacement dans la pacification d'un pays gravement affecté par une guerre décennale meurtrière.
After the 1994 genocide Rwandans find themselves left with a legacy of extreme violence. To advance processes of justice and reconciliation the Rwandan government, with substantial assistance from the international community, has re-invoked traditional village tribunals, called Gacaca, to address the lingering tensions at the community level. However, given the top-down structure of Gacaca, the level of corruption, intimidation and dishonesty it is necessary to ask whether they can keep the promise of reducing violence in the future.
The speaker presents a gender critique of the Gacaca Law and questions whether the traditional foundations it is constructed upon represent the interests of women, especially victims of sexual violence committed in the form of genocide.
The presentation provides a normative examination of the Gacaca Law and its definition or construction of sexual violence as genocide as well as an examination of the Gacaca Law rules of evidence and procedure regarding witnesses and victims of sexual violence.