[Juba, South Sudan, TCT] Can the traditional leadership in South Sudan be trusted with the grassroots healing and reconciliation process? Generally speaking, the concept of traditional conflict resolution mechanism is a community process involving the identification of the root causes of the problems, and causing all parties involved, to address the underlying issues. This process usually concludes with the guilty accepting wrongdoing, leading to reconciliation, which may be consummated by means of compensation or just choosing the path of forgiveness (Brock-Utne, 2001; Murithi, 2006).
The process of traditional conflict resolution has to do with how local structures and systems is employed to bring about peace at the individual and community level relationships.
In this respect, traditional conflict resolution procedures and mandates are generated from general cultural life and daily experiences of the people. In this context, “tradition refers to the structures and the units of organizations in a community and encompasses also the norms, values, and beliefs that guide social interaction” (Kendie and Guri, 2006:333).
Therefore, traditional conflict resolution processes are part of a well-structured, time-proven social system, focusing towards reconciliation, maintenance and improvement of social relationships. The methods, processes and regulations are deeply rooted in the customs and traditions of the African people in general, and South Sudanese in particular.
Barnes (2006) emphasizes that peace building processes and initiatives must be embedded in local communities. In the same disposition, Lederach (1997) emphasizes that conflict resolution mechanisms should have space for diverse actors, from the state to civil society and ultimately to local community members who are faced daily with the impact of conflict.
According to Dr. Wassara (2007), Associate Professor, University of Juba, “Traditional conflict resolution is still very relevant in Southern Sudan because there is a vacuum in the system of justice and the rule of law, especially in the rural areas. It is logical to maintain an existing system that has survived for centuries while building alternatives such as functional judiciary that would gradually address weaknesses in the traditional system”.
Lederach (1997) advocates for grassroots peace building instead of state-centric peace building, therefore, his conception of the peace building pyramid model, which categorizes actors in peace building into top, middle and grassroots ranks. At the top level there are government institutions, political elites and the military leaders who are not only powerful but also have the mandate to engage in peace building from their constituencies. The middle-level actors include non-governmental organizations, other civil society actors and local leaders who are capable of influencing both top leadership and grassroots actors. At the bottom level of the pyramid are grassroots actors and members of local communities who, not only experience the day-to-day impact of conflict, but also are better positioned to resolve such conflict, because they are aware of their environment and the immediate needs of the community.
Paul Lederach emphasizes that it is usually the grassroots actors who are effective in conflict resolutions because of their intimate interaction with conflict and disputing parties. Using this line of thinking, one could conceive that grassroots actors in traditional conflict resolution actively play prominent roles in resolving conflicts at the local level.
To affirm the suitability of the traditional conflict resolution mechanism, it is interesting to note why people prefer a traditional institution to state courts, of course, if such a choice is possible and viable. Zeleke (2010: 63- 64) states: “Apart from the lack of capacity under which it suffers, the state legal system can also be criticized 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 sufficient reasons why people prefer the traditional conflict resolution process, because it focuses on reconciliation and re-establishing social harmony. As mentioned already, the process of traditional conflict resolution mechanism is well embedded in the culture of the society, and it allows flexibility in its procedures where needed. It can also be trusted, while the efficacy and trustworthiness of the current formal legal systems are under suspicion throughout the country.
Undoubtedly, there are cases of more serious offences, in which, at least, formal court procedures are essential. However, even if the formal Western type of legal procedure were well established, it may be surely not perfect. The importance and efficacy of the process of the traditional conflict resolution mechanism lies in the fact that it strives “to restore a balance, to settle conflict and eliminate disputes” (Choudree, 1999:1).
These processes are relatively informal and flexible in nature and therefore, less intimidating, and those who use them and are affected by these cases are also more at ease due to the familiarity of the environment. The roles of chiefs, elders, family heads, and others are not only to resolve conflicts but also to anticipate and mitigate/or intercept such conflicts before hatching. Group relationships are as important as individual, and therefore the emphasis of traditional conflict resolution have always been to restoring relationships and reconciling divided groups (Choudree, 1999).
In other words, 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).
Traditional conflict resolution process is geared towards the future. Consequently, the issue at stake is not punishment of perpetrators for wrongs done in the past, but restitution and reconciliation. In this context, reconciliation is necessary for the restoration of social harmony of the community in general and of social relationships between conflict parties in particular. Therefore, the purpose of the traditional conflict resolution mechanism is “not to punish, an action which would be viewed as harming the group a second time. This is why traditional approaches in general follow the line of restorative justice instead of (western-style) punitive justice.
Restorative justice has to be understood “as a compensation for loss, not as a retribution for offense” (Zartman 2000b, 222). The ultimate aim of traditional conflict transformation is the restoration of relationships and community harmony. Indeed, the traditional conflict resolution process comprises a complex network of forces surrounding the parties in the conflict. In this context, reconciliation often requires symbolic gestures and associated rituals, which often include exchanging of gifts, and slaughter of animals such as cows, goats, sheep or chickens (Ndumbe III, 2001).
Meanwhile, the spiritual dimension of the traditional conflict resolution refers to creating and restoring impaired relationship with God, the spirits, ancestors, families and neighbours (Kealotswe, Mbiti, 1991). This process is equally critical in restoring other relationships at the social levels. In this context, rituals play an important role in the reconciliation process, as they help to link people to the past, present and the future.
More importantly structural violence must be understood in their social context, such as “values and beliefs, fears and suspicions, interests and needs, attitudes and actions, relationships and networks...” (Brock–Utne, 2001: 6). Thus, the root causes of conflicts must be explored to emphasize shared understandings of the people’s past and the 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 of the traditional conflict resolution mechanism is to ensure the full integration of parties into their societies again.
Stated differently, the objective of the traditional conflict resolution is to move away “from accusations and counter accusations, to settle hurt feelings and to reach a compromise that may help improve future relationship”, and this is what I would call ‘negotiated justice’. Thus, the efficacy of the process and sustainability of the outcomes, generally, are attributed to such factors as humility, participatory nature, adaptable flexibility, complete relevance, and comprehensiveness (Brock–Utne, 2001). The approach to the traditional conflict resolution is flexible and dynamic and the entire process and content are influenced by the local social context. In other words, the social environment influences the process.
The approach also seeks to build consensus, and this requires tact and patience from the mediators. When agreement is reached, it is shared with all parties including the general community. This social perspective on conflict resolution has general advantages including the “shared understanding of the conflict.” It also encourages ownership and harmony through active participation in the process by all parties (Brock–Utne, 2001:13).
Traditional conflict resolution mechanism focuses 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 local communities. Cultural values and attitudes, on the other hand, provide the basis for interaction and the norms by which individuals and communities live. These also promote a culture of sharing and equitable distribution of resources, thus promoting a climate for peace and reconciliation.
Most African cultural principles relate to the very essence of existence and being human and how all humans are inextricably related, and it is on these values and premise that the traditional conflict resolution concepts are anchored. Therefore, reconciliation processes within the traditional communities are underscored by the principles of reciprocity, inclusivity and a sense of shared destiny between and amongst people. It provides a value system for giving and receiving forgiveness. This is because society places greater emphasis on communal life.
Creating and sustaining positive, harmonious, and mutual relations are shared responsibilities involving everyone in a particular community. It is believed that people are linked to each other including disputants as perpetrators or victims (Murithi, 2006).
According to Juliana Bol (2014): “Grassroots conflict resolution and mediation must be independent of negotiations happening in Addis Ababa and the political climate in general. This is especially true because while the actors are politically instigated, not all of them are politically motivated. Community members will ultimately be responsible for engaging with those currently on the battlefields, in monitoring any agreements and involvement of these same political and military actors has the potential to derail the process”.
As for the historical and cultural mistrust and stereotyping that has since characterized South Sudanese culture, this will require a long-term process of reconciliation, and an arduous, and long drawn process of changing the mindset of every South Sudanese. Such processes do not have to rely on the ‘top-bottom’ process alone, but fundamentally, it must be anchored on the ‘bottom up’ process.
The discourses above demonstrate the relevance of cultural processes, institutions, and values in conflict resolution and peace building at the grassroots levels. It is evident that most individuals, families and communities still prefer traditional conflict resolution mechanisms and processes because they are based on cultural concepts, values, and procedures that are understood and accepted by local people.
Why? Because 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 negotiation and substantially informal procedures, which are less intimidating, and understood by the local people, work extremely well.
When conflict resolution and peace-building mechanisms are based on principles prized and valued 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, transparency, participation, peaceful co-existence, respect, tolerance and humility, among others, are emphasized as core issues in traditional conflict resolution mechanisms.
Limitations and excesses within the traditional leadership in South Sudan
Having painted such a glowing and romantic picture about the traditional conflict resolution mechanisms, there are, in fact, a number of pitfalls and excesses that we must take note of, and therefore below are some of the limitations and excesses to that process.
Although various communities share the aims and objectives of the traditional conflict resolution mechanism, their applications differ from one ethnic group to another. In some ethnic communities, for example, the application of the principles tends to create more problems than solving them.
According to Dr. Wassara (2007), traditional conflict resolution, especially in South Sudan, is constrained by many factors such as, the absence of codification, where each ethnic group applies traditional justice in the context of its local community. Whether this is in effect a problem or limitation remains debatable. In my view, however, the condition to codify the traditional conflict resolution mechanisms is likely to undermine the process of flexibility, negotiations and compromises, which gives the traditional conflict resolution mechanism its unique expression.
Competition over traditional authority is also likely to lead to and aggravate communal conflicts in many parts of post conflict South Sudan. There are many sources of authority that are imposed by the war and the various warlords. The “many sources of authority”, is in fact, a by-product of successive erosion on the traditional authority system and the institutional and structural rivalries between ‘state-centric’ and local authorities. This also includes the prevailing politicization and militarization of the roles of the chiefs.
In the words of Dr. Wassara, “Other traditional chiefs were compelled to undergo military training to ensure the execution of orders from the side of the war they belonged to. The key result was militarization of the society, which resulted in the use of force to settle disputes and the breakdown of law and order at the grassroots level of the society in Southern Sudan”.
Not long ago, an international organization has completed an in-depth research within Juba suburb, with the view to understanding the role and the impact of local courts here in Juba and the findings are quite disturbing. The study identified what is purported to be traditional courts in Sirikaat (Bahr el Ghazal court), Gumbo (Bari court), Kator (multi-ethnic), Lologo (Latuko court), Munuki (Bari court), Suuk Zande (Zande court), Gudele (Bari court), and Jebel Dinka (Dinka court).
To underscore the concern for the militarization of local chiefs, there was a particular chief in the Bahr el Ghazal court in Sirikaat was seen to have a pistol hanging at his waist as he presided over a court case! This particular chief was said to be presiding over, both civil and military cases! Does anybody dare find out?
The study also identified a certain consortium of local chiefs from all the ten states, calling themselves “Asara Wulayaat” and are purported to represent the interests of multi-ethnic communities in Juba. Unfortunately these are traditional leaders who have no jurisdiction and local communities. When you think about all these, there’s nothing but means of extorting money from vulnerable communities, and because of the level of tribalism in this this country, many an informed people have fallen victims of such ‘chiefs’.
To my fellow brothers and sisters in the business of politics: are you still strategizing to ‘take the towns to the people’? The narratives above should wake you up to an unambiguous reality that while you continue to preach the gospel of ‘taking the towns to the people’, in fact, the people and their chiefs are already here at your doorsteps, in the capital, setting up their administrative structures, parallel to your August House!
The other limitation of the traditional leaders and local authorities is that they infringe on the rights not only of women, but also other vulnerable groups such as children and the girl child, due to cultural biases towards such groups.
Generally speaking, there are limits in the implementation process of the traditional conflict resolution mechanisms, especially here in South Sudan, due to the deep-seated mutual suspicions, mistrust and the level of ethnic fragmentations in the country. Other major weaknesses of the traditional conflict resolution mechanisms are the inherent lack of ‘capacity’ to terminate violence in the long term; possible contradiction of the universal standards of human rights; limited scope or sphere of applicability; and perpetuation of the ‘good old’ culture, which are open to abuse.
From the policy formation perspectives, it therefore appears that there are as many excesses and limitations within the institution of traditional leadership in South Sudan as there are the advantages. Like any other institutions in this country, there are no angels within the traditional leadership as an institution, and therefore, we should not be too audacious of what it is they can deliver in as far as the grassroots healing and reconciliation process is concerned. Perhaps our approach should be that of complementarity and cooperation with the various actors, such as the traditional mechanisms and the Church, as an institution.
Finally, like any other institution in this country, we need radical reforms within the traditional leadership in this country; reforms that is able to demilitarize their mindset, and reforms that take them ‘back to the basics’ where politics and commercialization was not part of their transactions.
The writer is a Pastor and Freelance Consultant in the area of Peace Building and Reconciliation Concepts. He can be reached on: +211 (0) 921037248 | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS
