What kind of conflict resolution approaches can effectively address intra-state wars based on identity? Liberal peace models were designed to deal with inter-state conflicts, and when applied to inter-ethnic conflicts bring limited success and often disastrous results. This article from the African Journal on Conflict Resolution argues that identities should be seen as key assets in building sustainable peace, justice and reconciliation. Regional peace and security mechanisms and traditional justice approaches should be used and international justice mechanisms approached with caution.
Only recently has there been explicit recognition of the role that ethnic identity can play in conflict resolution. Organisations such as UNESCO and the African Union have looked to cultural diversity and expressions of identity as assets in peacemaking and nation-building. As for negative uses of ethnic identity, political ‘tribalism’, in which certain identities are asserted or elevated over others, has its origins in colonial politics. An example is the wedge which the Belgian and French colonialists drove between the Hamitic ‘race’ of the Tutsis and the ‘Bantu tribal’ identity of the Hutu. Following a period during which nation-building and civic citizenship were pursued, cultural identities are now again being transformed into political identities.
The resurgence of the so-called ‘new wars’, violent internal clashes between ethnic groups, requires a reconfiguration of current conflict resolution mechanisms.
- The politicisation of ethnicity has contributed to the weakening of African states which are already besieged by market forces and economic globalisation.
- In the context of globalisation, ethnicity has been globalised and citizenship has been localised, setting the scene for ethnic strife.
- The liberal peace model, far from being an appropriate solution to Africa’s ‘new wars’, remains highly limited. The model’s internal contradictions undermine positive peace, democracy and justice.
Nuanced interventions are needed in identity-based conflicts that reconcile democracy and justice, guaranteeing the rights of both majority and minority groups. Recommendations include the following:
- The first step is for people to re-conceptualise identities and cultural diversity as assets, not obstacles, in the process of conflict resolution.
- New forms of conflict resolution must go beyond the liberal peace dogma that focuses on demobilisation as disarmament, without focusing on people’s mentalities.
- Reconciliation across identity fault-lines requires extensive interactions with other identities to develop people’s understanding that the ‘other’ does not threaten one’s own identity.
- Resolving both structured and incidental injustices requires building institutions to entrench justice and equality. This may require the reconstitution of a state as multi-identity, inclusive of ethnic and other forms of identity.
- There is a careful balance to strike between ‘victors’ justice’ and ‘survivors’ justice’ in the wake of any conflict. Establishing sustainable peace requires democracy and justice on the one hand, and protection for the rights of majorities and minorities on the other.
- International justice mechanisms, in particular the International Criminal Court, do have some role to play in conflict resolution in Africa, but it should be limited. Such institutions must not become a barrier to peace. Traditional justice mechanisms–provided that they address both universal values and cultural particularities–may address more directly the identity questions involved.
