By Mwalimu George Ngwane*
In a 2015 publication by The Africa Center for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), Durban, South Africa, titled “Silencing the guns, owning the future”, the authors question the paradox that is Africa in terms of unprecedented levels of economic growth on one hand, and rising instability and insecurity in a number of particularly concerning regions and member states on the other. Recognizing this, and building on references to Agenda 2063 and African Union vision of ending all wars in Africa by 2020, the publication further engages collective multistakeholder deliberations on existing and emerging peace and security threats to the continent and the responses required to address these and achieve a war-free continent by 2020. Practitioners and policy-makers are well aware that Vision 2020 is immensely ambitious. They also realize that achieving the aspirations set out in this publication needs to be accompanied by concrete plans which are implementable, realistic and time bound. A major challenge in Africa’s peace and security fields is how to secure lasting resolutions to conflicts. Unlike conflict resolution, which addresses existing or current fights the aim of conflict prevention is to forestall the violence from breaking out or occurring in the first place. Conflict prevention involves preemptive measures that guard against potential and possible escalations happening. For a long time, the publication concludes, the management of conflicts in Africa has been largely reactive. In most situations, it is only when they have reached severe crisis levels that interventions are mooted to resolve them” (ACCORD, 2015).
The first logical step towards “silencing the guns” is calling for a mutual ceasefire between the belligerents for a specific duration. This may require keeping the guns but not using them as a warfare tool for a comprehensive agreed period (cessation of violence) or creating a complete disarmament programme that convinces not coerces, appeals not patronises, and compensates not humiliates the conflicting parties to laying down their weapons. Both approaches are informed by a restorative justice process that insists on reintegrating the ex-fighters into society rather than a retributive justice process that seeks to punish and hence alienate the ex-fighters to the margins of society.Both approaches resonate with a concessional win-win strategy and not a conquest truimphalist mindset. Both approaches are relevant to our Cameroonian situation even though experts argue that the more feasible case is one of appealing to a cessation of violence as a harbinger for constructive peace talks. However both approaches only culminate in what John Galtung calls “negative peace”. Negative peace refers to the absence of violence. “When, for example,a ceasefire is enacted, negative peace will ensue. It is negative because something undesirable stopped happening, but in the absence of other criteria. Positive peace is accomplished by desirable aspects such as restoration of relationships, creation of social systems that serve the needs of the entire population and the constructive resolution of conflicts” (Dijkema, 2007).
Positive peace emerges quite often afterthe setting up of targeted dialogue (summoning of the talks) that explores all the contours of the root cause and not just proximate causes of the problem, Indeed without a clear and concrete agenda for addressing the issues that led combatants to take up arms in the first place they will often be reticent to heed to the call for a cessation to violence. If dialogue has to succeed it must follow a scientific methodology. The goal of any dialogue is to get parties with different positions or conflicting ideas to seek COMMON GROUND. While the actors are conflicting parties (often state and non-state actors), the stake holders could range from traditional rulers, academia, religious authorities, leaders of opinion,media,civil society groups, vulnerable population caught in the cross-fire, Diplomatic services and International Community. The dialogue process is often a bilateral discussion (under the tree debate) mostly initiated by state actors (government) and in some cases non-state actors willing to create an enabling environment for their grievances to be formally addressed. Both parties observe the virtues of respect, honesty and empathy. Such discussions could also solicit a third party mediator (impartial, on-partisan and accepted by both parties). The process can take 3-6 months and reviewed periodically. As for the content of the dialogue it is important to distinguish between a National Dialogue that seeks to address issues of broad general concerns related to national life and a Constitutional Dialogue that seeks to address specific grievances articulated by a segment quite often geo-political entity of the nation. Constitutional dialogue,which in my opinion responds to our current crisis, often dwells on the nature of statecraftship or national restructuring (decentralization, Federation, referendum, Unitary etc). Be that as it may, most dialogue platforms often begin with Preliminary discussions (often behind the scenes in what is called back-channel communication) between state actors and direct/indirect non-state actors, then Mutual agreement on the remote, root and trigger causes of the conflict, followed by agreement on the security of all the parties, consensus on the Agenda and venue of the dialogue or Talks, agreement on those to be invited to the Dialogue table (to avoid the presence of opportunists and spoilers), consensus on how, who and when the Resolutions or Outcome of the Talks shall be implemented. There are certain qualities that guide the principle of talks or dialogue and they include firstly Open-mindedness: It is always advisable to keep an open mind during the Talks (no pre-conceived prejudices, no bitterness, no censorship to feasible ideas, no blame-game, no parochial interest, no contempt or arrogance, no naming and shaming, no revenge; Secondly Concessions: Dialogue does not come with fixed and rigid position, it goes with mutually beneficial results (win-win game not zero-sum game). If you are not ready for concessions then you are not ready for dialogue. Concessions means giving a little and taking a little, it means leaving our high grounds to meet at the middle or common ground; Thirdly Outcome: Conflicting parties should be prepared to accept the outcome of the dialogue without feeling a sense of loss, without counting the loss and without bending to external pressure and lastly Evaluation: Dialogue is not a static event but a periodical process. There should always be room for evaluation and amendments. With regard to the conflict that continues to stain the Anglophone region with blood, it was time we began by silencing the guns and then summoning the talks, and this before the end of 2019.
*Mwalimu George Ngwane is a Chevening conflict management Fellow, York, UK (2010), Rotary Peace Fellow, Bangkok,Thailand (2015), Commonwealth Professional Fellow, London, UK (2015), United Nations Minority rights Fellow, Geneva (2016), Board of Trustees Member of the Minority Rights Group International Africa (2019) .www.gngwane.com.