THE EFFICACY OF TRADITIONAL PEACEMAKING AND RECONCILIATION AMONG THE MUNDARI PEOPLE OF SOUTH SUDAN: AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO PEACEBUILDING AND GOOD GOVERNANCE BY JULIUS NYAMBUR WANI SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION COURSE NUMBER:_______________ COURSE TITLE:____________________ CREDIT HOURS:___________________ SEMESTER OF REGISTRATION:____________________ GRADUATE OFFICE CERTIFICATION: ____________________________________ DATE:______________________________ EVALUATION AND CERTIFICATION: ____________________________________ GRADE: ____________________________ REMARKS:_________________________ ____________________________________ SIGNATURE OF FACULTY MEMBER: ____________________________________ DATE:______________________________ 2014 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20016
54
Embed
Effective Peacebuilding and Governancenonviolenceinternational.net/wp/wp...Peacebuilding-and-Governance.pdf · PEACEBUILDING AND GOOD GOVERNANCE BY JULIUS NYAMBUR WANI ... the traditional
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
THE EFFICACY OF TRADITIONAL PEACEMAKING AND RECONCILIATION AMONG
THE MUNDARI PEOPLE OF SOUTH SUDAN: AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO
PEACEBUILDING AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
BY
JULIUS NYAMBUR WANI
SUBMITTED TO THE
SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
THE EFFICACY OF TRADITIONAL PEACEMAKING AND RECONCILIATION AMONG
THE MUNDARI PEOPLE OF SOUTH SUDAN: AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO
PEACEBUILDING AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
BY
JULIUS NYAMBUR WANI
ABSTRACT
Conflict resolution interventions in any conflict situation in Africa have proved difficult due to
competing and conflicting cultural values and practices. Besides the Western-Indigenous binary,
there are also the local variations across nationalities and tribes. Whereas the Western techniques
have been bitterly criticized for their individualistic, neo-imperial, and low-context orientations,
the traditional systems have equally fallen short in majoring up to the imperatives of modern
statehood. The notion of 'statehood' is foreign and almost untenable. Claiming sovereignty and
constitutionalism in highly ethnicized societies is nearly becoming hypothetical. Plainly granted,
African ancient institutions of governance recognized only two levels: individual and society.
On the other hand, the purely indigenous governing structures have been impacted and
nearly eroded to extinction, both culturally and geopolitically. There are however isolated
exceptions. This paper examines the Mundari Model of peacemaking and reconciliation as an
evidence-based qualitative case study. The Mundari Model provides a compelling argument
because it substantially continues to resist the crippling and delusory effect of colonialism. Not
only is the Model rooted in the democratic traditions of African culture and history, but it is also
practically voluntary, collectivistic, raw and therefore cheap. Its inadequacies to accommodate
and weather national and international regimes, however, demand a renegotiated social contract.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are many people who deserve a thank-you mentioning for helping seeing me
through the journey that has finally brought me to accomplishing this academic achievement. My
determination to get educated and potentially contribute to global peace, justice and ecological
integrity started in 1988, when I escaped the Khartoum-based government's targeting of male
children for extermination. At this point, my first thanks go to Dr. Anthony Wanis-St. John,
director of the International Peace and Conflict Resolution program at American University's
School of International Service, for approving, reviewing, and guiding the development of this
project through all stages. Special gratitude goes to Nonviolence International for awarding me
the Randall Research Scholarship in order to conduct this research. Equally meriting a particular
heartfelt appreciation are Patricia and Gerald Mische for granting me the Pat and Jerry Mische
Family Scholarship in recognition of my potential to make a significant contribution to peace and
conflict resolution in Africa. In addition, I dedicate votes of thanks to Donald and Elaine Stanton,
for being such amazing mentors who stood by me during dire circumstances.
Finally, I would like to recognize the support of my lovely fiancée, Treza Clement, for
serving as a source of inspiration and motivation during my last year of graduate studies. Yet it
will be sheer injustice to not mention the best wishes and prayers by my parents and siblings,
even though their main concerns were my safety and health.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………………....iv 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………6 1.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….......6 1.2 Purpose of the Study.………………………………………………………….8 1.3 Problem Statement…………………………………………………………...10 1.4 Importance of the Questions…………………………………………………13 1.5 Objective and Significance of the Study……………………………………..13 1.6 Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………...15 2. LITERATURE OVERVIEW OF CONFLICT AND PEACEBUILDING.……..17 2.1 History and Cohesive Orientation of the Mundari People…………………...17 2.2 Theoretical Concepts Pertaining to Conflict…………………………………18 2.3 The Three-Dimensional Perspectives of Conflict……………………………19 2.4 Critical Perspectives of Traditional Conflict Management Systems………...22 3. DESIGN OF THE STUDY………………………………………………………….24 3.1 Design Methodology…………………………………………………………24 3.2 Assumptions and Rationale of the Design…………………………………...26 3.3 Role of the Researcher……………………………………………………….28 3.4 Information Collection Procedure…..……………………………………….29 3.5 Procedures for Analysis and Verification……………………………………30 4. OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY AND DISCUSSION..……………………….......30 4.1 Description and Interpretations of Phenomena Studied……………………..30 4.2 Replication and Comparative Analysis of Disputes Systems…………….....38 4.3 Relation to International Peace and Conflict Resolution Field……………...39 5. CONCLUSION….…………………………………………………………………..42 5.1 Significance of Research Findings………………………………………......42 5.2 Implications for Future Research and Practice.…………………………......43 5.3 Policy Recommendations …………………………………………………...45 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………..48 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………50
6
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Traditional Peacemaking and Reconciliation processes are part of the indigenous mechanisms
dedicated to resolving and managing local conflicts in a web of contextualized social
relationships. Just as they are variably practiced by segmented communities of Africa, traditional
mechanisms are equally observed by the Mundari people of South Sudan. The Mundari tribe is
one of the seven Bari-speaking communities that occupy the Central Equatoria State of South
Sudan. The ethnic group is geographically situated north of Juba and shares several borders with
different tribes in five out of the ten states that make up the Africa's and world's newest nation.
There are at least three reasons why the Mundari provides an interesting research agenda.
First, the group exhibits relative peace, both within itself and with its numerous neighbors.
Second, the Mundari is socio-culturally peculiar. Its cultural practices and language versatility
resemble those of the nilotic Dinka. Genealogically, however, the Mundari is part of the larger
Bari nationality. Thirdly, the Mundari lacks a Diaspora community. They are passionately
attached to their land.
Terekeka, the county predominantly inhibited by the Mundari, falls within the confines of
Eastern, Central, Western, Lakes, and Jonglei states. Their entrepreneurial and survival
endeavors constitute in livestock breeding, hunting, and cultivation of consumer and cash crops.
As social beings, their social and political control is therefore of interest, both for peace and
security guarantees, and for research purposes. This substantial research project investigates the
effectiveness with which the Mundari entity manages and governs its affairs. Special attention
focuses on ways in which traditional strategies have historically and contemporarily been
tailored towards addressing disputes and maintaining cultural felicity. Establishing the optimum
7
efficacy of these ancient and relevant techniques, and to what extent might they be replicated in
the contaminated arena of national and international politics, informs the basis of this research.
The quest for sustainable peace is indisputably the most sought-after noble enterprise of
modern time. It has taken and continues to consume the energies of both contemporary and
traditional peacebuilding advocates. Yet dialectically, the business of conflict prevention,
peacemaking, peacebuilding, and reconciliation has attracted schematic debates between
scholarly inquiry and policymaking. As well, the mission pities traditionally conservative against
evolutionary adaptive peace builders. Whichever the case, the search for a reasonable and
durable solution to post independent warfare in Africa is an ongoing undertaking.
An overarching research question of interest, then, is: How did African societies re-
solved their differences before the influence of foreign cultures? Given the quagmire of
ubiquitous conflicts, questions are abound as to whether the pristine inhabitants of the
supposedly "cradle of mankind and human civilization" had some unadulterated systems of
encouraging peaceful coexistence and progress. The presumptuous framework leading to this
project prefers to claim that there must have been age-old, yet effective techniques of societal
structuring and control. Else, it would be preposterous that the grand home of 'first tools, jewelry,
fishing, astronomy, mathematics, and animal domestication' is ironically inept in fostering peace
and progress within its boundaries. Assuming the critical rationale stands, taking the Mundari as
a case study may provides imperatives to analyzing how traditional African societies managed
their disputes prior to the colonization of Africa. The ultimate goal here is the illumination of the
significant roles traditional African conflict resolution methods have in dealing with today’s
communal wars.
In contrast or comparison, there are the western-inspired peacebuilding approaches.
8
Whether they are fit or not in handling African domestic and regional wars, offers a suitable
yardstick against which to weigh and measure the effectiveness of the ancient forms. As shall
become apparent in the following sections, it is safe to note upfront that neglected methods of
peacemaking and reconciliation are not outrageously dissimilar with western techniques, except
that advocates for the latter have tended to treat the former with spiteful skepticism. As Myers
and Shinn (2010, 2) protest, most westerners and "many western-educated Africans have also
retreated from traditional concepts of conflict resolution in favor of solutions offered by formal
court systems, binding arbitration, official sanctions, and western-style mediation."
To dispel the notion that traditional African conflict resolution mechanisms are barbaric
and thus have no place in the contemporary world, this research undertakes to compare some
relevant worldviews and norms as practiced by the Mundari with the western-ordained, classical
precepts of liberalism, republicanism, and statism. The unconventional concepts discussed here
include: (1) Lömi, fear of spiritual curse; (2) Ƞ'ara/Gi'dö, sharing or rotational mechanism; (3)
Pakä, sanctity of intervention in conflict; (4) Chula/Baga, indemnification and reconciliation; (5)
Duar, hunting expedition or retreat. In the outcomes section, it is revealed that these traditional
pillars prioritize order, truth, justice, self-restraint, coexistence, reciprocity and sustainability.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
By examining the Mundari way of conflict management and nonviolence philosophy, this project
endeavors to establish answers to the “what” and “how” questions in the context of African
traditional peacebuilding systems. The main purpose of the research is to explore, retrace, and
propagate often, overlooked yet essentially ameliorative dispute resolution mechanisms, which
have historically worked at community level. The ultimate goal is to conduct a sound analysis of
those predated forms in hope of understanding, preserving, and replicating them. In other words,
9
there is a special need to ascertaining linkages with modern prescriptions so that a sequence of
modalities or hybridization for convergence may be accorded due consideration.
The implicit proposition being advanced here rests in the presupposition that there could
be historical nonviolent approaches, which if adopted and modified have the potential of
sustaining and institutionalizing peace, good governance and stability at the local, national and
international domains. Granted, the contention is whether a bottom-up peace and conflict
resolution efforts are suitable to settling macro-level state crises. More specifically, the project
seeks to promulgate the effects of combined ancient and contemporary nonviolent paradigms in
period of tranquility, during crisis, and in post-conflict societies. Accessible literature indicates
that at times the approaches have been undertaken in parallel; at other times, concurrently.
Whichever the case, the bottom line remains: different circumstances may require compatible
prescriptions that align with the predominant practices and customs of the localized actors.
Essentially, it could be argued that there is no an internationally fit-all, conflict
extinguisher model. Rather, it should be observed that certain resolution mechanisms are
remedially fit to managing or settling some disputes better than others. It matters more or less
whether particular cultural orientations can be regarded as ethnorelativist (Bennet 1993) or
ethnocentric (William Sumner 1906). Because in the end, the whole notion of ethnocentrism
versus ethno-relativism, or traditional versus modern, all attempt to fix what is fundamentally
missing in human cultural orientations. Proponents of ethnorelativism contend that “culture can
only be understood relative to one another and that particular behaviors can only be understood
within a cultural context” (Bennet, p. 46). Further, the concept advances that there is no absolute
standard of rightness or goodness of a cultural attitude. Neither is there something inherently
good nor bad about a culture; it is just different, with some cultures being more adaptable than
10
others.
The notion of ethnocentrism (Sumner 1906), on the other hand, depicts the proclivity to
believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important, and that all other groups are
measured in relation to one's own. It is the tendency for people to differentiate between the in-
groups and others. The implication here is that people have different cultures. Viewed in this
context, culture can be a double-edged sword: it unites and divides. This could be in line with the
warnings by various theorists (Galtung 1990; Mac Ginty 2008) that, local cultures, norms, and
practices may themselves pave way to conflict dynamics on one hand, while on the other, they
can equally embody norms and practices which, to large extent, enhance reconciliation. The urge
for an enhanced reconciliation calls to mind the need to conduct an exploratory analysis of a
specific culturally relevant forms of nonviolence promotion in order to ascertain aspects of best
practices and recommendations, if any.
1.3 Problem Statement
Conflict in Africa and more so in South Sudan, has become increasingly inter-communal, ethnic,
intrastate, and 'intractable' (Coleman 2006; Kriesberg, Northrup & Thorson 1989). Despite many
intervening efforts by international community, there remained a plethora of unresolved disputes
across the continent. The former Sudan, or even the newest South Sudan, the macro entity within
which the Mundari is found, has been a devastated society at least since the Turko-Egyptian
invasion of 1821 (Machar 1995). Then, the Sudan consisted of Kingdoms and tribal communities
without modern forms of governments that exist today. In other words, Sudan in its present
boundaries did not exist, and so was South Sudan. Even shortly before independence in 1956, the
Sudan has been a scene of civil wars and inter-tribal clashes.
On the macro level, the military confrontation has pitied successive Islamic-oriented
11
governments in Khartoum against the predominantly Christian and animist Southern Sudan. On
the micro stage, there have been numerous ethnic rivalries predating back before the country's
independence from British in 1956. All these conflicts have become intertwined, making efforts
to address them very complex. The state-level wars, for instance, were in two phases. The first
started in 1955 and ended in 1972 with the Addis Ababa agreement, which granted the South a
degree of regional autonomy. The second phase arose in 1983, citing widespread marginalization
in the context of discourses of peace and pursuit of political, social and economic opportunities.
This protracted conflict ended in 2005, ushering in the popular Comprehensive Peace
Agreement, or CPA, in Nairobi, Kenya. Although the CPA did lead to a decisive self-
determination referendum that resulted in South Sudan independence, the prospects for the
country's stability are at stake following the December 2013 alleged coup. The coup, or its
absence, has since plunged the fledgling state into chaos.
The impacts of all the macro wars on indigenous communities and local practices have
been surmountable and frustrating. For defense and survival, communities were persuaded to
eventually devise ways of self-protection. Because of the nature of the enemies and weapons
used against these indigenous societies, main groups subsequently forfeited long-held
nonviolence philosophies. The subject of analysis here, the Mundari, were actually forced to
sporadically rescind their normative observance. It became a matter of existential imperative. It
follows, therefore, that the emergence of newer forms of warfare and the undisciplined behaviors
of militarized groups led to adaptive ways of dealing with the strange developments. Sadly, this
led to drastic shifts in the traditionally instituted conflict management systems.
It is against this background that this qualitative analysis strives to retrace and reexamine
those indigenous techniques of peace sustainability and conflict management. The quandaries
12
and inability to prevent, manage, and resolve frozen and ongoing warfare in Africa, timely and
decisively, requires thorough evaluations of methodological approaches to both ancient and
contemporary conflict orientations. The potency of national and international diplomatic efforts
notwithstanding, priority should be given to local mechanisms at first instances, particularly
when ethnically vexing issues are at stake. Given their relevance and sanctity, indigenous
systems are important as they determine the process outcomes, yet in much less expensive but
durably efficient means. Exemplary groundbreaking peace and reconciliation initiatives purely
conducted in the traditional manner included the Wunlit and Tali Conferences. The Wunlit Peace
and Reconciliation Conference of 1999 between the Dinka and Nuer, and the Tali Peace
Conference of 2005 between the SPLM/A and Mundari, emphasized the need to stop fighting,
build understanding and cooperation, and commencing practical steps toward building peace that
recognizes the cordial relationships premised on traditional principles. Despite prospective
headways to pragmatic peacebuilding, the two accords were, unfortunately, underfunded and
ignorantly undermined.
Taking the Mundari as a case study, the problem statement asks: What were the
traditional media of disputes resolution and reconciliation in non-westernized societies? How did
these systems succeeded or failed in sustaining inter- and intra-communal crises? What are some
possible lessons that can be learned from these modalities? And, how may these tools be adopted
and incorporated into contemporary strategies of mediation? The objective, as stated above, is to
explain the principles and practices of traditional peacemaking processes; to stress the need for
their recognition, adoption, and influence on good governance and peacebuilding; and to
advocate such recommendations as applicable to the nonviolence movements and peace
campaigns globally. That having been said, it is worth pointing out that local dictums are not
13
always in close sync with modern, legalistic rules--state-based or international. As Seligman and
Seligman (1932, 243) confided, “A great difficulty with which the Bari (Mundari included) have
to contend is the relatively large foreign settlement at Province headquarters and the strict
administration of the white man's law.”
1.4 Importance of the Questions
Asking the “what” and “how” questions permits for the following: 1) identification, definition,
and evaluation of what constitutes in traditional and indigenous peacemaking, beginning with,
first, understanding the possible causes of conflict and how they are prevented, resolved, or
maintained traditionally; 2) in-depth analysis of effectiveness or limitations of traditional and
indigenous mechanisms of disputes management and resolution; 3) compare and contrast the
above instruments with modern techniques, thereby taking stock of incidences of
complementarities or incompatibility; 4) categorization of solutions in order to match specific
problems through hybridization and; 5) identifying instances of shifts in approach, or dilution of
traditional and indigenous forms with western systems. Each of these aspects is sufficiently
discussed in chapter two.
1.5 Objective and Significance of the Study
The primary objective of this research is to explore possible ways of assessing durable and
sustainable solutions to the ceaseless conflicts bedeviling ethnic groups in South Sudan. There is
no doubt that African leaders and the international community are faced with formable dilemmas
insofar as seeing the implementation of the peace agreement between the Sudan People’s
Liberation Movement/Army and the government of Sudan is concerned. Moreover, each of the
two Sudans is endlessly confronted with serious internal challenges posed by intercommunity
14
fighting. As leaders struggle to address these issues, there is urgent need to consider a more
pragmatic role for traditional African conflict resolution, which, to an extent, should be the lead
or useful reinforcement to modern ways of solving today’s crises on the continent. Without
naively dismissing international interventions in civil and ethnic wars, this project recognizes the
need for both traditionally advanced and Western sophisticated systems of peacebuilding.
Priority should, however, be paid to the internal, given the latter's intrusion into localized forms
of resolution have failed.
In discussing the research agenda, further investigation and elaboration are rendered
about why numerous peace agreements proved hard to implement and hence easily dishonored.
As things stand now, international approaches to the Sudan's problems have led to failures in two
major peace agreements (Addis Ababa Agreement in 1972 and CPA in 2005). Even the
subsequent, euphoric independence South Sudan attained has just erupted into a politico-ethnic
faceoff in late 2013. Questions are in bundles as whether the two Sudans should be encouraged
to try internal consensus. As much as attention is lent to the political root causes of the crisis,
dedicated efforts must mindfully be expended on the best possible options to inventing a holistic
solution to both local and national players, as well as internal and external stakeholders.
Incorporating indigenous peacemaking processes into the national or international strategies is
seemingly a potential way to lending recommendations for assuaging the fears and
apprehensions of those concerned. They should actually be the starting point.
In striving to do this, this study describes the ancient forms of peacebuilding including
their strengths and limitations. Just how these ancient systems have historically functioned and
continue to do so, but in the subnational context, is the main focus. Equally, the analysis seeks to
explore the legitimacy of the process in both traditional and contemporary orientations. The
15
thought provoking question here is whether modern concepts are problematic to Africa due to
difficulty in institutionalization, lack of structural credibility, and impractical representation and
participation in the national dialogues and negotiation processes.
The significances for this research can be numerous. First, South Sudan's identity is still
based on tribal and ethnic lines. Emphasizing the principle of "do no harm" in the grassroots
level could have more impacts than in the national level. Second, the rapidly growing
nonviolence and peace studies field has more adherents in the traditional environments than at
the international politics where competition and anarchy are practically the norm. Third, the
findings of this research can serve as useful resources for the immature Government of South
Sudan policy formulation, particularly regarding conflict management. The same could apply to
the Sudan, with its Darfur, Nuba Mountains, and Eastern Sudan crises. The East Africa regional
intergovernmental body, IGAD, could equally benefit from the study given that it continues to
face formidable challenges, insofar its attempts to address regional conflicts in the Great Lakes
Region is concerned. More specifically, the Mundari offer an interesting case because: 1)
indigenous political institutions are partially still intact; 2) external or modern forms of
administration came in late, partly due to stiff resistance as well as due to “inaccessibility and
difficult conditions of the interior” (Buxton 1963, ix). The community is sparsely and
extensively spread across and along both east and west of the Nile River and; 3) reorganization
in the context of contemporary political institutions has been slower because legitimacy of
foreign authority was sorely contested.
1.6 Limitations of the Study
There are quite a number of limitations experienced in this study. At least four of these are worth
admission, namely: 1) insufficient, prior written research studies on the community; 2) the
16
researcher did not come in physical contact with the interviewees during the research process; 3)
there are internal language variations within the group, causing phrasal and semantic problems
and; 4) cultural incompatibilities between the group studied and some of its neighbors led to
violent reactions at certain points of time, thereby diluting the nonviolent credentials. All these
limitations have practical impacts in the overall outcome of the research findings.
The lack of sufficient written accounts has the primary effect of not tracing deep-seated
socio-anthropological and historical narratives of each section of the Mundari people. Origins of
the subtribes are so contradictory, and this is reflected in the day-to-day practices and
orientations. Consequently, a sweeping generalization as regards nonviolence is almost hard to
make, technically because some sections, depending on who they border, are quite reactionary.
The second limitation stems from the fact that most of the interviews were gathered via phones
and through email correspondences. Had I travelled to the field and interacted with the people at
the time, perhaps more concrete information could have been obtained by conducting focus
groups, in which case participants' interview could have been possible, thus permitting
evaluations of their attitudes. Thirdly, the Mundari is subdivided into at least seven big sections,
each comprising of several clans. Depending on points of origins or geographical influence, there
are substantial language variations that some Mundari in east bank barely understand their
colleagues in the west bank of the Nile River. This is clearly apparent in the Buxton's collection
where pronunciations and phrases are so incoherent and troubling. Equally, Buxton's analysis is
etic, the author being a western from Britain. Finally, it is true that, internally the Mundari are
well structured and value relationship and interdependence, but some parts of the community
have had bitter experiences with hostile neighbors, where upon self-defense was warranted.
17
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE OVERVIEW OF CONFLICT AND PEACEBUILDING
2.1 History and Cohesive Orientation of the Mundari People
Historically, less is known and written about the Mundari. The reason is because the entity has
been understudied and written accounts expounding on its origin, history, and cultural
manifestations are very scanty and often inconsistent. Genealogical and anthropological accounts
of the Mundari people narrate that the group is intrinsically an admixture of Nilotic and Nilo-
Hamitic, and that they are both pastoralists and farmers. Political and sociological analysis by
Buxton (1963, 1) provides that “the name Mundari refers to the pastoralists who occupy two
separate and distinct lands” in the now Central Equatoria State of South Sudan. Geographically,
the populations exist on both sides of the Nile River, north of the country's capital, Juba. The
Nile's eastern bank Mundari lives along the water-frontage, fifty miles away from the city. The
western bank stocks inhabit the vast, sprawling country inland to the west. Besides being the
most neighbored nation among all the 64 tribes of South Sudan, the Mundari are also so diverse,
with multiple sections and at least six dialects variation.
The community shares borders with at least eight different ethnic groups, namely the Bor
Dinka (Northeast), Aliab and Atuot Dinka (North and North West), Moru (West), Nyangwara
(Southwest), Bari (South), Lokoya (Southeast), Pari (East). The interaction of Murle and
Mundari through cattle raiding by the former is contestable since geographically the two do not
seem to share any physical border. The northern neighbors are predominantly Nilotes while the
southern tribes are Nilo-Hamitic. The location of the Mundari between these sizeable blocks has
made the country subject to influences from across both sides. In the end, the Mundari are
18
culturally and linguistically been impacted. The cultural affinities exhibited and practiced by the
Mundari comprise substantial offshoots of the surrounding ethnicities; for, fortunately, each of
the neighbor's claims to have cognatic relatives within the Mundari sub-tribes or clans. The
Mundari do not deny this historical fact. In fact, the sub-tribes that make up the larger Mundari
entity include the Dereget, Chierra, Kobora, Yambara, Lokweni, and Bari-Mundari. The
implications, in terms of conflict avoidance and disputes settlement techniques, are derived from
these branches' past encounters with other tribes or their origins. Surprisingly, and despite its
internal diversity, coupled with its unparalleled external relations, the Mundari nation remains
one of the most relatively stable and conservative societies in the country. Yet its tranquility has
less to do with deterrence by the central government.
Administratively, the Mundari are organized into traditional "village-chiefdoms" (Buxton
1963, 34). Each chiefdom serves as a political unit with elements of hierarchical dominance over
several hamlets. The traditional political boundaries operate as spheres of influence, and are of
supreme importance to the social lives of the Mundari people. The chiefs were consulted in
social, economic, and juristic matters. Although force has been used as a punishment by
publically approved chiefdoms in certain circumstances, it is generally forbidden, particularly
against women. Force is also sanctioned in defense against land trampling. The land rights of a
chiefdom, Buxton confides, are still jealously guarded by its members, and the transgression of
rights over natural resources, particularly over water and grazing, leads to fighting (36).
2.2 Theoretical Concepts Pertaining to Conflict
The need to develop suitable instruments of intervention strategy necessitates this study. The
gateway to building any such mediation and negotiation structures as the basic procedures for
conflict containment and settlement must begin with identifying the actors and understanding the
19
issues involved. This is because ordinarily, conflict does not occur in the vacuum. As Deutsch
(2006) posits, conflict only arises in situations where people are interdependent. By virtue of this
theory, people hardly fight where there is no contact and interaction with one another. It is just
almost impossible. In other words, no man is an island; only that there is asymmetric
interdependence in relationships. The Mundari tends to be aware of this reality. In recognition,
they value and ritualize norms that prioritize human relations as opposed to self satisfaction.
Thus, conflict may loosely be defined as a social phenomenon caused by competing or
incompatible interests. Contrary to the modern causes of disputes, traditional triggers are quite
different. Possible conflict setters among the Mundari, for instance, include competition over a
girl, demand for exorbitant dowry price, and quarrel over grazing land, accusations of stolen
livestock, and sometimes lost items like a spear. Different causes notwithstanding, it is critical to
note that human perceptions are heavily influenced by subjective predispositions. At the heart of
most disputes, Ury (1995) confides, are emotions: frustrations, fear, anger, and distrusts. Jonsson
(2002) observes that it is very difficult to convey messages that are inconsistent with what others
already believe.
2.3 The Three-Dimensional Perspectives of Conflict
According to Friedrich Glasl (1994), a social conflict may be defined as an interaction between
actors (individuals, groups, organizations, etc), where at least one actor sees incompatibilities in
the thinking, imagination, perception, and feeling with another or other actors: translation CS.
Conflict may be caused by multiple reasons, depending on the context. For the purpose of this
study, Mayer's theoretical propositions are relied upon. For Mayer (2000), there are at least three
patterns by which conflict may transpire. These include: 1) cognitive (perceptual); 2) emotional
(feeling); and 3) behavioral attributes. These dimensional perspectives provide alternative lens
20
with which analysts and practitioners can better comprehend the complexities of a conflict and
why it sometimes seems to proceed in the opposite direction. Other influential theorists who
have espoused on the issue are Collier 2007; Berdal & Malone 2000; Doyle & Sambanis 2000;
Gurr 1993; Malone & Sherman 2007; Stewart 2001, 2008; Zartman 2005; among others.
Writing in 1990s during which time civil strife was at peak, Robert Guur explores the
root causes of conflict through the lens of relative deprivation theory. Essentially, discrepancy
between what citizens think they deserve and what they do end up getting in a society begets
frustrations, which eventually culminates in incidences of collective political violence by social
groups. Similar line of argument has also been espoused by Frances Stewart, whose
ascertainment posits that conflict is convincingly driven by horizontal inequalities between
identity groups, thus the need for policies that reduce those inequalities; for instance, affirmative
action and investment in marginalized areas. Contributing to the debate, Zartman reasons that the
outbreak and evolution of war are brought about due to sequencing of need, creed, and greed. To
this, he recommends early intervention, lest related interests build up to perpetuate protracted
conflict.
Amplifying the notion of greed is Paul Collier's influential work, which describes civil
wars as caused by greed, not social grievances. The author argues that conflicts are necessitated
by financial and military feasibility. To this, he blames vertical inequality, thus recommends
promoting a strong economy and transparency in extractive industries. Berdal and Malone's
volume equally underscores the political dimensions of internal conflict, but additionally
identifies and persuasively emphasizes the economic and social factors underlying the
perpetuation of civil wars, exploring as well the economic incentives and disincentives available
to international actors seeking to restore peace to war-torn societies. As long in war there are
21
economic strategies and profits, they argue, belligerents and elites will prefer to continue to fight
in order to sustain their positions. The authors strive consistently for policy relevance in both
their analysis and their prescriptions.
The cognitive theory hypothesizes that conflict, as a set of perceptions, is a belief or the
understanding that one's own values, needs, wants, or interests are basically at variance with
someone else's (Mayer 2004). Objectively or subjectively this notion of incompatibility entails
that conflict could be initiated by one person as long as there is a preconceived illusion of