Ubuntu: Together we are one

Second in a series by guest author Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka

Emmanuel
Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka

It has been argued that civil societies have been at the forefront of efforts geared toward the growth and sustenance of non-violent struggle, particularly in Africa.

The pertinent question is: how close is civil society in Africa to adopting non-violent ways of settling conflicts?

To answer this question, we must first trace back the concept of non-violent struggle to the African Dispute Resolution mechanisms of the pre-colonial era. Studies have revealed that the various indigenous African Dispute Resolution mechanisms were not only peaceful in nature but also thrived on rebuilding and sustaining relationships among disputants.

Thus, diplomatic measures like negotiation, mediation, and restorative justice were not introduced to Africa by the West, as some might claim, but were already in use in Africa before the days of colonialism. For instance, let’s consider Ubuntu, originating from the Bantu people of the lower Congo.

Ubuntu, which means “together we are one,” promotes the sacredness and sanctity of human life. The concept emphasizes that individuals can only discover their true nature through relationships and interaction with others. Ubuntu accepts all people as members of the community of the living and promotes the spirit of love, care, tolerance, empathy, and accountability.

Similar to Ubuntu is the Ujamea principle, originating in Tanzania, which also promotes freedom, unity, and equality. The Tanganyikan people believe that it is only equality that can breed cooperation, and unity that begets peace and development.

Consider for yourselves these two questions: (1) To what extent did European settlers in Africa operate on the principles of Ubuntu and Ujami either in their homelands or in Africa? (2) To what extent are people likely to achieve non-violent resolution of conflicts if they do not operate on the basis of those principles?

Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka has a Masters of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.

Remembering Nagasaki, 1945

World War I was not the war to end all wars; neither did the dropping of a second U.S. atom bomb at Nagasaki, Japan bring lasting peace to the world.

origami peace cranes
Origami peace cranes

Since August 9, 1945, and the end of World War II, the U. S. has committed troops to more than 100 armed conflicts around the world—in widely dispersed areas such as China, Korea, Palestine, Lebanon, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, the Congo (Zaire), El Salvador, Libya, Grenada, Honduras, Chad, the Persian Gulf, Panama, Colombia, the Philippines, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Many of these armed interventions provoked controversy and protest among American citizens; others barely reached public awareness. The goals were always lofty; the results frequently horrendous; the true motives often highly suspect.

Although the U.S. has used armed force with increasing frequency to achieve a wide range of goals across the globe since World War II, the actual number of armed conflicts occurring each year has declined rather steadily in recent decades—from around 164 in 1982 to 40 in 2000 and only 28 in 2008.

The consistent decline in armed conflicts is one basis for optimism concerning the possibility of world peace. Despite the involvement of the United States in ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is good evidence that increasing numbers of people around the world can see alternatives to violence as a means of resolving conflicts.

Public support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is declining even as funding continues. What will it take to get the country’s leadership to listen to the voice of the people who oppose these wars?

Future blogs will discuss the kinds of thinking people bring to their judgments concerning the legitimacy—and illegitimacy–of a government’s use of armed aggression and alternatives to that aggression.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology