Tag: Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka

Intolerance, cohesion, and killing in religion, Part 1

Posted on by kathiemm

By guest contributor Emmanuel C. Mbaezue

Confrontation between mounted archers by Tabriz, 14th century.
Confrontation between mounted archers by Tabriz, 14th century. Image in public domain.

“Terrorists and Peacemakers may grow up in the same community and adhere to the same religious traditions. The killing carried out by one and the reconciliation fostered by the other indicate the range of dramatic and contradictory response to human sufferings by religious actors.” (Scott Appleby, 2000)

Appleby’s quote reflects the ambivalence inherent in religion. Though on the one hand, religious leaders have condemned acts of religiously motivated violence, on the other hand they have also failed to contain the frequency and scope of such acts. According to Little (2007), rather than playing a soothing role in response to societal problems of violence and murder, religion itself seems to contribute to violence in the world today.

Furthermore, the current preponderance of religious violence has presumably been stirred by religious leaders. Most of them have deviated from their spiritual calling and have sometimes deliberately created crisis situations in order to abrogate existent religious laws.

To understand how they are able to accomplish this, we must examine the two practices responsible for the violence-prone nature of religion: fundamentalism and extremism.

As defined by Appleby (2000), fundamentalism is a specified pattern of religious militancy by which self-styled true believers try to: (a) resist the extinction of religious identity; (b) fortify the borders of a religious community; and (c) create viable alternatives to secular structure and processes. The fundamentalist’s main goal is to protect his religious identity while competing with secular authorities, without necessarily employing violent means.

Extremism on the other hand can be viewed as the deliberate use of violence to “purify” society while fighting against external forces. While the fundamentalist does not necessarily see the use of violence as a means to an end, the extremist believes that violence is not only necessary, but also a legitimate way of maintaining order.

REFERENCES

Appleby, Scott. (2000). The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and Reconciliation. Maryland, United States of America: Rowman and Little Field Publishers.

Little, David, ed. 2007. Peacemakers in Action. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Mbaezue 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.

Undoing the wrongs of African colonialism

Posted on by kathiemm

Fourth and final in a series by guest author Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka

Must one conclude from my last two posts that nonviolence in Africa is a lost cause? The answer is a resounding “NO,” although the foundation is weak.

Flag map of colonial Africa
Flag map of colonial Africa, 1939. Image by DrRandomFactor, used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

To undo the wrongs stemming from colonialism, it is important for the developed countries, particularly the United States (known by some countries as the most war-mongering nation on earth), to lead a campaign against using force to resolve issues.

For example, the Nigerian government is currently training security personnel and setting up more counter-terrorism centers in its fight against the Boko Haram insurgent group. Americans should instead promote dialogue with the Islamic sect, especially regarding the root causes of the insurgency.

In an encouraging development, the U.S. and Europe have moved toward controlling the outbreak of crises through the promotion of conflict prevention mechanisms and the integration of civilian personnel in crisis management. While Europe has set up the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the U.S. has established the Civilian Response Corps (CRC).

These are the kinds of policies and projects that America should be promoting in developing countries to reduce the level of violence in the world today.

If the developed countries decide to ignore the African campaign for nonviolence, Africa will be plunged into unimaginable suffering and misery. It is also highly likely that the continents surrounding her will experience a spill-over of whatever evil comes out of Africa, as when France intervened in Mali.

To make matters worse, funds and donations originally meant for development aid in Africa will end up been used as relief materials, with the global economy also being threatened.

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.

African models for nonviolent resolution

Posted on by kathiemm

Third in a series by guest author Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka

Indigenous African dispute resolution mechanisms, introduced in my previous post, include efforts to utilize elders in resolving disputes peacefully. In Rwanda, where the Gacaca system predominated in efforts to resolve issues relating to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, the traditional role of elders known as Iyangamugayo was emphasized.

The Iyangamugayo were men possessing great wisdom, altruism, and political and economic influence. They encouraged dialogue rather than violence among disputants. The Gacaca system, which was the only justice system in Rwanda before the days of colonialism, ensured distributive justice in society, without necessarily employing the use of violence.

Somalia, regarded by many today as one of the most dangerous places on earth, once employed a system known as Xeer Somaali for nonviolent means for resolving disputes.

Using customary laws, the Somalis, like the Rwandans, had elders (the Guurti or Ergada) who presided over the peaceful resolution of disputes among clans. This system worked particularly well during the days of the Islamic Council Union (ICU), where the role of clan elders was combined with Islamic principles to achieve stability and peace. The system eventually crumbled when Ethiopian forces overthrew the Islamic Council Union (ICU). However, some individuals still believe that the days of the ICU were the most peaceful ones Somalia has ever witnessed.

From all indications, Africa’s role models or programs for the non-violent resolution of disputes remain her precolonial indigenous dispute resolution mechanisms. I am not saying that all African cultural practices before the coming of Western civilization were good. There were some terrible cultural practices like the killing of twins, human sacrifices, and female circumcision.

The role of modernization

Nevertheless, I do suggest that using violence to resolve disputes and pursue goals in Africa actually started with “modernization.” It was “modernization” that first saw the exchange of slaves for gunpowder in colonial Africa. It was “modernization” that made possible the first-ever introduction of Africans to the weapons of the modern-day battlefield including weapons of mass destruction (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

It was also modernization, under the guise of today’s capitalism, that overthrew the African socialist system that guaranteed the equitable distribution of resources, introducing instead a system that thrives on the exploitation of one class by another, a situation that ultimately leads to a violent confrontation.

Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka has a Master of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of the 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.

Ubuntu: Together we are one

Posted on by kathiemm

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.