International Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding Strategies

The Complexities of War and Peace in the Sudans

Daniela Nascimento

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781032097053
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351856553
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The analysis and interpretation of conflicts can be a dangerously simplistic exercise. A western, developed socio-economic perspective can simplify conflicts in the so-called 'Third World' as the inevitable struggles of people who cannot coexist because of ethnic, religious or cultural differences. While acknowledging that many contemporary conflicts are characterised and influenced by these factors, this book calls for an approach to conflict prevention and resolution which mainly addresses the underlying political, economic and social causes. The conflict in Sudan, where narratives evolved from an interpretation based on religious differences between a Muslim North and the Christian South, provides a case study through which the author explores how most prevention and resolution strategies were based on flawed assumptions leading to poor results. By focusing instead on the underlying socio-economic inequality and marginalisation among groups she analyses the dynamics of the complex peace process to ascertain if and how economic and social rights were effectively included and implemented as a part of the peace agreement, including after South Sudan's independence.

1Understanding conflict beyond ethnicity and religion

A review of the main approaches

Understanding armed conflicts has never been an easy task, due mainly to their inherent levels of violence and complexity. But it becomes particularly difficult in the case of internal conflicts, where simplistic interpretations can easily render solutions and prevention an almost impossible mission. In such circumstances, undertaking a thorough assessment and understanding of why some different cultural, ethnic or religious groups sharing and living in the same national territory engage in conflict and violent confrontation whereas in others this does not happen should be one of the first steps in the study of contemporary conflicts. The acknowledgement of a re-emergence of religious and ethnic traditions worldwide and the argument put forward that the political resurgence of religious communities is often by way of violent clashes in and between nations (Hasenclever and Rittberger, 2000: 641) has marked the beginning of a particularly interesting and rich debate in the field of International Relations and Political Science.¹ It has been suggested, for example, that the colonial period in Africa, although often establishing a territorial division without great correlation with ethnic frontiers, has encouraged an ethnic classification of populations and used some ethnic groups to fulfil special roles in the prevailing colonial policy. In the post-colonial period, the centralised control of the State by one social group has led to an ethnicisation of State power which in some countries has resulted in a suppression of ethnic movements through their marginalisation or cooptation, but in others has represented a factor of increased tensions (Osaghae, 1994: 24).

Furthermore, since during independence most African States did not actually have a coherent and functional unity, there was a first phase in which the national construction imperative led many leaders to reject and ignore the multi-ethnic character of their societies, even treating ethnicity as an anachronism that would disappear with progress, modernisation and economic growth (Ferreira, 2005b: 47). Since ethnic diversity was viewed as inherently conflictual, the origins and stability of a national State depended on the denial of partial identities and on incentives to the creation of alternative forms of alliances, loyalties and consciences. The most common answer to diversity was the adoption of policies that aimed at the homogenisation and unity of heterogeneous populations through the limitation of expressions of differences between groups (Ferreira, 2005b: 48).

However, and despite some relative consensus among scholars and academics on the importance of ethnic and religious factors, there are divergences in what concerns a direct relation between such diversity and the emergence of violent conflict among groups within the same country. In order accurately to clarify these issues, it becomes important to review the main theories and concepts of ethnicity and how these are used and constructed in relation to conflict.²

1.1 Ethnicity: concepts, theories and perspectives

There are several theories and views on ethnicity and ethnic identities which tend to differ (although not always sharply) in the ways they envisage both concepts and processes of ethnicity and ethnic identity³ formation. These different theories and perspectives have been especially well developed in, and associated with, the academic fields of anthropology, sociology and also, although more recently, political science and international relations But despite some notable differences in approaches and definitions, there are also some similarities or at least some points in common between them. These perspectives are especially important for an accurate and more rigorous analysis of social processes and evolution in societies, which are divided across ethnic and/or religious lines and where violent conflict might emerge (Mousseau, 2001). In this debate, the concept of ethnic group is seen as the most comprehensive of all the others to which it is usually related – race, nation, minority since none of these solely seems to be adequate to encompass the enormous range of inter-group relations among cultural groups now so prominent within societies throughout the world (Yinger, 1994). In Christian Scherrer’s words, for example, ethnic communities can be defined as:

Historically generated or (in some cases) re-discovered communities of people that largely reproduce themselves. An ethnic or communal group has a distinct name, which often simply signifies ‘person’ or ‘people’ in the ethnic community’s language, a specific heterogeneous culture, including, particularly, a distinct language, and a collective memory or historical remembrance, including community myths. This is producing a degree of solidarity between members, generating a feeling of belonging.

(Scherrer, 1999: 57)

while ethnicity is presented as a term used to:

(…) describe a variety of forms of mobilization which ultimately relate to the autonomous existence of specifically ethnic forms of socialization. No clear-cut distinction can, however, be made between struggles by social classes and struggles by ethnic groups.

(Scherrer, 1999: 57)

In Max Weber’s view, ‘ethnic groups’ are those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonisation or migration; this belief is important for the propagation of group formation; conversely, it does not matter whether or not an objective blood relationship exists (Weber, 1998: 21). There is a very specific and often extremely powerful sense of ethnic identity, which is determined by several factors: shared political membership or persistent ties with the old cult, or the strengthening of kinship or other groups (Weber, 1998: 22). Ethnicity may thus be defined as an affiliation or identification with an ethnic group. On the one hand, ethnicity is subjective since it is the product of the human mind and human sentiments and a sense of belonging to a particular ethnic group. On the other hand, ethnicity is objective because it must be based on some objective characteristics and is constructed by social forces and power relations (Yang, 2000: 40). In such a complex debate, which raises so many questions and confronts us with many perspectives, it becomes crucial to understand why and how the study of race and ethnicity has changed in a range of disciplines and how these changes relate to new research agendas and social and political transformations in contemporary societies (Bulmer and Solomos, 1998: 3) and especially in the study of contemporary internal conflicts.

But perhaps one of the most important contributions to this analysis of ethnicity and violence was Fredrik Barth’s. In his Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (1969), Barth departs from the recognition of the importance of analysing the constitution of ethnic groups and the nature of the boundaries between them (Barth, 1969: 9). For him, there are two basic ideas related to ethnic boundaries: first, these boundaries persist despite a flow of personnel across them (i.e., ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation); secondly, stable and persisting social relations are maintained across such boundaries (Barth, 1969: 10). This means that interaction does not lead to acculturation or liquidation of ethnic identities; cultural differences can persist despite inter-ethnic contact and interdependence (Barth, 1969: 10). Still according to Barth, an ethnic group is generally understood in anthropological literature as a population, which is largely biologically self-perpetuating, sharing fundamental cultural values, making up a field of communication and interaction. But for him this is a limited definition because it prevents us from understanding the phenomenon of ethnic groups and their place in human society and culture. And we could also argue that such definition does not help to understand the actual relationship between ethnicity and conflict and violence in a given society. In this sense, ethnic categories provide some sort of ‘organisational vessel’ that may be given varying amounts and forms of content in different socio-cultural systems (Barth, 1969: 15). Ethnicity is then created and recreated as various groups and interests put forth competing visions of the ethnic composition of society and argue over which rewards or sanctions should be attached to which ethnicities (Nagel, 1998: 239). Ethnic grouping is seen as a mutable process in which individuals and small groups, because of specific economic or political circumstances may change their locality, their political allegiance and form, or their household membership (Barth, 1969: 24). The incentives to a change in identity are thus inherent in the change in circumstances. Different circumstances obviously favour different performances.⁴

In the same line of Barth’s theorisation, Joane Nagel refers to a model that emphasises the socially ‘constructed’ aspects of ethnicity, meaning the ways in which ethnic boundaries, identities and cultures are negotiated, defined and produced through social interaction inside and outside ethnic communities (Nagel, 1998: 237).

According to this view, the origin, content and form of ethnicity reflect the creative choices of individuals and groups as they define themselves and others in ethnic ways. Ethnicity is then constructed out of the material of language, religion, culture, appearance, ancestry or regionality (Nagel, 1998: 237). Nagel, however, leaves it clear that this does not mean denying the historical basis of ethnic conflict and mobilisation. In this context, informal ethnic meanings are important in shaping ethnic identities, but formal ethnic labels and policies are even more powerful sources of identity and social experience. These official ethnic categories and meanings are usually political. As the State has become the dominant institution in society, political policies regulating ethnicity increasingly shape ethnic boundaries and influence patterns of ethnic identification. These processes in which ethnic boundaries, identities and cultures are negotiated, defined or produced by political policies and institutions can occur in several ways: (a) immigration policies, (b) ethnically linked resource policies; and (c) by politics defined along ethnic lines (Nagel, 1998: 243). These two last ones are especially interesting and present in conflict-prone societies where ethnic and religious divisions are present, as in Sudan.⁵ As already mentioned in relation to Barth’s arguments, there is an important link between ethnic boundaries and resource niches. Where separate niches are exploited by separate ethnic groups, tranquillity prevails; but if different ethnic groups compete for resources instability and conflict may occur. In sum, this view emphasises the interplay between ethnic group actions and the larger social structures with which they interact. Just as ethnic identity results both from the choices of individuals and from the ascriptions of others, ethnic boundaries and meaning are also constructed through the intervention of both internal and external forces of different nature.⁶ Jenkins also tries to analyse and understand what anthropologists refer to when they talk about ethnicity (Jenkins, 1998: 87), looking at ethnicity as the ‘social organisation of cultural difference’. This means that culture is a changing variable and contingent property of interpersonal relations, rather than an entity ‘above’ the fray of daily life (Jenkins, 1998: 88). According to Jenkins, the ‘basic model’ of ethnicity can be summarised in the following aspects: ethnicity is about cultural differentiation; it is rooted in, and the outcome of, social interaction; ethnicity is no more fixed or unchanging than the culture of which it is a component; ethnicity is then a social identity, both collective and individual (Jenkins, 1998: 88). Therefore, what we can conclude is that the extent to which ethnicity can be freely constructed by individuals or groups is quite narrow when compulsory ethnic identities are imposed by others. Therefore, externally enforced ethnic boundaries can be powerful determinants of both the content and meaning of particular ethnicities (Nagel, 1998: 243). Whereas in general, political scientists argue that national identities can be based on several defining principles of collective belonging – ethnicity, religion, ideology and especially territory, Kakar argues that territory may not always be the defining principle, since in many contexts religion or ethnicity play an even more important role in this (Kakar, 1996: 39). Departing from the idea of an apparent rise and revival of religious and/or ethnic fundamentalist feelings, Kakar argues however, that if we look closely at individual cases around the world, we will find that this revival is less of religiosity than of cultural identities based on religious affiliation. Group identity is presented as an extended part of the individual self-experience, although its intensity tends to vary between individuals and with time (Kakar, 1996: ix). By ‘cultural identity’ the author means a group’s basic way of organising experience through its myths, memories, symbols, rituals and ideals. It is socially produced, subject to historical change and therefore not static (Kakar, 1996: 143). Therefore, where the resurgence tends to be most visible is in the organisation of collective identities around religion, in the formation and strengthening of communities of believers. These groups share not only religious beliefs, but also social, economic, and political interests that may conflict with the corresponding interests of another community sharing the same geographical space (Kakar, 1996: 186). He argues further that identity is not an achievement but a process constantly threatened with rupture by forces from within and from without (Kakar, 1996: 158).

1.2 Ethnicity, religion and violence: the theoretical debate around primordialism, instrumentalism and constructivism

What all these authors and scholars have in common in their analysis is a concern for more clarity in understanding how ethnicity and ethnic identity is formed, experienced and how it evolves. It is basically a concern not only for its content but also for its true meaning and the way this relates to individuals’ and groups’ inclusion or exclusion in a broader, political, economic and social system. In order to pursue these goals and understand the deeper impact of ethnicity and ethnic sense of belonging of individuals and groups, there seems to be some consensus in turning to the somehow perennial debate about the nature of ethnic identity which confronts and compares primordialist, instrumentalist and constructivist perspectives.

Drawing from Jenkins, the main questions here can be summarised as follows:

[…] is ethnicity a fundamental, primordial aspect of human existence and self-consciousness, essentially unchanging and unchangeable in the bonds it creates between the individual and the group?, or is it defined strategically, tactically manipulated, and capable of change at both the individual and collective levels?

(Jenkins, 1998: 89)

Primordialist theories answer these questions by arguing that ethnicity must be seen as a static identity, mainly inherited from one’s ancestors, where the boundaries demarcating who is a member of an ethnic group and who is not, are fixed and immutable. Primordialism also considers common ancestry as determining ethnicity (i.e., people belong to an ethnic group because members of that group all share common biological and cultural origins). As Geertz suggested, it is those primordial bonds (lineage and cultural ties) that give rise to and sustain ethnicity (Geertz, 1973 apud Yang, 2000: 42). The primordialist view thus considers ethnicity to be a fundamental component of human nature and its self-consciousness as something constant and unchangeable. Ac...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of acronyms and abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Understanding conflict beyond ethnicity and religion: A review of the main approaches
• 2 Responding to conflict and building peace in theory and practice: A critical analysis of the liberal peace agenda
• 3 Addressing socio-economic inequalities as a basis for peace: An alternative approach to conflict?
• 4 Historical trajectories of the North-South conflict in Sudan (1956–2005)
• 5 From Addis Ababa to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement: A recipe for peace or a way back to conflict?
• 6 Rendering invisibilities visible in Sudan?: A critical analysis of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
• 7 A fragile peace and the various ‘Souths’ within South Sudan: Addressing inequalities as a crucial step for peace?
• Conclusions
• Index