Towards Complementarity in African Conflict Management Mechanisms

The history of conflict is as old as human history. From the dawn of human history, communities have been competing for control of resources and for dominance. These competitions inevitably led individuals as well as social, political, economic and religious groups to conflicts. It is true that conflict has devastating effects and it is unwanted. It is also true that conflict is unavoidable and it continues to occur. Since the causes of conflict are different, it would be better to use different mechanisms for the prevention and resolution of conflicts. By avoiding conflict, we avoid not only one of the hindrances of economic development but also foreign powers’ intervention, which may exacerbate the domestic conflicts. Therefore, more than anybody else governments, whose main duty is maintenance of peace and security, are responsible for providing their respective peoples with alternative conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms, popular and widely used among these are the African Traditional mechanisms. Contemporary Africa is faced with the reality of numerous evolving states that have to grapple with the inevitability of conflict. On their own, the fledgling institutions in these states cannot cope with the huge demands unleashed by everyday conflict. It is within this context that the complementarity between African traditional institutions for conflict management and the modern state structures becomes not only observable but also imperative. The continuing role and influence of traditional leadership in modern African is hard to miss. Nonetheless, the relationship between the state and traditional institutions should not be taken for granted for it is a contested terrain fraught with complexities. While traditional institutions are rooted in the culture and history of African societies, the modern state exerts a large amount of influence on these institutions. In some cases the traditional institutions are politicized and have become instruments of propagating state ideology. In other cases, especially where they express dissent with the state, these traditional institutions have often been undermined or usurped by the state. However, the uniqueness of traditional institutions, by virtue of their endogeneity and use of local actors, cumulatively enables them to either resist or even sometimes subvert the state. These traditional institutions, also known as endogenous conflict resolution systems continue to demonstrate their relevance in post-conflict states. This is especially true in the context of weak states that are overwhelmed with ongoing state-building processes. There is no clear-cut formula regarding the interactions between the state and traditional institutions. A relationship definitely exists between the two and understanding this could be central in the promotion of sustainable peace in post-conflict Africa. It is against this background that this paper seeks to achieve the following objectives: i. To underscore the ultimate goal of the African Traditional conflict Management Mechanisms; ii. To highlight both the justification and implication of complementarity relationship between the African traditional conflict management mechanisms and the formal/modern state mechanisms on the restorative justice and reconciliation features of the African system. iii. To illustrate with selected case studies across Africa; and iv. To conclude with some recommendations.