INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND CONFLICT

CRITICAL EXTERMINATION OF THE ROLE OF GOVERNACE IN

UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT IN AFRICA

BY
SULAIMAN SAIED TAFIDA

Introduction
More often conflicts are linked by scholars and writers to economic underdevelopment,
resource scarcity, widespread poverty and limited access to participation in processes of political
decision making. While it is true that poverty generates tensions as people scramble for limited
resources, such tensions cannot deteriorate into war, if good governance institutions and
mechanisms exist, that afford all citizens a conducive and enabling environment to earn a decent
livelihood (Otorofan 2010). Similarly, whereas tensions are bound to arise in any society in the
course of interaction between various competing social identities and beliefs, such tensions
cannot degenerate into serious conflict, unless the country's existing governance institutions,
policies and ideologies are not adequately responsive to the diverse social identities and instead,
tend to encourage social fragmentation rather than social cohesion. In such a situation,
democratic culture of tolerance of social differences and beliefs is also likely to be lacking. This
kind of social context then becomes a fertile ground that can easily be exploited and ignited by
the existing political leadership into a civil war, which only serves the hegemonic elite interests,
rather than the interests of the country as a whole. (Nzomo 2002)
Hence it became apparent that where good governance is established conflict seems to
vanish into the surrounding air. This is confirmed by Chinua Achebe in one of his credits to
Murtala Administration in Nigeria. For Achebe (1983:1), “When Murtala took power in 1975…
Even the known „go slow‟ of Lagos vanished overnight”. Thus, for better understanding of this
study, this paper will divided into four subsequent parts the first part will look at what is
governance and governance in Africa. The second part will consider the concept of conflict and
the nature of conflict in Africa. And the third part will summarize and asses the relationships of
African governance and conflict and the last part will conclude the paper.
What is governance and the nature of governance in Africa
Oxford Dictionary defines governance as the way a country is been governed. That is the
process of leadership in the country. It is the official taking charge of affairs of a country, region
or a place and to have responsibility of making laws, managing the economy and other resources
and controlling the public service. In other words it is the form of leadership of a certain place. It
is very difficult to determine yardstick of measuring good governance from bad, more often,
because of social and cultural differences. For some countries, good governance is monarchy
while for others, it is democracy. However, one common denominator they all shear is that, the
form of government should be able to cater for its citizen, provide security and protection;
provide social amenities and good welfare; they also maintain law and order and promote
economic activities among others. Governance has been generally described as the process of
social influence in which the government can enlist the aid and support of others in the
accomplishment of a common task.
In Africa the most common form of governance that came after colonialism is democracy
and military dictatorships. However the governance did not yield to the expected credit but rather
ruined by internal crisis. Instead of governance where the interest of the populace is protected,
the reverse manifested with the interest of the few ruling elites at the top of the agenda. The
continent has a different kind of enemy altogether whose color is black---the enemy at home!
She drove away the colonialists from her shores only to discover that she has only replaced them
with home grown colonialists of her own color. The leaders looting the resources of their
countries and stashing them abroad back to the colonialists are not whites but Africans. The
leaders who refused to develop their nations are not whites but Africans. The leaders who allow
diseases and malnutrition to decimate their population while they live in obscene opulence are
not whites but Africans. The leaders who oppress their peoples and impose a reign of terror are
not whites but Africans. All those tin gods who have reduced African states to fiefdoms and
mere satellites of Western nations that once colonized the continent and plundered her resources,
are not whites but Africans.
The Africans leaders embedded in the fabrics of our respective tribal societies and
therefore able to play the tribal cards to hide their atrocities and hold on to power by playing one
tribe against another. Secondly, the citizens themselves had never experienced good governance
during colonialism and are therefore slow to confront the antics of bad leaders who replaced the
colonial masters. They were already used to abuses and deprivations under colonial rule and saw
no difference their former and later masters. Thirdly, Africans were used to monarchical systems
of governance that demand absolute loyalties to the kings, which is a huge drag and a damper on
political action (Okunno 2010). And fourthly, neocolonialists have been very active on the
African continent after independence wreaking havoc on the political leadership of the continent
by sponsoring military coups and assassination of progressive leaders. The assassinations of
Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, and Murtala Muhammed, for instance, have been linked to
external forces seeking to promote their ideologies in the continent. These are the forces that
have conspired to undermine good governance on the continent.
Nigeria exemplifies a rendezvous or convergence of these negative forces in their starkest
manifestations on the continent. This is a country that has managed to turn her blessings into
curses; oil wealth into poverty; her population into destitution; her roads into death traps; her
buildings into time bombs; her youths into kidnappers, armed robbers and prostitutes; her
students into cultists and bandits; her university lecturers into extortionists and handouts
salesmen; her bankers into spare parts and stockfish importers and round trippers; her generals
and lawmakers into emergency contractors; her degrees and certificates into cash and carry
business; her justice into commodity; her policemen into highway robbers; and her leaders into
pen robbers. The list goes on and on ad infinitum.

Conflict in Africa
Although it is generally held that conflict is a normal part of organization life, providing
numerous opportunities for growth through improved understanding and insight, there is a
tendency to view conflict as a negative experience caused by abnormally difficult circumstances.
Disputants tend to perceive limited options and finite resources available in seeking solutions,
rather than multiple possibilities that may exist 'outside the box' in which we are problem-
solving. A conflict is more than a mere disagreement - it is a situation in which people perceive a
threat - physical, emotional, power, status, etc.- to their well-being (Ting-Toomey 1994). It is
defined by Encarta Dictionary as a disagreement or clash between ideas, principles, or people.
Conflict is common in our day today activities. The only problem is when such conflicts turn
violence, which are the most disturbing challenges in Africa.
 Africa for decades has been a battle ground, from the war of independence to domination,
from Algerian libration war to Darfur domination wars, from ethnic crisis to religious conflict.
Africa conflict does not stop at the use o arms but also hunger and underdevelopment. On
August 14th 1988, ethnic violence erupted in northern Burundi, resulting in the deaths of at least
5,000 people and the flight of some 60,000 refugees into neighboring Rwanda. The grisly stories
of maiming and mutilation thrust Burundi back into the spotlight as a leading example of the
extremes to which ethnic hatred may lead. In 1972 more than 100,000 members of the Hutu
group had been killed by minority Tutsi, who constitute about 15 percent of the population. The
Tutsi, through such violence, retained their control over the government, the army, and the
institutions of higher education. The tragic bloodletting of 1988 flowed from historical vendettas,
exacerbated by continuing resentment over their subordinate status by the Hutu, who account for
most of the remaining 85 percent of Burundi's population. (Anadi 2005) This is just one of the
examples of conflict and displacements in Africa. Such conflicts are replicated in Darfur, Somali,
to mention but few.

Summary and Assessment

In my view therefore, most of the civil wars and violent conflicts that have occurred in
Africa during the second half of the 20th and now the 21st Century, have their roots in
undemocratic structures and processes of governance, unequal power and resources allocation,
which are politicized and expressed in socio-cultural terms. (Nzomo 2002) In this connection,
political leaders whip up and politicize citizen's ethnic, religious and racial diversities and use
them as a means to justify and to get mass endorsement and participation in self serving wars.
They do this not only because of their love of power, but because of their love for personal
wealth which often degenerate into greed, exemplified in the licensing of economically
motivated violence in such countries as Liberia and Sierra Leone Such conflicts therefore, are an
indication that the governance framework lacks democratic structures and mechanisms for
equitable participation, allocation and distribution of power, and resources and for the
development of multiculturalism, tolerance and accommodation of diverse socio-cultural
ideological and religious beliefs. Once armed violence is allowed to become a means of
addressing such internal problems, the result is not only the destruction of the economic and
social infrastructure but also the prevailing institutions of governance. So post-conflict
reconstruction and attainment of sustainable peace entail the rebuilding of the social, economic,
and political infrastructure and strengthening governance institutions to make them conducive to
and supportive of economic and social development on a just and equitable basis, regardless of
gender, ethnic, religious, cultural, racial and other social identities within society.
Most African countries that have experienced violent/armed conflicts are characterized
by wide gaps in power, and resource distribution, both vertically among different classes, and
horizontally among people belonging to different religions, ethnicities, clans, races, and regions.
A close look at the historical and structural contexts of some of the major theatres of African
civil wars and conflicts, e.g. in Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Liberia, Rwanda, Republic of
Congo etc, all indicate that undemocratic governance was a major causal factor. (Nzomo 2002)
Analyzing the Somali case, Nzomo (2002) argues that mis-governance has been the root cause of
the war situation that has prevailed in Somalia since 1991. During the brutal and authoritarian
regime of Mohamed Siyad Barre that continued for 21years, the fabric of the society was slowly
and meticulously dismantled. By the mid 1970s, Somalia had one of Africa's largest standing
armies, and had spent from 40 to 50 per cent of its GDP in defense and security. Siyad Barre's
manipulation of clans had created an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility that gradually
weakened both the traditional and the national institutions. So when the government collapsed in
January 1991, the institutions were not solid enough to prevent the whole country from
disintegrating. In this regard, the study notes that Somalia existed as a state only from 1960-
1991, when the last military regime was ousted and the country disintegrated into fiefdoms,
controlled by rival factions led by predatory warlords. The prevailing situation henceforth has
been a
"Hobbesian nightmare, where there is neither rule of law nor institutions to
regulate relations and protect the most vulnerable from the most vicious.
Regrettably, after spending more than $4bn, UN left the country in a situation no
better than that which had prompted its intervention. Somalia is run by militias,
merchants and mullahs, pursuing their private interests rather than the public
good. The Djibouti government is now saying that the time of the warlords and
the militia bosses is over. They want to encourage the Somalia `civil society' to
take political power. This civil society, however, is fragmented, lacks a solid
 social base and has very limited political resources. In many instances, civil
society in Somalia is a one man or one woman show," ((Nzomo 2002: 6).
Similarly, in the case of Sierra Leone's war, it has been noted that the root cause of Sierra
Leone's war was "Siaka Stevens personalized dictatorship which exploited malleable political
Institutions for power and wealth using corruption and violence, entrenching patrimonialism and
disabling agencies of restraint and institutions for conflict management" (Nzomo 2002:8). The
Sudanese conflict has also been traced to undemocratic governance: Both during and after
colonial rule, Southerners have been underrepresented in terms of parliamentary membership and
occupation of strategic government positions. Northerners were given more education
opportunity and were made to occupy the lower government ranks during the colonial period.
Though the northerners needed the alliance with the southern Sudanese in the struggle against
British colonialism, when independence was achieved the alliance became outdated and the
representation of Southerners in constitutional institutions became merely a decoration.
Moreover, the government in Khartoum made it clear that it would suppress any attempt by
Southerners that would threaten the country's unity (Nzomo 2002).
Thu, with this few analysis, it stands clear that conflict and good governance is directly
related.

Conclusion
The conflict in Africa and good governance are essential key of attention to every
concern citizen regardless of his country. The people have done their part to elect their leaders
who would represent them and their interest but their leaders seem to have other plans that are
completely at variance with their electoral mandates—the single minded pursuits of personal
interests at the expense of their peoples. In other words, they‟re representing themselves not the
people who labored in the sun and rain to put them in power. It is the ultimate betrayal of trust
known to mankind that we‟re witnesses to. This is evident in the current going crisis in Cote-d-
voire.
It is important that the African leaders to redress their selfish interest in order to
save more lives in the country and also to avoid spinning her blessings into curses; her generals
and lawmakers into emergency contractors; her population into impoverishment and her youths
into kidnappers, armed robbers and prostitutes.