1

1

Applying Endogenous Knowledge in the African Context: Towards the Integrated

Competence of Dispute Resolution Practitioners

Andreas Velthuizen

Andreas ‘Dries’ Velthuizen is a senior researcher at the Institute for Dispute Resolution in Africa,

University of South Africa, South Africa.

Abstract

The question this article asks is how to improve the dispute resolution competence of practitioners

in Africa. The answer offered involves enhancing the endogenous knowledge of a dispute and how

to resolve it. This requires not only an understanding of what endogenous knowledge is, but also an

alignment of personal values, innovative strategies and an attitude of activism. An integral part of

an extensive skills set to implement specific dispute resolution strategies is the ability to facilitate

the free sharing of information about all aspects of a conflict; mediating by involving all members

of society, especially at community level; functioning in an integrated courts system; and fostering

trust among former belligerents. It is recommended that these aspects are included in dispute

resolution curricula to enhance the integrated competence of dispute resolution practitioners in

Africa.

Introduction

Conflict and disputes are as old as humankind. Although the intensity of a conflict and the nature of

disputes differ, the skills required from a person to take the lead in resolving a dispute remains the

same. Practitioners in Africa enjoy the opportunity to learn from the experiences of older

generations, and can positively inquire about what dispute resolution practices are really valid in the

cultural context in which the live.

So what are we going to teach our practitioners about dispute resolution? Such practitioners are in

dire need of revisiting models and practices that obviously do not offer lasting resolutions to

2

2

disputes. Some facilitators of learning (lecturers, tutors, managers, teachers, etc.) still cling

dogmatically to dominant models of ‘alternative dispute resolution’ that mostly imply a Western

cultural context. Practitioners in Africa need to learn an innovative way to resolve disputes in their

own cultural contexts – in our case the diversity of cultural contexts in Africa.

The purpose of this article is therefore to propose a framework for curriculum development for

dispute resolution in Africa founded on endogenous knowledge in the African context. The specific

question that will be answered is: how do we improve the dispute resolution competence of our

dispute resolution practitioners?

The context of the discussion will be African society, specifically the role that community leaders,

traditional courts and the formal court system can play in a new and better way of teaching dispute

resolution in Africa. The argument will be deployed by an initial explanation of the research

approach and methodology, followed by the theoretical assumptions on endogenous knowledge and

endogenous dispute resolution in Africa. An explanation of the case of Rwanda since 1994 and a

discussion on developing endogenous and integrated dispute resolution competence lead to some

findings and recommendations on what dispute resolution practitioners in Africa should learn.

The Approach and Research Methodology

The ecological approach was followed, meaning a trans-disciplinary approach that asserts that

cultural change can occur internally to the culture and independently of social, structural,

technological and material change from outside of it. The ecological approach avoids a global ‘us

versus them’ dichotomy that creates endless dualism. The ecological approach is also trans-

disciplinary in the sense that it is at once between disciplines, across different disciplines and

beyond all disciplines.1 The ecological approach emphasises the role of internal competition as

endogenous catalysts for cultural stasis and change. In the ecological approach, change involves the

transformation of ideological and religious thinking into endogenous thinking as a new way of

critically reflection. The ecological approach is also ‘post hermeneutic’ in the sense that it is not

devoted only to cultural interpretation but also to a subject’s manipulation of culture in the quest for

3

3

meaning. What makes the ecological approach suitable for this study is that it involves endogenous

explanation that focuses on causal processes that focus within a ‘cultural stream’. The cultural

processes within this stream include perceptions, emotions, meaning making, network building and

semiotic manipulation in search for endogenous properties that can lead to innovation.2

The knowledge articulated in this article is founded on the results of the following research:

● Content analysis. Literature that has specific reference to endogenous conflict and dispute

resolution in Africa, primary sources on Rwanda after the 1994 genocide, the Gacaca court system

and the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda (ICTR) were analysed.

● Interviews with key informers and focus groups. Qualitative semi-structured in-depth

interviews with selected specialists, professionals and members of the communities and

organisations focusing on dispute resolutions were conducted (there were 12 of these with officials

in Kigali and Arusha as well as participation in four other focus groups). The content of the

symposium on Conflict, memory and reconciliation: Bridging past, present and future that was

presented in Kigali from 10–13 January 2012 (attended by the author) forms an important part of

the knowledge foundation of this article. During these events, interpretative interaction took place

with key knowledge holders involved in alternative dispute resolution, the court systems of Rwanda

and the ICTR in Arusha, Tanzania. In interacting with the practitioners of traditional knowledge,

specific principles and practices that would be valuable for practical solutions elsewhere were

identified.

The epistemological and methodological basis for the research was to access the different sources

of knowledge from different cultures, recognising the autonomy of diverse worldviews and

philosophies of life. This methodology is sensitive to the different knowledge foundations of

different cultures. It reflects an awareness that the wisdom embedded in the cultures involved is not

necessarily ‘scientific knowledge’ as seen from a Western worldview. However, an empirical

foundation of all knowledge is assumed. It is furthermore assumed that ‘truth’ depicted by one

episteme cannot be claim to be universal or holistic. Some ‘truths’ tend to be ethnocentric or biased

in favour of a particular culture or civilisation which attempts to establish domination of over other

modes of knowledge by declaring it to be ‘unscientific’.

4

4

Endogenous Knowledge: Theoretical

Assumptions

In the context of this article, endogenous knowledge means knowledge that is internally developed

from the knowledge inherent to the social fabric of developing societies and through creative fusion

of the knowledge acquired from developed societies. Endogenous knowledge is an integration of

several concepts: indigenous knowledge, exogenous knowledge, cultural meaning making, learning

tools and technical tools.

The term endogenous has supplanted the word indigenous. ‘Indigenous’ refers to that which is born

or produced naturally in a land or region. ‘Endogenous’ refers to that which is engendered,

produced, grown or found within. It implies that local knowledge may be affected by contact with

surrounding or other influences. Many African theoreticians and academicians now prefer the term

‘endogenous’ because it allows for the diffusion of knowledge across cultures, with no assumption

of knowledge as static.3

With this in mind, it is asserted that endogenous knowledge is produced or created by a specific

social system, and is visible in terms of processes, tools, impact on the lives of people, centres and

networks of knowledge sharing, and the way people connect with each other and with the rest of the

universe. Although endogenous knowledge is home-grown, it may be affected by contact with

surrounding or other influences. Some exogenous or global influences may have a positive impact

on society but some may be harmful. Indigenous knowledge in relation to endogenous knowledge

can be explained in terms of mechanisms of citizen-led innovation and organised networks of

knowledge users. There are both established and emerging networks within ‘peasant and citizen

movements’ that are capable of generating new and inclusive learning. Learning is derived from

‘living campuses’ from where people obtain their livelihoods. The knowledge and innovations

5

5

produced by these sociocultural networks are usually shared among citizens through regular

exchanges across regions.4

These statements show that indigenous knowledge brings a wealth of knowledge as a uniquely

African contribution to any body of knowledge. This knowledge foundation developed naturally

and spontaneously in the demographical circumstances of a particular culture. The contribution of

indigenous knowledge to meaning making in the cultural context and visible endogenous

knowledge is treated as equally important with any other knowledge inputs from a broader global

society. An example of this is the way the Gacaca courts, the formal court systems of Rwanda and

the ICTR in Arusha, interact to make sense of what happened during the 1994 genocide.

Houtondji recognises the fusion of endogenous and exogenous knowledge by reminding us that

things happen both in Africa and not exclusively outside Africa. All the knowledge accumulated

throughout centuries on different aspects of its life is shared with the people of Africa. Sharing

should take place with adequate measures to facilitate appropriation by Africa of the knowledge

available elsewhere. Such appropriation should coincide with a critical re-appropriation of Africa’s

own endogenous knowledge and an own process of accumulating and producing knowledge, and

capitalising on it.5

This assertion shows that exogenous knowledge originates outside the epistemology of Africa,

influencing cultural meaning making. Sometimes it is referred to as ‘external knowledge’ or ‘global

knowledge’ and erroneously as ‘Western knowledge’ (Western knowledge is not the only

prominent influence on African culture – the Islamic culture especially comes to mind). The

enormous value of such knowledge is recognised and embedded in the minds of African society,

both with individuals and collectively.

An example is Rwanda (although many similar examples may be found elsewhere) where colonial

influences from France, current business involvement from Anglophone countries and the

involvement of the ICTR bring with it a significant body of ‘global knowledge’ that may have an

important influence on how Rwandan citizens view the genocide of 1994. In treating the view of an

6

6

‘indigenous’ Rwandan as equal to the view of many Western researchers who have swamped the

country since 1994, a new meaning about events of the past is emerging. This attitude is very

different from the situation in 1994 when global actors ignored the danger signs of genocide in

progress, simply because the role of the country and its people was deemed inferior to other more

important major power interests.

Velthuizen warns about the emphasis on scientific meaning making and asserts that a focus on

empirical knowledge without values can lead to scientism, which involves scientific explanations

that manipulate and dominate thinking. Scientism creates false perspectives that knowledge in

Africa and other indigenous communities is of inferior value and therefore provides no solution for

the good of humanity. These perspectives obscure interconnectedness with the cultural context.6

This warning serves to remind us that exogenous knowledge should be treated equally with the

indigenous knowledge of the culture it influences. A specific culture or ‘indigenous people’ is not

just a subject of study, or inferior and to be disconnected from if deemed to be unprofitable in terms

of investment and involvement. In the context of dispute resolution in Africa, it may mean the

involvement of mediators or negotiators, not in self-interest but in the interest of broader society.

Cultural meaning making recognises the significance of values in society such as freedom, justice

and human rights. These values are accompanied by knowledge claims from a specific worldview

that is formed through sense perception and observation of the environment over time. The norms

and values of a specific culture may sometimes be based on philosophy, understanding of the God

concept, esoteric beliefs, mysticism, the tacit, or emotions that influence decisions and actions. The

knowledge claims of a specific community consist of ‘substitutes’ for intellectual effort, and play a

role in the interpretation of events by society. Understanding the worldviews of specific cultures

and awareness that they might differ or change is essential for endogenous meaning making.7

At the foundation of endogenous knowledge lies holistic understanding, meaning that not only

formal analytical knowledge claims must be accepted as a valid worldview. A synthesis of

knowledge from the analytical/symbiotic, normative and empirical knowledge domains must merge

7

7

by using trans-disciplinary interrogation at different levels and dimensions of reality or knowledge

claims. Furthermore, endogenous knowledge is the result of personal experience and discourse

during which humans relate to differing perspectives and their interpretation of experience. The

essence of endogenous knowledge is awareness and understanding, especially the understanding of

phenomena in a holistic perspective, transcending dominant discourses.8

From these assertions, it is evident that meaning making in a cultural context informs endogenous

knowledge, recognising interconnectedness among all people. Knowledge contributions are the

result of socials convergence over time, whether indigenous or from other cultures. All

contributions may be valid in the specific cultural context where meaning making takes place.

Trans-disciplinary interrogation and gathering of such knowledge inputs is informed by empirical

observations over a long time, including cognisance of historical circumstances. Furthermore,

cultural norms and values determine largely the meaning asserted to events and phenomena.

Moreover, it has to be recognised that different levels and dimensions of reality are at play in any

cultural context. For example, in many African contexts society’s desire for self-emancipation,

restorative justice, human rights, transformation and peace are important variables that assert

specific meaning on how the people of Africa view disputes.

Endogenous knowledge creation by and for the people means taking responsibility for one’s own

learning process, having unrestricted access to learning tools and addressing issues that relate to

people’s needs.9 Therefore, endogenous knowledge in action comes in the form of technical tools or

solutions such as policies, strategies and work procedures to add value to the products or services of

a community. In the context of this article, it specifically refers to the use of endogenous knowledge

for dispute resolution strategies and methods in an African context.

Endogenous knowledge in action also includes the very important aspect of learning in the form of

curricula, learning content, methodology and tools of delivery that are the most suitable for the

specific subject or circumstances – in this case dispute resolution in Africa. Theoretical

assumptions show that when we develop a framework for a dispute resolution curriculum

specifically for Africa, we need to consider the practical implication of the fusion or integration of

8

8

indigenous knowledge, exogenous knowledge, cultural meaning making, learning tools and

technical tools in the quest for competence.

Endogenous Conflict and Dispute Resolution

in Africa

Before a curriculum for dispute resolution can be designed and developed, it is important to take

cognisance of the realities of mediation and dispute resolution in Africa from a practitioner’s

perspective.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) encompasses several mediation mechanisms for resolving

conflicts that are linked to but function outside formal court litigation processes.10

Mediation is

done by an independent facilitator or mediator who has developed counselling and resolution skills

through training and life experience. An initial mediation training curriculum of 40 to 60 hours

includes, among others, practical exercises on the structure and analysis of conflicts, theory,

mediation ethics and strategies; communication dynamics; active listening techniques; cross-

cultural competency; consensus building; and bringing the parties to closure. Facilitators guide the

mediation process towards trust, confidence and productive communication among parties.

Mediators and advocates who can continually advance best practices in dispute resolution include

legal professionals, local and religious leaders, traditional authorities, election officials, police and

security personnel, human rights organisations, public complaints bureaus or offices of ombudsmen

and women, as well as youth leaders. Capacity building is aimed at conflict mitigation and

prevention to reduce the number of cases that burden court dockets. With community participation,

ADR could also play a vital healing and trust-building role in transitional justice contexts.11

Africa’s diverse and active civil society allows for innovative insights and formulations of conflict

mediation. African civil society and the international system provide many opportunities for the AU

to establish and strengthen mediation mechanisms that will sustain peace. There is an urgent need

9

9

for a review of how mediation is performed, documenting lessons, accumulation of knowledge and

a central repository about Africa’s mediation capacity. Mediation techniques should be shared

across generations. The importance of mentors for leadership is highlighted.12

Currently Africa is experiencing an important change of perspectives, which are now understood in

their social context. At community level, conflicts are addressed in the environment where they are

emerging or have emerged. A home-grown version of people-centredness is advocated and gains

support. Furthermore, Africa's conflict resolution wisdom calls us to realistic, responsible, practical

action as an integral and dynamic part of relations and socioeconomic development.13

These conclusions indicate that the groundwork has already been done towards an efficient dispute

mediation and resolution system in Africa. What is probably needed is an endogenous approach to

capacity building, using knowledge that is available in Africa that has grown from a fusion of

knowledge influences through the ages. The search is therefore on for principles and practices of

endogenous dispute resolution in Africa as a knowledge foundation for curriculum development.

Civil society in Africa, especially at community level, can contribute significantly to a new body of

knowledge.

In this regard, traditional conflict management practices in Africa, practised within African

societies for an extended period and which are not the product of external importation, continue to

exist today. However, traditional does not mean unaltered or archaic. Practices from history can be

readjusted and refurbished to fit into a modern context. We have to determine what is new, different

from that which is universal and conceptualised. Concepts need to be interpreted to determine how

conflicts are managed, what the contextual societal conditions are in which mechanisms and

practices operate, and what kinds of conflict can be handled. The final step is to determine the

relevance appropriateness of traditional African conflict management practices to modern

conflicts.14

The philosophy of ubuntu (humaneness), for instance, is now used on a daily basis to settle disputes

and conflicts at different levels on the continent and is therefore central to the idea of reconciliation.

10

10

The customary process of dispute resolution may be fully understood only within the context of

ubuntu, or botho, or any of its other names used in different African languages.15

Ubuntu is the

African rationale for humaneness and is central to the African ethical system. The humanistic

morality of ubuntu is encompassed in compassion, sharing, reciprocity, upholding the dignity of

personhood, individual responsibility to others, and interdependence by recognising a common and

shared humanity. Ubuntu should be envisaged as an ethical ideal, the moral foundation for

embedding individual and societal values, the premises for developing an African jurisprudence and

the grounding for a holistic system of dispute resolution that responds to the needs of African

societies.16

The customary process of African dispute resolution functions holistically, grounded in African

tradition, culture and humanistic morality. In the African custom, a dispute is not an isolated event

confined to settling individual interests. Every member of the community is interconnected with its

other members, including the disputants, irrespective of whether the one or the other is the victim or

wrongdoer. Wrongdoing therefore affects the whole community, and the responsibility rests with

the community to find a solution.17

Reconciliation under the African philosophy of ubuntu made

many of Africa's conflicts manageable, offering different approaches of overcoming and

transforming conflicts in any situation. Reconciliation begins with involving a few people, includes

a wider community and can be invoked to deal with conflicts in other countries, including

international ones.18

Customary process is non-dualistic because the dispute is owned by the whole community. The

community seeks restoration of relationships that takes priority over the personal interests of the

disputants, in contrast with the Western model of mediation that seeks a consensual outcome. The

restorative principle will prevent the detachment of disputants from their communal obligations and

exonerating members of the community from taking responsibility for the remedy. Restoration

requires an informal process of praxis that should be explored as a means of social transformation,

sustainable development and governance. Within a holistic system of dispute resolution, disputes

are not divorced from the socioeconomic conditions and culture of disputants and related

communities.19

11

11

If the above assertions are evaluated, they reveal an ‘endogenised’ way of dispute resolution that is

maybe not unique to African circumstances. However, they present an informal process during

which theoretical humanistic principles are applied in practice in a non-dualistic way. Furthermore,

it is evident that the practical implementation of non-dualistic, humanistic principles involves

collective dispute resolution by whole communities with the ultimate aim of managing, reconciling

and restoring relationships. Although this endogenous way of dispute resolution is influenced by

global humanistic principles, it is founded on an African way of doing things through the ages and

meaning making in a specific cultural context and socioeconomic circumstances. Moreover, it

offers solutions for the development of a new curriculum in dispute resolution as a building block

towards social transformation and lasting peace.

The Case of the Rwanda Genocide

In 1994 Rwanda experienced a genocide that left an estimated 800 000 Rwandans dead and many

others displaced or wounded. Since then, the country has made significant progress in establishing

relative reconciliation and structures that promote an energetic, peaceful and sustainable post-

genocide society.20

The Organic Law no. 16/2004 of 19/06/2004 aimed to facilitate the prosecution of crimes related to

the genocide that took place between October 1990 and December 1994. However, the law did not

lead to a timely trial of genocide suspects, therefore the Rwandan government considered other

means of addressing the problems associated with the trials of genocide suspects. A judicial system

that ensures participation of the community in the process of investigation would be required.

Subsequently, three judicial institutions were constituted to handle criminal cases that are classified

in different categories: The Gacaca Traditional Court System, the ICTR and the national penal

courts of Rwanda.

12

12

The Gacaca Traditional Court System is a legal system inspired by tradition. Gacaca is the revival

of a traditional court system of ‘wise men’ that continues to be both the symbol and achievement of

justice at village level. As a custom, the Gacaca settled village or family disputes by means of

village assemblies presided over by elders, where everyone could ask to speak.21

The 'mission’ of

the Gacaca system is to achieve ‘truth, justice, reconciliation’. It aims to promote community

healing by making the punishment of perpetrators of crimes faster and less expensive to the state.

The system aims to achieve the following objectives:22

The reconstruction of what happened during the genocide

The speeding up of the legal proceedings by using as many courts as possible

The reconciliation of all Rwandans and building their unity

The ICTR was set up by the UN Security Council to play an important role in combating impunity

by perpetrators of gross abuses of human rights and serious violations of international law.

Perpetrators include Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations

committed in the territory of neighbouring states between 1 January and 31 December 1994. Acting

under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the ICTR is governed by the Statute of the International

Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons responsible for Genocide and other Serious

Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda. Through UN

Security Council Resolution 977 of 22 February 1995, the Security Council decided that the seat of

the ICTR would be located in Arusha in the United Republic of Tanzania.

During fieldwork in Rwanda, it was found that the Gacaca court system provided a valuable

example of endogenous knowledge being used for conflict resolution. The traditional custom of

Gacaca lends itself to the gathering of information from the memory and narrative of the victim, the

perpetrator, and other participants. The traditional customs of Gacaca are reconciled with the

modern practices represented by the ICTR in Arusha and the national penal courts of Rwanda. The

social networks and intellectual capital embedded in the national penal courts of Rwanda, together

with a system based on traditional Gacaca practices, provides a sufficient body of knowledge for

dispute prevention and resolution. However, the challenge is in finding common ground not only

between Gacaca and the ICTR, but also with actors in the global community in an equal and

13

13

complementary fashion without allowing dominant views brought by local and international

political agendas to provide the only ‘truth’ in the matter.23

Some scholars argue that the Gacaca process was flawed in its execution and that the implications

of these flaws may have a profound impact on future violence in Rwanda because of authoritarian

control of what is said in Gacaca and the impression that it is part of ‘victor’s justice’. However, it

is conceded that the structure of Gacaca is still a useful way of fostering interpersonal trust and

collaboration among citizens, and a unique contribution of Gacaca as a hybrid process of justice.

Gacaca is not purely retrospective and retributive, but is also the foundation for a future political

culture without historic power relations. 24

Today the fact that Eurocentric and other Western models are inadequate in effectively addressing

the healing requirements of African societies is widely recognised. An endogenous approach to

post-conflict reconciliation is required. For instance, in post-genocide Rwanda, endogenous Gacaca

courts were revived to promote peace, justice and reconciliation. Critics of endogenous approaches

assert that these methods are neither completely adequate nor practicable in advancing healing and

post-conflict reconstruction, while advocates of the concept argue that such endogenous methods as

Gacaca courts represent a model of alternative or restorative justice that promotes healing and

reconciliation.25

These arguments demonstrate successful adaptation of modern dispute resolution principles, the

integration of good practices and a fusion of knowledge that provides a framework for curriculum

development. However, it sensitises us to the fact that adoption of modern principles and practices

may not be sufficient for sustainable peace, and that we need to find new and innovative solutions

that will work in the African context.

An evaluation of the interview material reveals that the Rwanda case highlights meaning making in

a specific cultural context. In this case, meaning making at village level contributes to a body of

knowledge that we dare to call ‘endogenous knowledge’. This body of knowledge recognises the

interconnectedness among people, events, and social convergence and divergence that are valid in

14

14

the specific cultural context where meaning making takes place. Interrogation and gathering of

knowledge inputs is informed by historical circumstances, cultural norms and values persistent to

the Rwandese situation (especially strong racist and class prejudices). Meaning making in the

realities of the Rwanda cultural context highlights the desire for restorative justice, transformation

and peace to prevent future disputes and violent conflict.

The case of Rwanda highlights the importance of a legal framework and infrastructure for dispute

resolution. However, it is important to note that the limitations of a national court system were

successfully strengthened by traditional practices as well as an international legal arrangement. The

main challenge remains the superior status of the international court over that of national and

traditional courts.

On a practical level, the Rwanda case illustrates that it is important that conflict resolution

practitioners and dispute resolution practitioners gain an intimate knowledge of the workings,

limitations and potential of an integrated court system of this nature as an integrated mechanism for

sustainable dispute resolution and the restoration of relationships. Progressive learning in this

regard may reveal innovative and Africa-relevant dispute resolution practices and a framework of a

curriculum that would include principles for the adaptation of traditional practices, the integration

of systems and the fusion of indigenous and exogenous knowledge.

Developing Endogenous and Integrated

Dispute Resolution Competency

King and Miller26

identify a generic set of desirable outcomes that can be adopted or adapted to

achieve integrated competency in dispute resolution in the African context. This set of outcomes

includes the competence to reflect on theories of power, explaining the various meanings of

conflict, violence and peace, as well as approaches to non-violent resolution of disputes and violent

conflict. The proposed outcomes include an awareness of the importance of endogenous methods of

15

15

building peace, democratisation, sustainable reconciliation, community transformation in Africa

and non-violent struggle as alternatives to violent conflict. The competent practitioner would also

require advanced research skills such as the following:

The evaluation of the effectiveness of traditional forms of conflict transformation and their

relevance for contemporary African struggles

Analysis of written and oral texts using the appropriate taxonomy

Facilitating and participating in group discussions to interpret knowledge claims and

disseminate endogenous knowledge on peace, conflict resolution and dispute resolution

An approach to interpretation to include the development of a holistic understanding of

issues, connecting dynamic relationships, applying critical thinking to a range of possible

worldviews and explanations

Integrated competence does not only require skills and knowledge. It also requires an attitude of

growing awareness of the existence and consequences of injustice, inequality and militarisation. In

the African context, it will require recognition of the roots of endogenous African traditions of

peace and non-violent conflict transformation. Moreover, the practitioner should develop an attitude

that shows a willingness to take action for peace and justice in Africa.27

King and Miller further assert that the empowerment of local communities to build positive peace is

one of the most widely shared goals of peace building. To attain this goal it is vital to utilise

endogenous knowledge. The development and use of endogenous knowledge will be most effective

if the instructor can allow free running of the power of the practitioners’ local knowledge and

experience. Practitioners need to be able to evaluate the traditions and practices of their own

culture. Sometimes it is useful to compare these with the principles and methods found in the

international literature and that tend to dominate university studies, commerce and possibly

government. The most valuable preparation for peacemakers will be in blending traditional

practices of building peace with international theories, approaches and methods. Such fusion of

knowledge enables practitioners to appreciate that they have two streams of useful knowledge from

which to draw, which would increase their ability to become agents of change and peace builders.28

16

16

This assertion implies that ‘endogenised’ dispute resolution requires that the practitioners should

spend more time in the community, putting in practice the knowledge they acquire in formal

learning, sharing what they learn at college with other people. This approach will prevent

separating practitioners from their cultural environment. At a practitioner level, if we accept this

practice it would mean that mediators despatched by, for example, the AU and the UN should

spend more time in communities learning more about the realities of a situation before attempting

dispute resolution according to formal models that may not be applicable to that specific situation.

The participants of symposium on Conflict, memory and reconciliation in Kigali,29

analysed and

reflected on the importance of remembering what happened during violent conflict, what should be

done to reconcile conflicting parties, and what should be taught about conflict. Some valuable

findings of the symposium indicate that cross-cultural understanding of a violent conflict is

important. Conflict zones such as Rwanda become ‘international knowledge sites’ where people

can learn more about the causes and events, and how to manage the consequences of violent

conflict. Globalisation made learning about the past much easier. The practitioner asks what really

happened, shares information over social networks and challenges the ‘normalcy’ of violence.

Perhaps the lessons learned on restoration after violent conflict can be generalised to other areas of

conflict and dispute resolution. For instance, the promotion of nationhood has to start with the

restoration of unity, in which civil society must play a leading role. Reconciliation is about the

reconstruction of social ties. Courts cannot reconcile people, especially when the courts are

politicised. A process of re-humanising people, including victims, perpetrators and bystanders, is

much more important than demonising them. The ‘voice of the voiceless’ should be heard,

otherwise their suppressed agony would continue, and a neutral third party is needed to facilitate

this. Knowledge of the past emerges from within the community and cannot be created from

outside.

During the symposium, the following aspects concerning teaching and learning on conflict and

dispute resolution were emphasised:

17

17

It is difficult to get agreement on what has happened during a violent conflict. Since

colonial times in Africa, the perceptions of the ruling elite/people in power tend to dominate

perspectives, playing dangerous games by constructing identities and images of an enemy

who is ‘different’. Furthermore, critical witnesses of history form their own positions based

on different memories and judgement of what they see happened. There are always ‘expert

versions’ of what happened.

The activities and findings of truth commissions are of limited value because explanations

are not seen in a cultural context. There is a ‘scientific distance’ between formal constructed

history, law and interpretation beyond these constructs.

All participants agreed that people should learn about aspects such as dispute resolution and

restorative justice. The dilemma is: what do we teach about a conflict in view of an

uncertain and sometimes invalid knowledge about what happened? How do we make people

aware that every human being is capable of violence, and that political, religious and social

groups and their practitioners can make ordinary people extraordinarily evil by enticing

them into violent behaviour? When are memories important enough to be taught in the

‘classroom’?

Memory is of no use if it cannot be turned into knowledge that can work towards solutions

and impact positively on current thought and practice in education. In education, there must

be a decision on what needs to be remembered and what must be forgotten. There should be

silence on some aspects, such as hate speech, that goes against the objectives of social

transformation. Case studies should be used to illustrate different dispute resolution

techniques. It was found that the community (as in the case of Gacaca courts) should play

the main role in teaching history, allowing for different perspectives.

To achieve irreversible social transformation it is critical for pedagogy to focus on

children’s education and the youth, and to teach them what citizenship and responsibility

means in the aftermath of violent conflict. Many participants were of the opinion that

imposing ideology, religious or animistic values in education creates a breeding ground for

conflict.

The use of terminology in narratives and text as well as symbols has an impact on learning

content. Historical narratives should cut across ethnic lines and dualism about what

18

18

historical narratives are ‘correct’ to ensure that education serves as an effective tool of

conflict resolution.

Practitioners must identify with events, not as victims or people who witnessed the events

but as a process of creating self-awareness and cultural contextualisation. Teaching complex

versions of the past with too many contradictions and assumptions is of little value.

Memorial sites can serve an important purpose in ‘commemoration pedagogy’, educating

the youth on violent conflict to develop a ‘feeling of what happened’, especially as part of a

post-conflict syllabus. Memorials should be work in progress, updated as new facts become

known, and not instruments of manipulation that blocks out other views. The use of

technology on oral history and material on how challenges were overcome should be

presented.

The work of King and Miller, the case study of Rwanda and information obtained from focus

groups during the symposium in Rwanda show that there is no shortage of knowledge about dispute

resolution and mediation in Africa. However, it was found that where conflicts were particularly

violent and where sustainable peace is an imperative, the development of competence of dispute

resolution practitioners requires a complex set of outcomes, knowledge needs, skills, attitudes and

methodologies to achieve the integrated competency of practitioners.

It is evident from the discussion that to achieve these outcomes, the practitioner would have to

know that there are different streams of knowledge: indigenous, exogenous and endogenous.

Concerning indigenous knowledge, the practitioner should be aware that there are still traditional

practices of dispute resolution that work in a specific cultural context. Concerning exogenous

knowledge, the practitioner needs to identify what is really a home-grown practice, and apply what

is useful for dispute resolution in the specific cultural context.

The information gathered reveals a skills set for a dispute resolution curriculum for learning on

fundamentals such as problem solving, conflict handling and communication skills (especially

presentation and the writing of documents). A dispute practitioner requires core skills such as

relationship building, trans-disciplinary research, evaluation of different dispute resolution

19

19

approaches, the formulation of strategies, meaning making of both indigenous and endogenous

knowledge, as well as mediation.

The very important finding, however, is the change in attitudes that is at the root of dispute

resolution training, founded on a thorough insight into values such as peace, restorative justice and

equality. The practitioner in dispute resolution needs to develop a personal integrity based on

humanistic norms such as respect for others, interconnectedness and non-dualism. Practitioners

need to develop an attitude of creativity, trans-disciplinary thinking, and a willingness to

accommodate different perspectives on a case as well as different worldviews, always maintaining

historical perspective. Furthermore, a decisive and conscious alignment of personal values and goal

setting would be required, always keeping in mind the imperatives of peaceful social

transformation, such as restorative justice, maintenance of human rights and self-emancipation.

Moreover, successful dispute resolution requires the skill to be a good citizen of the community,

society, country and globally.

When it comes to methodology for endogenous dispute resolution training, care should be taken not

to offer untested assumptions and contradictions as undisputable facts. Practitioners should be

allowed to use local knowledge and experience as part of learning. They should be allowed to

evaluate all information presented, challenge dominant views on the dispute involved and explain

phenomena in a cultural context. It was found that commemoration sites serve an important purpose

when it comes to practical activities, especially if modern technology is used to present knowledge

of what happened during violent conflict. Together with the practice of encouraging practitioners to

do practical assignments jointly with their family and community, it forms a powerful instrument to

develop integrated competency.

The above set of outcomes can easily become the objectives for a curriculum on dispute resolution

in Africa, with emphasis on developing not only the skills but also an attitude of humaneness and

the restoration of relationships in dispute resolution.

Conclusion and Recommendations

20

20

So what do we teach about dispute resolution? The simple answer is endogenous knowledge of a

dispute and the way to resolve it. Learning about endogenous dispute resolution first requires an

understanding that endogenous knowledge is home-grown, has evolved in a natural way and is

converted by people from wide-ranging knowledge gained over time. Secondly, it requires

recognition that the meaning a specific society assigns to conflict has been influenced by knowing

what happened outside the society, and also that the knowledge of a society contributes to the

meaning making of people outside the society. Thirdly, learning about endogenous dispute

resolution would require insight into the values of the society in conflict and the way it affects

meaning making by that society.

Learning about dispute resolution practices in Africa requires not only an understanding of

endogenous dispute resolution, but also an alignment of personal values, innovative strategies and

an attitude of activism. Practitioners need to learn that initial healing and sustainable restoration of

relationships is an overarching principle to have any chance of lasting peace. Although social

transformation and coherence may be noble visions, they may not be possible without healing and

good relationships among those who were harmed or benefited from the outcomes of a dispute.

The practice of dispute resolution in an African context requires an extensive skills set to

implement specific dispute resolution strategies. Practices such as facilitating free sharing of

information about the causes, events and consequences of a conflict; mediating with the collective

involvement of all members of society especially at community level; functioning in an integrated

courts system; and fostering interpersonal trust among former belligerents should be an integral part

of the skills of set of dispute resolution practitioners.

It is recommended that a new curriculum that would contribute to integrated competence of dispute

resolution practitioners in Africa should be developed to achieve the following learning outcomes:

Identifying authentic endogenous knowledge and understanding that it is the result of the

fusion and integration of several ways of knowing that became home-grown, and continues

to grow as new knowledge is developed

21

21

Explaining the application of dispute resolution strategies with strategic objectives such as

the free sharing of information, the involvement of society, and the successful functioning

of integrated court systems in a specific cultural context, in this case different African

contexts

Practically demonstrating the attitude and aptitude to facilitate and promote healing and the

sustainable restoration of relationships as prime principles to sustainable peace

Notes and References

1 See Nicolescu, B. 1996. La transdisciplinarité, manifeste. Monaco: Le Rocher. English

translation: Voss, K-C., 2002. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, New York: Suny Press.

2 Ibid.

3 King, M.E. and Miller, C.A., 2006. Teaching model: Non-violent transformation of conflict.

University for Peace Africa Programme, p.89. Available at

http://www.upeace.org/library/documents/nvtc_teaching_model.pdf [Accessed on 25 January

2012].

4 Ibid.

5Hountondji, P.J., 2009. Knowledge of Africa, knowledge of Africans. RCCS Annual Review no. 1,

September, p.10.

6 Velthuizen, A.G., 2007. The management of knowledge: A model for the African Renaissance.

Doctoral thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Pimbert, M., 2006. Transforming knowledge and ways of knowing for food sovereignty.

London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), p.11. Available at

http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G01098.pdf [Accessed on 13 April 2012].

10 Goldberg, S., Sander, F. and Rogers, N., 1992. Dispute resolution, 2nd ed. Boston: Little Brown.

11 Uwazie, E.E., 2011. Alternative dispute resolution in Africa: Preventing conflict and enhancing

stability. Africa Security Brief, Africa Center for Strategic Studies, no. 16, November, p.5.

22

22

12

Van Jaarsveld, S. and Mottiar, S., 2009. Mediating peace in Africa: Securing conflict prevention

strengthening the mediation and conflict prevention aspects of the African peace and security

architecture. Research report based on a seminar held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 4 March. Durban:

ACCORD.

13 Malan, J., 1997. Conflict resolution wisdom from Africa. Durban: ACCORD.

14 Zartman, I.W., 2000. Traditional cures for modern conflicts: African conflict 'medicine’

contributors. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, p.7.

15 It is not possible to define ubuntu – one is aware of ubuntu when one sees it and feels it being

practised. The concept of ubuntu as a customary process should not be confused with a linguistic

concept among the Bantu-speaking people.

16 See Faris, J., 2011. Paper presented at the 5th Caribbean Conference on Dispute Resolution held

in Jamaica, April. Available at http://www.unisa.ac.za/ [Accessed on 27 October 2011].

17 Ibid.

18. Nabudere D.W. Ubuntu philosophy. Memory and reconciliation, p.19. Available at

http://www.grandslacs.net/doc/3621 [Accessed on 24 January 2012].

19 Ibid.

20 Personal observations by the author during several visits to the country since 2003, of which the

latest was in January 2012.

21 Gacaca translated from Kinya-rwanda roughly means ‘justice on the lawn’.

22 According to the official Rwandan government website. Available at

http://www.rwandagateway.org/ [Accessed on 12 September 2006].

23Semi-structured interviews with key knowledge holders and primary resource material gathered in

Kigali and at the ICTR by the author during October 2006. See Velthuizen, A., 2007. Appendix A.

24 Chakravarti, S., 2012. The case of a flawed project and the hope for transitional justice.

Available at http://digitalcollections.sit.edu [Accessed on 15 July 2012].

25 Mutisi, M., 2009. Gacaca courts in Rwanda: An endogenous approach to post-conflict justice and

reconciliation. Africa Peace and Conflict Journal, June, 2(1). Addis Ababa: University for Peace.

Available at http://www.africa.upeace.org [Accessed on 25 July 2012].

26 King and Miller, op. cit., pp.15–16.

27 Ibid.

23

23

28

King and Miller, op. cit., pp. 88–90.

29 The author participated in the symposium on Conflict, memory and reconciliation: Bridging past,

present and future that was presented in Kigali from 10–13 January 2012.