Ubuntu and the Quest for Conflict Resolution in Africa

Abstract

Many postcolonial African states have experienced violent conflicts, prompting the quest for viable approaches to conflict resolution and peace-building. Certain groups’ desire to control power and resources at the expense of others lies at the heart of the racism, civil wars, armed insurrections, terrorism, ethnic conflict, genocide, xenophobia, and intracommunity and domestic conflict prevalent in Africa, particularly in countries that experienced prolonged foreign domination. The quest for peace and security led to the resurgence of Ubuntu, an African humanist ideology, as an indigenous approach to conflict resolution and peace-building. This article explores the place of Ubuntu in the continent’s peace and security projects. Despite the utility of Ubuntu’s principles in a few postconflict societies, the article highlights the difficulties involved in its adoption by state institutions, mainly due to the complex interactions exemplified by the modern state. However, adherence to the principles of Ubuntu by state and nonstate actors would drastically reduce threats to peace and security in Africa.

Keywords

violent conflict conflict resolution peace-building Africa

Introduction

Africa’s contemporary history is dominated by violent conflict, which has prompted many war-torn nations to embrace different conflict resolution and peace-building approaches. Certain groups’ desire to control power and resources at the expense of others explains the racism, ethnic conflict, genocide, xenophobia, civil wars, and armed insurrections experienced by many African states, particularly those like South Africa that experienced prolonged foreign domination. For example, during the apartheid era, more than 18,000 people were reportedly killed, and 80,000 opponents of the apartheid regime were detained, of which 26,000 were tortured (Graybill, 2004, p. 1117; Murithi, 2006a, p. 10). According to Anne, Abrahams, and Campbell (2005), “one of the consequences of decades of apartheid state-sponsored violence and reactive community insurrection is that for many people, physical violence has become a first line strategy for resolving conflict and gaining ascendency” (p. 139). In postapartheid South Africa, domestic and intracommunity violence has become a daily occurrence.

South Africa is not alone. From Nigeria’s ethnopolitical violence to Sudan’s ethnic conflict, and Rwanda’s genocide to the resource violence in Congo DRC, intolerance and hate have become one of the recurrent challenges to statehood, sustainable peace and security in Africa (Akinola, 2011, 2014). In Uganda, the Lord’s Resistance Army continues to abduct children and convert them into soldiers (Murithi, 2006a, p. 11). This has undermined the social fabric of societies in northern Uganda, and the cultural affinity that formed the basis of African communalism, which symbolizes the spirit of Ubuntu.

One of the major causes of conflict in Africa remains the scramble to acquire power and amass resources for one group of elite or ethnic group in place of the others (Murithi, 2006a). Murithi further argued that colonialism has imposed on African states self-centered leadership that has exploited the divisions and colonial legacies and the illegitimate character of the postcolonial African state to aggravate tension and fuel violence of diverse nature. This was evident in Sierra Leone and Liberia (blood-diamond conflict), South Africa (gold and land resource), Nigeria (crude oil), Congo DRC (crude oil), and identity assertiveness as experienced in Rwanda (Hutu-Tutsi ethnic cleansing), South Africa (xenophobia), and also Nigeria (Biafra civil/ethnic war). The overreaching effect of resource manipulation by few elites was the prevalence of poverty in Africa. Therefore, the colonial and postcolonial African states assumed the position of vampire states that produce and reproduce violent resource conflict and attendant widespread extreme poverty that sustain ethnic and community conflicts.

Ubuntu is regarded as an effective indigenous response to the violence that has characterized the African sociopolitical landscape (Dandala, 1996; Mangaliso, 2001; Morris, 2006). Ubuntu’s utility in achieving peace is pertinent at a time of increased interest in the role that culture plays in determining human relations, especially in terms of peace-keeping. Ubuntu, which encapsulates humanness, fairness, justice, and the African value system, was “the backbone of much African societies” in the precolonial dispensation and the immediate postapartheid period in South Africa (Nyathu, 2004). Murithi (2006b) posits that Ubuntu helped South Africa to “transcend the bitterness, hatred and suspicion of the past and to make the transition to a more stable—albeit still imperfect—political order” (p. 26). The cultural values and attitudes held by South Africans that promoted forgiveness and willingness to move beyond the legacy of the apartheid state have been attributed to Ubuntu.

Slavery and colonialism destroyed the foundation upon which African societies defined one another. Colonialism distorted the African cultural heritage and fostered a sense of separation from one’s culture.¹ This was based on the assumption that the European culture and way of life were superior to those of Africans. Colonial administrations were quick to jettison African indigenous traditions, especially with regard to governance and conflict resolution.

Africa’s quest for sustainable peace needs to be built on reconciliation and coexistence based on human rights, and social, economic, and political justice, all of which lie at the heart of Ubuntu (Murithi, 2006b, p. 14). In this context, the overriding goal of Ubuntu is to strengthen societies’ capacity to promote positive peace for social solidarity. Murithi notes that social solidarity will enable members of society to once again begin to conceive of one another as fellow human beings and to promote the common welfare. In the context of Ubuntu, individual security, safety, and well-being depend on ensuring such for others in the community.

South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu repositioned Ubuntu as central to the discourse of conflict resolution in Africa and reignited this African worldview. This indigenous peace-making process has also been used to address all manner of issues, ranging from family and marriage disputes, to theft, damage to property, murder, and war. This article thus interrogates the concept of Ubuntu and explores how its principles could be utilized as a veritable mechanism for conflict transformation in Africa.

Conceptual Clarification

From a linguistic perspective, the term Ubuntu comprises the “u-,” the abstract noun prefix “buand,” and the noun “–ntu,” meaning “person,” or “personhood” and “humanness” (Kamwangamalu, 1999). The word is common in the Nguni languages of Southern Africa, and those with similar meanings occur throughout sub-Saharan Africa (Hailey, 2008; Murithi, 2006b, p. 28). Examples include botho (Sesotho or Setswana), bumuntu (kiSukuma and Kihayi in Tanzania), bomoto (Bobangi in Congo), gimuntu (kiKongo and giKwese in Angola), umundu (Kikuyu in Kenya), umuntu (Uganda), umunthu (Malawi), and vumuntu (shiTsonga and shiTswa in Mozambique).

Murithi (2006b) observes that Ubuntu appears in diverse forms across African societies, especially among the languages of East, Central, and Southern Africa (p. 28). It is a cultural worldview that interrogates what it means to be human. Table 1 shows the versions of Ubuntu across cultures in sub-Saharan Africa.

Table 1.

Notable Versions of Ubuntu.

	Community	Maxim	Interpretation
1	Sesotho (Lesotho & South Africa)	Motho ke motho ka batho	A person is a person by other people
2	IsiZulu (South Africa)	Umuntu umuntu ngabantu	A person is a person through or by means, of other people
3	Xitsonga (Mozambique & South Africa	Rintiho rinwe a rinusi hove	One finger cannot pick a grain
4	Sesotho (Lesotho & South Africa)	A botho bag ago bon ne botho seshabeng	Let your welfare be the welfare of the nation
5	Chichewa (Malawi)	Mwana wa nzako ndi wako yemwe	Someone’s child is your child
6	Setswana (Botswana & South Africa)	Moeng goroga re je ka wema	Come guest, we feast through you

Source. Mvuselelo (2009).

Ubuntu connotes humaneness, a pervasive spirit of caring and community, harmony and hospitality, respect and responsiveness, that individuals and groups display for one another (Mangaliso & Mphuthumi, 2001, p. 26). It is thus the foundation for the basic values that manifest themselves in the manner in which African people think and relate to one another. Furthermore, it influences their relations with “outsiders” (Personal communication, John A, John B and John C, Pietermaritzburg, July 21, 2015). The underlying principles are reciprocity, suppression of self-interest, humanness, and the virtue of symbiosis. Hence, it is often said that umntu ngumntu ngabanye (a person is a person through others; Mvuselelo, 2009). This statement conveys the notion that a person becomes a person only through relationships with and recognition by others, with significant implications for day-to-day interaction among community members. Ubuntu is people-oriented as against the modern sociopolitical order that promotes elitism.

Ubuntu is an ancient African metaphilosophy in sub-Saharan Africa that principally means I am myself through you (Personal communication, John C, Pietermaritzburg, July 14, 2014). It derives from the Xhosa expression Umuntu ngumuntu ngabanye bantu (People are people through other people) (Graybill, 2004, p. 1119). While there is no precise definition, Ubuntu connotes humaneness, care, and community solidarity (Graybill, 2004, p. 1119; Personal communication, John A, Pietermaritzburg, July 21, 2014). It represents the essential human virtues of compassion and humanity. Tutu posits that Ubuntu is about the pure essence of being human. Rather than I think, therefore I am, the focus is on I am human because I belong, I participate, I share. It exemplifies sympathy and respect for the dignity of others.

Ubuntu conveys the view one’s humanity is inextricably bound up in others’ humanity. For Tutu, a person who lives in Ubuntu is more willing to make excuses for others (Personal communication, John B and John C, Pietermaritzburg, July 3, 2015). Mbiti (1969), an authority on African traditional values and worldviews, confirms that Ubuntu’s emphasis on community is shared by the majority of Africans, guided by the notion that whatever happens to the individual happens to the entire group, and whatever happens to the whole group happens to the individual. Thus, the life of the individual is subsumed in that of the community, based on the understanding that the community produces the individual (Mbiti, 1969). The individual can only say: I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am (Graybill, 2004, p. 1119). Ubuntu’s understanding of the indivisibility of humanity creates great capacity for forgiveness and reconciliation.

Ramose (1999) concurs that African philosophy has long been woven around Ubuntu, which creates a family atmosphere. It creates philosophical empathy and kinship among and between Africa’s indigenous communities. He notes that Ubuntu is not restricted to Bantu speakers but is also found in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, in Senegal, the concept of “Teranga” reflects a similar spirit of collective hospitality and responsibility. Ubuntu is based on the notion that your pain is my pain; my wealth is your wealth. Your salvation is my salvation, or the Sotho saying, it is through others that one attains selfhood, as well as the slogan, an injury to one is an injury to all (Nussbaum, 2003). Nussbaum also relates it to a maxim from West Africa, I feel the other, I dance the other, and therefore I am.

Hailey (2008) notes that there has been renewed interest in Ubuntu in the postapartheid era (p. 2). While many studies have focused on its utility in postapartheid peace-building, there is a need for research on the similar traits and utility of Ubuntu in sub-Saharan Africa and universal debates around African humanism. Ubuntu is an African philosophy that seeks to reconcile the balance between the self and others, the destructive and the creative, the good and bad (Masina, 2000). Masina conceives Ubuntu as social relations in dualistic opposition, that is, an either-or situation, good versus bad, black versus white, self versus others, in the bid to resolve immediate or impending conflict.

Tutu² commented,

You know when Ubuntu is there, and it is obvious when it is absent. It has to do with what it means to be truly human, to know that you are bound up with others in the bundle of life. (Wilson, 2011)

He added that South Africa

opted for a way [which] was consistent with a central African feature that we know in our languages as Ubuntu . . . it speaks of the very essence of being human. We say my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours. We say a person is a person through other persons. (Wilson, 2011)

Hailey (2008) notes that former South African President Thabo Mbeki stated that Ubuntu inspires community members to act in solidarity with the vulnerable, the weak and poor, and helps them to behave in specific ways for the common good (p. 11). Through this display of humanness, or what Anne et al. (2005) tagged as “humanhood” (p. 136), Hailey (2008) maintains that Ubuntu helps to resolve immediate problems and plays a longer term role in resolving conflict (p. 13). Tutu finds in Ubuntu the justification for promoting reconciliation over justice, or, as he puts it, “prioritising restorative over retributive justice” (Graybill, 2004, p. 1119). Former President Nelson Mandela interpreted the spirit of Ubuntu in the profound African sense that all are human only through the humanity of others, which should be the foundation for the achievement of a better world (Mandela, 1997, p. 324). He asserted that a society could only be transformed by embracing reconciliation, and promoting understanding, even love, between diverse groups. Mandela (1944) observed,

The oppressor must be liberated just as surely as the oppressed . . . When I walked out of prison, that was my mission to liberate the oppressed and the oppressor both . . . For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. (p. 544)

Tutu captures the essence of Ubuntu thus:

Ubuntu is very difficult to render into a Western language. It speaks to the very essence of being human . . . They share what they have. It also means that my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up in theirs. We belong in a bundle of life. We say, “a person is a person through other people” (in Xhosa Ubuntu ungamntu ngabanye abantu and in Zulu Umuntu ngumuntu ngabanye). I am human because I belong, I participate, and I share. A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good; for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes with knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when other are tortured or oppressed, or treated as if they were less than who they are. (Murithi, 2006, p. 28)

Tutu’s belief in Ubuntu explains its adoption in reconciling sharply divided interests in the immediate postapartheid dispensation and the formation of the TRC. The South African Government’s 1996 White Paper on Welfare described Ubuntu as

the principle of caring for each other’s well-being . . . and a spirit of mutual support. Each ‘individual’s humanity is ideally expressed through his or her relationship with others and theirs in turn through recognition of the individual’s humanity. Ubuntu means that people are people through other people. It also acknowledges both the rights and responsibilities of every citizen in promoting individual and societal well-being. (Hailey, 2008, p. 2)

Although Ubuntu is conceived as a cultural ideology, it can be applied to politics, business, management, and corporate governance (Olinger, Britz, & Olivier, 2007). The interplay of these variables influences the occurrences of conflicts in Africa. According to Idoniboye-Obu and Whetho (2013), Ubuntu is “a value system expected to inform human behaviour in the context of the treatment of others, especially the treatment of the governed by political leaders” (p. 230). Furthermore, Ubuntu is identified as a “management and leadership principle”; hence, the jettisoning of its doctrine explains the greed, corruption, kleptomania that characterized Africa’s sociopolitical and economy space (Idoniboye-Obu & Whetho, 2013, p. 230). For instance, resource allocation based on Ubuntu would not only ensure efficiency in resource allocation but also espouse fairness and equity in the allocation of societal values and resources.

Khomba (2011) and Murithi (2006b) also reinforce the possibility of exploring Ubuntu as a veritable principle of public management in Africa. This stems out of the assertion that mismanagement of public resources is one of the foundations of conflict in Africa. His study expands the frontier of knowledge in exploring the contribution of Ubuntu to management and organization toward the attainment of what he calls “an African management system” (Khomba, 2011, p. 127). Adherence to the principles of Ubuntu enhances the corporate performance, as it impacts on the internal operations of organizations toward service delivery and optimum performance. In Africa, institutional failures have immensely contributed to states’ incapacity to create public good and prevent violent conflict as well as facilitate peace-building. Khomba (2011) asserts that isolation, deprivation, and poverty, which are causes of conflict, can be resolved under the “community’s brotherly and sisterly concern” (p. 129), reinforced by cooperation, care, and sharing.

In summary, while there are many interpretations of Ubuntu, all reinforce the notion of humanness, compassion, and mutualism.

Ubuntu and an African Indigenous Approach to Conflict Resolution

Virtually, all postcolonial African countries have experienced one form of conflict or the other; however, the nature, scope, and depth of the conflicts are different. Human relationships are not devoid of conflict, but societies with deeper utility of Ubuntu tend to manage and resolve conflict than the others. For instance, in the Africa-precolonial dispensation, the Yoruba and Bornu Kingdoms of West Africa have histories of violent hostilities, but the Southern African region enjoyed moderate peace. Although the concept of Ubuntu is mostly associated with Southern and Eastern Africa in the pre- and postcolonial Africa, similar and varied forms of Ubuntu were also found in other parts of Africa (Ezenwoko & Osagie, 2014).

In West Africa, the Igbo community practiced similar expression of humanness, accommodation, compromise, and fairness (Ezenwoko & Osagie, 2014, p. 137), while the Yoruba community reflected the concept of “omoluabi” (someone governed by humanness) in both interpersonal and intergroups’ relationships. Precolonial African societies that were strongly founded on Ubuntu like South Africa and Rwanda approached postconflict peace-building through the lens of Ubuntu, while others not strongly identified with Ubuntu like Nigeria also took a similar route. After the Biafra civil/ethnic war in 1970, the Nigerian government introduced the three “Rs” (Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Reconciliation) to amicably reconcile the belligerent group with the central government.

Many ancient African cultures had adopted and currently support a restorative justice approach to conflict resolution (Morris, 2006). For instance, under the Kemetic descent in ancient Egypt, Africans were traditionally governed by the principle of Ma’at which espoused restorative justice like Ubuntu. In Kemet tradition, violence-prone or unfair conditions were mostly averted and transformed to become one of restorative justice (Visionthought, 2010). Restorative justice is prevalent among people who believe in the collective, based on the principle of respect, accountability, inclusiveness, and balance (International Institute for Restorative Practices, 2008).

Unlike the Western-imposed system that enhances extreme individualism, restorative justice promotes social equality based on the rights to dignity, equal concern, and mutual respect by locating the individual in a relationship. This effective means of achieving justice and peaceful coexistence in disjointed and chaotic communities espoused the virtues of Ubuntu as practiced by indigenous Africans in the precolonial era. Incessant intergroup hostility, community feuds, domestic violence, and insurgency have reactivated advocacy for the inclusion of Ubuntu in the contemporary judicial system and day-to-day interpersonal relationships.

In the Afrocentric value system, community takes precedence over the individual (Personal communication, John A, Johannesburg, August 4, 2015). The restorative justice framework is a less formal one where the primary focus is repairing the relationship between the offender, the victim, and the community (Morris, 2006, p. 300). The use of culturally specific principles within the contemporary judicial system could engender sustainable peace in communities and the world at large. The failure of the liberal model to resolve conflict and sustain peace has called into question the continued jettisoning of Ubuntu in Africa. This philosophy attracted global attention through the reconciliation work in postapartheid South Africa and has great potential for conflict resolution in Africa (Sigrun, 2010).

Bobby Hackland-Morris³ also believes that Ubuntu holds great promise in facilitating enduring peace in the volatile South African sociopolitical environment (Attood, n.d.):

We must strive towards peace and kindness as opposed to fighting against violence . . . I want people to become aware that peace begins with me. We need to realise that we don’t have to fight, but instead strive towards those qualities that we want to be manifest in our lives. If we all focus on what we want, bit by bit we’ll get there . . . the essence of Ubuntu is the concept I am because you are. In other words, we are all one. We care; we have unity, compassion, understanding, non-judgment and co-operation. We need to keep these values at the forefront of our minds and implement them in our day-to-day lives. (Attood, n.d.)

Murithi (2006) reiterates the essential unity of humanity and the gradual promotion of attitudes and values based on sharing resources, cooperation, and collaboration toward conflict resolution.

Societies that subscribe to the principles of Ubuntu employ conflict resolution mechanisms to maintain law and order (Personal communication, John C, Pietermaritzburg, July 21, 2015). They place high value on communal life, and positive relations within society as a collective endeavor (Muthiki, 2006). A dispute between fellow members of a society is perceived not merely as a matter of curiosity with regard to the affairs of one’s neighbor but as a matter of concern to the whole community. Thus, individuals in the community are linked to each of the disputants, be they victims or perpetrators. When people subscribe to the notion of Ubuntu, they may feel either a sense of wrong or a sense of responsibility for the wrong that has been perpetuated. Therefore, a law-breaking individual transforms his or her group into a law-breaking group, while a disgruntled individual transforms his or her group into a disputing one (Muthiki, 2006).

Societies that is governed by the principles of Ubuntu have a prescribed and effective strategy to resolve disputes and promote reconciliation to redress injustice, heal past wrongs, and maintain social cohesion and harmony within the community (Muthiki, 2006). The TRC remains a point of reference. The objective was not simply to resolve conflict, but to transform such conflict and individuals in conformity with the spirit of communalism and humanness prevalent in African precolonial communities. Hence, consensus building was embraced as a cultural foundation to regulate and manage relationships between members of society. A community espousing Ubuntu devises a conflict resolution process that leads to sustainable peace. Depending on the nature of the disagreement, this process could take place at the level of the family, the village, between members of an ethnic group, or even between different nationalities in the same territory.

Mangaliso and Damane (2006) present some basic assumptions about human beings, which guide their relationship with others. These maxims are as follows:

Treat others as your brothers or sisters; individual predicated on belonging to collective; treat others with dignity and respect; be keen to negotiate in good faith; take time to listen with empathy, especially in conflict resolution; provide valuable opportunities for self-expression; understand the beliefs and practices of local people; encourage equity in the workplace; and be flexible and accommodative of people irrespective of their place of origin. (p. 25)

It is therefore not surprising the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, stated in 2012 that violence, intolerance, and social vices reign in a society that has lost respect for one another and jettisoned the principles of Ubuntu (SAPA, 2012). He commented,

If we build a society without these two, we are building a society of hooligans . . . if we do not agree as people, let us argue with respect and not by violence, saying whatever we like to people. That does not build a nation . . . South Africans are not hooligans. We are a nation of very proud respectful people who stand up for their rights but do so without losing dignity and Ubuntu. (SAPA, 2012)

Muthiki (2006) makes reference to the Xhosa community, which resolved disputes through an indigenous institution, the Inkundla/Lekgotla, a mediation and reconciliation forum (p. 30). The Inkundla/Lekgotla forum was communal in character, in the sense that the whole society was involved at different levels in resolving conflict that had the potential to threaten community cohesion. Muthiki (2006) outlined the different stages in conflict resolution:

First, after a fact-finding process where the views of victims, perpetrators and witnesses were heard, the perpetrators—if considered to have done wrong—would be encouraged, both by the Council and other community members in the Inkundla/Lekgotla forum, to acknowledge responsibility or guilt. Secondly, perpetrators would be encouraged to demonstrate genuine remorse or to repent thirdly, perpetrators would be encouraged to ask for forgiveness and victims in their turn would be encouraged to show mercy; fourth, where possible and at the suggestion of the Council of Elders, perpetrators would be required to pay an appropriate compensation or reparation for the wrong done. (p. 30)

Muthiki (2006) adds that this process tended to involve the entire family from the two camps: the victim and his or her family members and friends, as well as the perpetrator and his or her household and friends (p. 31). The contending groups would be encouraged to embrace coexistence and reenact the relationship between them, which would hopefully restore harmony in the community and protect the integrity, viability, and mutual coexistence of society. This mode of reconciliation symbolizes the parties’ willingness to overcome the psychological bitterness that characterized the conflict situation.

Ubuntu’s Utility for Peace-Building: The South African Experience

Ubuntu’s ultimate goal is interpersonal cooperation for the common good. In contrast, individual competitive instincts could destabilize peace, security, and harmony in the community. Ubuntu promotes the whole group; it celebrates the community and downplays the individual, and reinforces the worth of the community and shared fellowship between men and women (Masina, 2000). Mangaliso and Mphuthumi (2001) state that one of Ubuntu’s most important attributes is the high degree of harmony and continuity embedded in the system (p. 26). This exemplifies human interdependence and reinforces the norms of reciprocity, suppression of self-interest, and the virtue of symbiosis.

Peace-making that utilizes Ubuntu is thus based on reciprocity, inclusivity, and a shared destiny between individuals or groups (‘Murithi, 2006b, p. 29). It offers a value system to grant and receive forgiveness, and a rationale to jettison the need for revenge. Ubuntu provides a roadmap for societies and their governments to formulate rules and regulations to foster peaceful relationships and peace-building in traumatized and postconflict communities. Sigrun (2010) notes that, in Africa, Ubuntu is used as a conflict resolution strategy and involves five stages: After investigation, the perpetrators are encouraged to acknowledge responsibility; perpetrators are encouraged to show genuine remorse; they are encouraged to ask for forgiveness, and victims are encouraged to show mercy; offenders are required to pay compensation or reparations; and in consolidating the process, all parties are encouraged to embrace reconciliation.

Cases abound of the adoption of Ubuntu. It was used in Rwanda as an alternative to the Western conflict resolution built on the modern judicial system. Approximately 120,000 people were allegedly responsible for exterminating a million people in the 1996 genocide (Wilson, 2011). Wilson projects, that, it would take about 120 years to conclude the trials using the Western judicial system. The Rwandan government acknowledged this situation and instead adopted a traditional method known as Gacaca. Developed from communal law, this version of Ubuntu was employed to resolve village or family discord. Aside from a prompt trial, it facilitated peace-building and accelerated healing. The peace process was not punitive but was founded on the notion of forgiveness and reconciliation. The assumption behind this approach was as follows:

From the perspective of an African ontology, the murder of another invokes an ontological severance which jeopardises the very existence of the murderer who, following the dictum of ubuntu, only exists because the victim does . . . interdependence of Ubuntu suggests that very little separates the murder of another from the murder of self. If the other is saved so am I . . . I will forgive so that, or in order for this man, this perpetrator, to regain his humanity because only then will I regain mine. (Praeg, 2007, p. 138)

In the immediate postapartheid period, the South African government employed Ubuntu to redress the injustice, intolerance, hate, human rights abuse, and inhumanity that characterized the apartheid regime (Anne et al., 2005; Graybill, 2004). The TRC was established in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995, to investigate such cases, grant amnesty to those willing to fully disclose heinous acts, and positively transform society (Gibson, 2005, p. 344; Graybill, 2004).

The Act provided that the goal “‘of the Commission shall be to promote national unity and reconciliation in a spirit of understanding which transcends the conflicts and divisions of the past” (Gibson, 2005, p. 344). Chairperson, Tutu promoted the view that reconciliation was its major task. Guided by the philosophy of Ubuntu, he held that perpetrators would accept their mistakes, confess, and repent their sins so that the victims could easily offer forgiveness (not punishment), leading to reconciliation between individuals and society at large (Graybill, 2004, p. 1118). The notion of Ubuntu is also reflected in the new Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996⁴ that emphasizes the need for understanding rather than revenge, for reparation but not retaliation, and for Ubuntu rather than victimization (Graybill, 2004).

The TRC was inaugurated by the late President Nelson Mandela to achieve two major objectives:

To engage a process which would discover the truth of the apartheid operation in South Africa, expose it, allow for confession of its terrible acts by the people responsible (under the auspices of a later process to amnesty), and look for verbal contrition related to those confessions. Secondly, it was to engage victims as well, and call for their testimony and courage to reveal the stories of their abuse and suffering. A later process of both amnesty and reparations was to follow the revelations brought out by the TRC’s findings. (Gentes, 2011)

The practical manifestation of the principles of Ubuntu, as advanced by Tutu, was commendable. Gentes (2011) states,

What is most surprising about the commission is not, however, the stories of horror brought forth by the victims, or even the admissions of guilt submitted by many of the perpetrators. What is most surprising is the consistent, real, verbal, physical, on-the-spot, heart-rending examples of forgiveness. In profound case after case, magnanimity flowed like the waters of healing through so much of the proceedings of the commission that the TRC, South Africa and Tutu became examples of the power of forgiveness for the entire world. Ubuntu in this way espouses the doctrine of Christianity . . . Tutu guides both through a process of healing the begins with confession, leads to admission, responds with forgiveness and goes forth with reconnection and the beginnings of possible relationship. (Gentes, 2011)

In advancing the importance of Ubuntu, especially in postconflict societies like South Africa, Tutu noted that supporters of apartheid were at times victims of the vicious system which they implemented (Gentes, 2011). The TRC experience shows that Ubuntu is an avenue to build community cohesion, heal breaches and cracks within the community, redress structural violence, and restore broken relations. Ubuntu helped South Africans to redress injustice without retribution and punishment of the actors that debased the Black majority during the apartheid era.

The work of the TRC stretched over about 5 years during which the commission probed all manner of human rights abuses. Gibson (2005) agrees that the commission performed extremely well as it held a series of hearings, interviewed thousands of victims, granted amnesty to about 850 human rights violators, and submitted a massive five-volume “Final Report.” Gibson (2005) notes that the TRC’s approach prevented civil war in the immediate postapartheid South Africa and concludes that such a process could work in other African societies (p. 374).

Conflict Resolution, Modernity, and Ubuntu

The recurrent domestic violence, resource-conflict, electoral violence, xenophobic attacks, and other manifestations of violence in societies that are founded on the principle of Ubuntu have called into question the basic assumptions of Ubuntu: veritable approach to conflict prevention, resolution, and management. Given that Ubuntu fosters unity, communalism, and community solidarity, Sigrun (2010) poses some pertinent questions: “What happens if you fall outside that community? If you are a Zimbabwean living in South Africa; if you are a Southerner in North Sudan; or if you are a Hutu and not a Tutsi?” Individuals derive their sense of meaning from cultural practices; hence, different cultures have divergent and unique approaches to conflict resolution. This contradicts the notion of applying Ubuntu principles across African societies. Moreover, in some situations, Ubuntu has the tendency to escalate conflict, rather than creating enduring peace within communities. As it is built on community cohesion, this could segregate “others.” Ubuntu’s emphasis on group cohesion could easily work against the integration of nonmembers of such communities. Could this explain the prevalence of xenophobia⁵ in South Africa and other African countries?

Furthermore, Sigrun (2010) points out that Ubuntu increases the gap between groups and between one community and another as the level of in-group bias might rise due to enhanced bonding as a result of danger, conflict, or other considerations. Individuals’ desires are often compromised in order to enforce group solidarity. Due to its extreme emphasis on community, Ubuntu could be abused to legitimize what Louw (2002) called African culture’s “totalitarian communalism” which “frowns upon elevating one individual above the community” (p. 3). It could easily engender ethnic conflict through group exclusiveness, especially in relation to other non-Africans and non-Black Africans or people referred to as outsiders. Gibson (2005) also noted that the TRC focused on individuals’ activities during apartheid misrule, allowing its major institutions to escape condemnation (p. 342).

The principles of Ubuntu do not capture cases of structural violence or condemn institutions of violence like the police. What happened to those that did not willingly come forward at the TRC hearings? What of those that were alleged to have committed atrocities and refused to come forward? What about cases of defiant behavior during the proceedings? These are the ambiguities of adopting Ubuntu in a postconflict situation. Nonetheless, its principles can lay a solid foundation to minimize violent conflict and heal wounds in a postconflict situation.

Ubuntu also serves as a mechanism to protect the social fabric against the dislocation that accompanies transformation associated with globalization and the modern state (Mvuselelo, 2009, p. 17). However, it contradicts most of the ingredients of modern state: the rule of law, judicial system, and constitutionalism, which are not built on forgiveness but punitive measures. Ubuntu operated well when society was homogeneous, but the notions of plurality, individual sovereignty, democratization, and cultural globalization impede its resurgence and adoption in contemporary political discourse.

The modern global order is interwoven and interconnected, and is characterized by the amalgamation of different cultural belief systems and the infiltration of Western culture. Even in homogeneous societies, splinter groups oppose one another within a community. It is for this reason that Johansen (n.d.) questions the practicality and relevance of Ubuntu in homogeneous communities. He insists that the “most uniform societies of Africa are the ones guilty of genocide.” He cites the examples of Somalia and Rwanda, which are composed of fairly homogeneous groups of people that share similar languages, religion, and some level of interdependence.

The kind of interdependence suggested by Ubuntu might no longer be a practicable way of life, but a philosophy that educated and urbanized Africans aspire to. Ubuntu is thus likely to compete with other philosophies of interdependence like communitarianism, socialism, and humanism (Praeg, 2007, p. 139). Hailey’s (2008) analysis of Phaswane Mpe’s novel, Welcome to Our Hillbrow, asserts that Ubuntu has been lost through urban dislocation and queries the existence of Ubuntu or African humanism (p. 19). His argument is founded on the apparent prejudice, intolerance, and xenophobia prevalent in both rural and urban areas in pre- and postapartheid South Africa. Mpe’s book dispels the myth of rural innocence and examines the suspicions, prejudices, and intolerance that existed in rural areas where Ubuntu ought to have held sway.

Furthermore and Hailey (2008) explores individuals’ capacity for inhumanity and notes the pervasiveness of this attitude in both rural and urban centers. He holds that acts of intolerance against “others” have little to do with the status of those involved. Again, the xenophobic violence that led to the deaths of many foreigner nationals in South Africa in 2008 and 2015 reveals the myth of Ubuntu in societies that advocate its integration into the modern state’s sociopolitical system (Personal communication, John A, John B, Johannesburg, August 4, 2015). Akinola’s (2014) study highlights cases of xenophobia in South African universities. If the argument that people are unable to expand the notion of Ubuntu to nonnatives or nonmembers of the community holds, the basis for xenophobic attacks seems culturally established. On the other hand, there is a deep-rooted cause for intolerance of the “others,” which have been attributed to the colonial policy of divide-and-rule and its distortion of African cultural heritage.

Enslin and Horsthemke (2004) question whether Ubuntu is a unique philosophy and note that the elements of effective communities, democracy, citizenship, and civil society are universal and not culturally specific; hence, it would be presumptuous to attribute community development or nation-building to Ubuntu. These authors hold that that Ubuntu’s cultural specificity greatly limits concerted efforts to globalize its application. However, like the evolution and development of other concepts, Ubuntu could be developed and adjusted to impact the modern global sociopolitical order.

In contemporary society, globalization and Ubuntu have contrasting connotations. Globalization represents the ascendance of the market-orientated economic logic of maximization of opportunities, in which “the value, dignity, personal safety, even survival of individuals no longer constitutes the central concerns” (van Binsbergen, 2002). van Binsbergen notes that African societies have suffered greatly in the process but acknowledges that their gradual reestablishment of the principles of Ubuntu offers an alternative in the sense that it advocates renewed concern for the human being. He asserts that this much-celebrated alternative has been applied in peripheral contexts in villages and kin groups in Southern Africa in recent years. This could also inform the global debate on human rights.

Despite some scholars’ pessimism in relation to Ubuntu’s relevance, Murithi (2006b) highlights four basic lessons from this philosophy:

The importance of public participation in the peace-making process; the unity of supporting victims and encouraging perpetrators as they go through the difficult process of making peace; the value of acknowledging guilt and remorse and the granting of forgiveness as a way to achieve reconciliation; and the importance of referring constantly to the essential unity and interdependence of humanity, as expressed through Ubuntu, and living out the principles which this unity suggests, namely; empathy for others, the sharing of our common resources, and working with a spirit of cooperation in our efforts to resolve our common problems.

Thus, while it is difficult to reconcile the guiding principles of Ubuntu with modernity and the contemporary state system, their relevance in addressing conflictual interpersonal relations cannot easily be dismissed.

Conclusion

In the context of the article, Africa refers to the colonial-constructed geographical location. The article addresses the prevailing approach to enhancing peace and conflict resolution in the 54 countries that make up Africa. It recognizes the divide-and-rule tactics of colonial powers that aggressively merged divergent African societies as corporate entity, and separated homogeneous community as different countries, which majorly engendered the recurrence of violent conflicts (domestic, intergroup, resource driven, and armed conflicts) in African countries like Nigeria, Sudan, Congo DRC, and Sierra Leone. The exportation of Western values, through colonialism, distorted African traditional values and relegated the principle of Ubuntu to the background. Thus, this explains proliferation of violent conflicts in postcolonial Africa.

Hailey’s study makes some revealing assertions. He maintains that Ubuntu should simply be regarded as African humanism and viewed not through a Western philosophical lens, but as an indigenous process, both an art and act related to African humanity and how this humanness is achieved through concerted engagement with the wider community (Hailey, 2008, p. 4). Blyden (cited in Bongmba, 2004) offers a more complex explanation of Ubuntu as an African personality that is “spiritual, social, communal, consensus-minded, full of emotion, rhythm, and of sensitivity” (p. 293). Therefore, Ubuntu plays a critical role in building communities characterized by equity, justice, mutual support, and care; it is part of the process of promoting a community culture that abhors violence and embraces peaceful coexistence.

The conflict, violence, and armed insurrection against the state, coupled with interpersonal and domestic violence, which pervade modern societies, led to the call to reexamine the modern judicial system and society’s value system. The prevailing Western judicial system that was exported to Africa does not prevent conflict and violence; rather, it focuses on punishing offenders. The belief that adherence to the principles of Ubuntu would reduce societal strife and violence led to its resurgence in Africa. Cultural attitudes and values are the foundation for prevailing social norms that influence individuals’ behavior and their relationships with others. Murithi (2006b) explains that through internalizing and sharing these cultural attitudes and values with other members of the community, and by passing them down to future generations, societies can realign themselves to accept the attributes of a particular cultural image. Ubuntu represents the image of peaceful coexistence and humanness in Africa.

Given renewed public discourse on Ubuntu, its practicality, and the need to reintegrate it into African sociocultural and legal systems, especially in South Africa without modification, there is a need for further research on this subject. For example, since the TRC proceedings, South African society has exhibited many traits that are fundamentally opposed to the doctrine of Ubuntu. Indeed, the country is one of the most violent and volatile societies in Africa. Day-to-day life in South Africa is characterized by cases of rape, domestic violence, political assassinations, xenophobic attacks, and police extrajudicial killings. The deaths of 34 mine workers calling for improved working conditions at Marikana at the hands of the South African police on August 16, 2012, and the wounding of many others is a case in point (Basent, 2016).

It is important to recall the words of Mokgoro (1998), who insists that Africa can never completely return to its precolonial starting point (p. 3). It is thus imperative to make contact with familiar landmarks of modernization from an indigenous perspective and to determine whether it is possible to design a universal mechanism that would resolve all conflict. The slogan, seeking African solution to African problem, as advocated by scholars and African political elites like Thabo Mbeki, is weaved within the existing liberal framework, which still depends on foreign value system (Akinola & Ndawonde, 2016). Thus, this article calls for the domestication of Africa’s peace and security project to espouse African sociocultural realities. Stakeholders should focus on prevention of conflict than the concerted efforts at conflict resolution; this is the thrust of Ubuntu.

While Ubuntu might be effective in resolving interpersonal conflict, it might not be as effective in addressing conflict between individuals and the state. Due to its complex interactions, it is very challenging for the modern state to adopt the traits of Ubuntu, especially in conflict situations or postconflict peace-building. However, adherence to its principles by political elites and citizens would drastically reduce threats to peace, especially in terms of domestic violence.

Justice is achievable in healthy communities in which members are accountable to one another and reconcile differences not through modern state institutions like the police or judicial system, but through cultural institutions like the family, community groups, or social institutions supported by the community or state. This was proven in the case of the TRC. The South African case is a unique reference point due to the nature of the injustice and conflict. However, Ubuntu could be used to address other cases of conflict where competing resources are at stake like the historical land conflict in the country. Other countries, like Nigeria, granted amnesty to militants in order to secure peace in the oil zone. This could be likened to the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation espoused by the doctrine of Ubuntu.

The article recognizes the complexities of preserving the core values of Ubuntu within the modern state system. Nevertheless, there are practicable principles of Ubuntu that can coexist with the modern sociopolitical system in Africa. For instance, the integration of traditional authority and community groups in the peace and conflict resolution projects would be more effective than the state-centric approach to conflict resolution in the continent. In Africa, traditional authority still command respect and are custodians of legitimate authorities within their domains; hence could be veritable medium for ensuring peace. This is not a call for the absolute recourse to Ubuntu and adoption of African traditional belief system, but a case for the integration of Ubuntu values into African civil and peace education programs. This is germane for the restoration of acts of tolerance, feelings of humanness, mutual respect within African communities, and African organic connectedness.

Although the modern state struggles to adopt a nonviolent approach to reconcile conflict, there is an urgent need for attitudinal change and the adoption of verbal engagement for peaceful coexistence. This could be achieved through peace education, which is a central pillar in improving human relations in the family, schools, at the workplace, within countries, and across borders. The vision of a world characterized by enduring peace depends on people’s ability to reject violence and militaristic approaches to solving problems, and embrace the principles of Ubuntu—wholeness, community supremacy, communalism, empathy, and humanness. The modern state should not be completely trusted with the implementing an effective conflict resolution mechanism and utility of Ubuntu; individuals and groups within the communities should invest in the resuscitation and promotion of the values of Ubuntu.

Apart from adopting Ubuntu as an effective mechanism for conflict resolution, it is important to advance toward what Murithi (2006b) refers to as Ubuntu forms of governance and what Khomba (2011) calls “an African management system” (p. 127). This encompasses public participation and fair resource distribution against the monopoly of national resources for the benefit of a few. The manipulation and monopoly of societal resources is the cause of most conflicts in Africa—hence the urgent need to address resource governance.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Adeoye O. Akinola, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow in the University of Zululand, South Africa. His research interests include globalization, African political economy, governance, and peace and conflict studies.

Ufo Okeke Uzodike, PhD, is a professor in the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. His research interests include international political economy and peace and conflict studies.

References

Akinola

A. O.

(2011). Niger delta crisis: The nexus between militants’ insurgency and security in West Africa. Africa Security, 4, 46-61.

Akinola

A. O.

(2014). South Africa and the two faces of xenophobia: A critical reflection. Africa Peace & Conflict Journal, 7, 56-67.

Akinola

A. O.

Ndawonde

(2016). NEPAD: Talking from the South, governing from the West. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies: Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity, 11, 38-51.

Anne

Abrahams

Campbell

J. C.

(2005). Women in South Africa: Intentional violence and HIV/AIDS: Intersections and prevention. Journal of Black Studies, 35, 135-154.

Attood

(n.d.). Drop the anger urges peace activist. Retrieved from http://www.ubuntupeaceproject.com/pages/18912

Basent

(2016, December 24). COPE calls for Ramaphosa, Mthethwa probe over Marikana. Retrieved from http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/47a788804f71901eb44df629789ef756/COPEundefinedcallsundefinedforundefinedprobeundefinedofundefinedRamaphosa,undefinedMthethwaundefinedoverundefinedMarikana-20162412

Bongmba

E. K.

(2004). Reflections on Thabo Mbeki’s African renaissance. Journal of Southern African Studies, 30, 291-316.

Dandala

(1996). Cows never die: Embracing African cosmology in the process of economic growth. In Lessem

Nussbaum

(Eds.), Sawabona Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa.

Enslin

Horsthemke

(2004). Can Ubuntu provide a model for citizenship education in African democracies. Comparative Education, 40, 545-558.

10.

Ezenwoko

F. A.

Osagie

(2014). Conflict and conflict resolution in pre-colonial Igbo society of Nigeria. Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, 9, 135-158.

11.

Gentes

(2011). No future without forgiveness, Desmond Tutu 1999. Retrieved from http://www.kimgentes.com/book-reviews/2011/8/23/no-future-without-forgiveness-desmond-tutu-1999.html

12.

Gibson

(2005). The truth about truth and reconciliation in South Africa. International Political Science Review, 26(4), 41-361.

13.

Graybill

(2004). Pardon, punishment, and amnesia: Three African post-conflict methods. Third World Quarterly, 25, 1117-1130.

14.

Hailey

(2008, November 1). Ubuntu: A literature review. Paper Prepared for the Tutu Foundation, London, England.

15.

Idoniboye-Obu

Whetho

(2013). Ubuntu: “You are because I am” or “I am because you are”? Alternation, 20, 229-247.

16.

International Institute for Restorative Practices. (2008, October 22). Restorative justice and Africentricity: Mending the circle. 11th world conference—International Institute for Restorative Practices. Retrieved from http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/ON08Papers/ON08_Parris.pdf

17.

Johansen

L. A.

(n.d.). African solutions to African intergroup conflicts: Ubuntu humiliation (A study of Ubuntu and its effect on perceived humiliation in an interactive track two dialogue seminar). Retrieved from http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/JohansenProjectDescriptionUbuntu.pdf

18.

Kamwangamalu

(1999). Ubuntu in South Africa: A sociolinguistic perspective to a Pan-African concept. Critical Arts, 13(2), 24-41.

19.

Khomba

J. K.

(2011). Redesigning the balanced scorecard model: An African perspective (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa.

20.

Khoza

(1994). The need for an Afrocentric approach to management. In Christie

Lessem

Mbigi

(Eds.), African management: Philosophies, concepts and application. Randburg, South Africa: Knowledge Resources.

21.

Louw

(2002). Power sharing and the challenge of Ubuntu ethics. Stellenbosch, South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.

22.

Mandela

(1994). A long walk to freedom. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

23.

Mandela

(1997). Religious heritage. In Asmal

Chidester

James

(Eds.), Nelson Mandela: from freedom to the future. Johannesburg, South Africa: Jonathan Ball.

24.

Mangaliso

(2001). Building competitive advantage from Ubuntu: Management lessons from South Africa. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), 15(3), 23-34.

25.

Masina

(2000). Xhosa practices of Ubuntu for South Africa. In Zartman

I. W.

(Ed.), Traditional cures for modern conflicts: African conflict “medicine” (pp. 163-182). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner 163-182.

26.

Mbiti

(1969). African religions and philosophy. Ibadan, Nigeria: Heinmann.

27.

Mokgoro

J. Y.

(1998). Ubuntu and the law in South Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

28.

Murithi

(2006a, June 12-14). African approaches to building peace and social solidarity. Paper presented at the International Conference on Strategies for Peace With Development in Africa, The University for Peace & the African Union, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

29.

Murithi

(2006b). Practical peacemaking wisdom from Africa: Reflections on Ubuntu. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 1, 25-34.

30.

Murithi

(2009). Lessons in reconciliation. International Review of Education, 55, 221-233.

31.

Mvuselelo

(2009). Ubuntu: Globalization, accommodation, contestation in South Africa (ProQuest). (Doctoral dissertation), American University, Washington, United States.

32.

Nussbaum

(2003). Ubuntu: Reflections of a South African on our common humanity”, Reflections, 4(4), 21-26.

33.

Nyathu

(2009). The Ubuntu dialogue: Decolonising discourse and dualism in organisation studies (Doctoral dissertation). Warwick University, Coventry, UK.

34.

Olinger

Britz

Olivier

(2007). Western privacy and/or Ubuntu? Some critical comments on the influences in the forthcoming data privacy bill in South Africa. International Information & Library Review, 39, 31-43.

35.

Praeg

(2007). The geometry of violence. Stellenbosch, South Africa: Sun Press.

36.

Ramose

M. B.

(1999). African philosophy through Ubuntu. Harare, Zimbabwe: Mond Books.

37.

SAPA. (2012). Ubuntu, not hooliganism, will build a better society says Zuma. Retrieved from http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-22-ubuntu-not-hooliganism-will-build-better-society-says-zuma. Mail & Guardian, 22 September.

38.

Sigrun

M. M.

(2010). Part III of Ubuntu: More or less conflict? Retrieved from http://torontoreview.ca/2010/07/part-iii-of-ubuntu-more-or-less-conflict

39.

van Binsbergen

. (2002). Ubuntu and the globalisation of Southern African thought and society. Retrieved from http://www.shikanda.net/general/ubuntu.htm

40.

Visionthoughts. (2010). Spirituality, divinity & the earthly kingdom: The number 13 & the quest for black political empowerment. Retrieved from https://visionthought.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/osiris_isis_horus.jpg

41.

Wilson

(2011). African forms of conflict resolution are appearing in the West. Retrieved from http://www.diversityjournal.com/4361-african-forms-of-conflict-resolution-are-appearing-in-the-west/