Tribalism and Reconciliation
By Anne Bartlett
April 17, 2013 – With recent events on the minds of many and reference to tribes still a potent form of solidarity and identity in Sudan, it is now more important than ever to think through potential paths to reconciliation and peaceful co-existence. It is also extremely important to examine the reasons for tribal identification in the first place, (which are often trivialized when they shouldn’t be), and to understand what workable solutions might actually look like. Above all, it is important to recognize that culture, language and a sense of belonging are important to everyone, but that a sense of belonging does not necessarily preclude the possibilities for living alongside others with mutual respect.
First, it is important to think about what tribalism is really all about. For sure, there are issues of identification with people like oneself, but more often than not, tribalism is really a euphemism to describe uncomfortable realities about power. These include: fear of unequal treatment; concerns about food security and the ability to survive; denigration of one culture in favor of a culture that is more dominant; less political power for some groups vis a vis others; the ability to secure access to land and last but not least, the ability to access security and protection. These are not trivial issues: they underpin our ability to create a sustainable existence and this is why they generate such strong feelings among the people concerned. Moreover, in Sudan, where the colonial and post-colonial state has typically abandoned large swathes of its population, a sense of belonging to a tribe is nothing less than a lifeline in difficult times. Small wonder then that people find these connections to be important. This is not a figment of their imagination: these feelings come out of a harsh reality that has been experienced by so many across the years.
All of these issues related to survival have been made even more complicated by the way that Sudan has been governed. Not only have tribal labels been constantly deployed by authorities to categorize the population, but their use has also been a form of manipulation to keep people under control. The practice of “kill the slave by the slave” (Aktul al-abid ‘bil abid ) is an all too common tactic to set one group against the other by using the promise of material gain — a practice that is still prevalent today. Even if tribal markers are not used as a reason to kill people, they are often used as a way to garner power and cling on to it at all cost. When power becomes an end in itself in this way, it negates any real chance to create a unified vision for the whole society. Unfortunately, for those who use these tactics, there is a tendency to believe that such methods are a convenient way to deal with their enemies in the short term. The problem is however that all of these dynamics are not limited to the time horizons in which they are used: the feelings of injustice created by these practices later go on to develop a life of their own. Over the course of Sudan’s history, so many groups have been set against each other using these tactics that they have now proliferated everywhere, with devastating results. Trying to stem the tide of inter-group rivalry is therefore a difficult task, because it requires that we unpick the historical dynamics that got us to this position in the first place and learn to forgive those who got involved in painful abuses against people within their own society.
Reconciliation is a part of this process and is vital for the futures of all concerned. It requires not only resolve from leaders, but also restraint from the general population as they go about their everyday lives. Perhaps, most importantly, it involves thinking carefully about the way that we interact with others. In this regard, the language, labels and categories we use to identify others are very important to maintaining a respectful environment and fostering the conditions of possibility for peace. Thinking carefully about why we use certain terms is extremely important, because the labels we use have the possibility to draw boundaries between ourselves and others. They have the ability to suggest togetherness on one hand, or distance on the other.
If, for example, we look carefully at the use of the term “tribe”, it becomes clear that such a term does not really capture a complex reality at all, but is instead a political or administrative term. It is used as a category that reduces complicated, multifaceted identities down to a simple one-dimensional thing. This is really unfortunate because it cloaks the internal variation of an ethnic group in a master label which treats the people concerned as if they are all the same. If the people of one tribe are treated as “all the same”, then it is only a step from there to say that another tribe is an enemy because they too are “all the same” and share a characteristic that is not liked. However, the reality is that for most ethnic groupings, it is far more appropriate to talk about a “people”, rather than a “tribe”, especially if one looks at their historical formation. As my colleague Douglas H. Johnson has pointed out elsewhere, the Shilluk and Azande were kingdoms, which were subdivided into chieftaincies. The Dinka and Nuer are also complex entities better thought of as peoples, and they too, are organized into sub-groupings. From my own research it becomes clear that the Fur are best described as a people, because although they have many similarities, there are also differences in lifestyle between those who inhabit different areas around the region. Many groups in Sudan have the kind of organizational complexity that makes the term “tribe” a misnomer in many respects and which doesn’t really do justice to inter-group variation, or the forms of sociality that exist and organize everyday lives on the ground.
The question that we need to ask is what we want these labels to do. In most cases, the use of labels is about demarcating who is different from whom and showing why that difference is important. The reasons, as I said earlier, are not trivial and relate to both resources and survival. Yet, if reconciliation is to proceed, why not reverse this logic and ask: “in what way are we similar and what practices do we share in common?” By starting from this position there is a greater possibility that we can scale the huge dividing walls that have been built between those concerned and try to think about the people around us in more productive ways. Also, if we start with the use of the term ‘people’ rather than ‘tribe’, it becomes possible to think in more inclusive terms because we are, in the end, all people. People are also part of what we call the nation, which assumes that we share an imagined community premised on similar values and ideas about the normative, or what life should be. This does not mean that we have to agree on everything: it just means that we share some values of what we should be striving for.
The other hope comes from Pagan ideas – which are at the foundation of many belief systems in Sudan, Africa, Europe and elsewhere – and have a lot to teach us about co-existence. Premised on ideas about the divinity of nature, these ideas relate to the land and our relationship to it. Unlike many ideas that see relationships based on ownership in the present, pagan systems trace a thread across history because there is a belief that we come from the land and will return to it one day. Through these logics, people inhabit particular pieces of land in a historical relationship to their ancestors. Such ideas teach us the importance of relationships with those around us not just in space, but also across time. They also show that it is not just about what we own, but what we have a responsibility to look after together. Attempts to snatch territory therefore create much larger problems than just the appropriation of the land itself: they steal the souls, memory and historical relationships of those involved to certain areas. For the purposes of reconciliation, these ideas show how important respect and sharing are to the stewardship of a common future together.
It follows from all of these points that changes in terminology and ways of thinking can be enormously beneficial to balance some of the problems that have emerged from tribalism. This is a start, but by itself it is still not enough. If changes are to be made to tribalism as a way of thinking, then changes also must be made to the conditions that produce these feelings in the first place. In other words, this process must be balanced with action to improve livelihoods, chances of education and even-handed treatment for all people irrespective of who they are and where they come from. Education is often given a low priority and yet it is a vitally important route to understanding, because it requires students to think abstractly outside of their own immediate situation to think about people unlike them. Such services are therefore important and if made available to all, may also help to stem the impetus to corruption and informal redistribution through the back door. Further, if there is a clear articulation of the processes by which people can access such services, this will negate the feeling that an official is making an arbitrary judgment based on the tribal background of the person concerned. Transparency, in other words, in key to making people feel that they are being given their rights.
All in all, efforts need to be made to create new directions on new paths. In common with so many failed peace talks across Sudan and elsewhere, it is not enough to get people together and tell them to stop engaging in certain kinds of behavior. Behavior always has a reason, and people cannot be made to get along unless they have a reason to do so. Coming together to celebrate positive diversity and the beautiful cultures of all the people, not just the privileged few, is a start. Looking for similarities, not differences, is another step along the way. Serious commitments to addressing the livelihoods and educational opportunities of the population are key, since they will not only provide hope and an economically trained workforce, but will forge relationships based on diversity. Step by step these measures can go a long way to restoring damaged relationships and lack of trust. As a person who originally came from a tribal background myself, I look forward to the day that we can achieve these results by working together.
Dr. Anne Bartlett is a Professor of Sociology and Director of the Master’s Program in International Studies at the University of San Francisco. She may be reached at [email protected]