Primitivising Conflict_Reflection Memo

Africa, a continent of over 53 sovereign states, House over 1.2 billions people, many resources and rich culture, natural resources and rich culture and a moderate climate, suitable for peaceful coexistence ,yet one  would  wonder  why most  of the world think of it as a dark ,  primitive geographical settlement The  answer  to  this would be the narrative held and views and perception feed to the general public.

A journey back in history proves the continent to house the earliest form of civilization. The oldest bones being found on the Continent etc. However, most geographer’s anthropologist have refused to recognize or accept these realities- the communal and orderly lives existed in the Africa before the eventual voyage and discoveries.

Africa for its part, was already a patrimony made up of authorities: chieftains local heads, religions leaders and Royalties who acted in capacities of protector and warriors as well as guarantor on Law and Order. Precolonial Africa’s setting was made up of Empires whose major aim and objectives were territorial expansion, Eg benin kingdoms in Nigeria and Ashanti in Ghana. While expansion was the main focus, they also made trade in salt, and metal and steels etc. across neighboring communities and kingdoms, even before the coming of imperialist.  The main aim before the colonial era was conquest and exporting language, influence around their regions and subduing other empire seg  Kenem - bornu Empire. Unbeknown to most scholars who in their works have argued on the non- existing structure, civilization, and organization of African communities before colonialism.

A departing point however, as found in the readings ( Kony 2012) reinstates emphasis on narrative on Africa, which inversely reflects on the approach  to solving conflicts and ethnic Violence in the region by external actors  The narrative being a negative one, has more often than never created a bad image of the continent and in most cases a self inflicted sympathetic outlook towards Africa these outcomes has several consequences and benefits for both internal and external actors.

Methods of resolution and ways of solving conflicts in Africa are acutely influence by narratives and roles and engagement of external actors have been to a  large extent been shaped on this narrative. E.g Military intervention as solution in Libya after Qaddafi regime. Another prime example where the misgivings in Eastern Congo conflicts. For the international Actors, who intervene on the umbrella of settling the dispute, instead supporting one camp while branding the other as the aggressor etc.

Narratives matter and cannot be over emphasized.

For kony 2012, there is always a campaign narratives or picture often painted to portray a certain conflict in a certain way, dividing the warring parting into two sides, good and bad, victims and aggressor. This actions Mostly carried with little or no considerations for other factors of cause of conflict. The west and international actors for its part, choose who they would pitch tent with, choose what aligns with they own National interest and what they think is in the best interest of the state and peaceful coexistence. They therefore take a narrative sell it and lobby every one to band wagon with it. The problem is that upon realization of truth in most cases, the campaign and narrative most have accepted so much that it is hard or impossible to eliminate or erase.

Most Conflicts in Africa has been projected as being Driven by certain narrative e.g Grievance, ethnic selfishness, Government Corruption and endemic corruption, Religious Fundamentalism etc.

The question of when and if narratives are to be given is answered by due diligence and carefully rational consultations with the people at the grassroots to determine interventions in conflicts.