Sometimes one has the impression that personal honour and prestige are considered much more important than the truth and interests of the community. And so, one is ready to sacrifice the entire community, the basic principles of common life and even the lives of others for one’s interests.

This is a true alienation of one’s freedom. We must ask ourselves how it is possible to defend our freedom even at the cost of our life’s blood. Only based on a good education of the community to freedom can we create communities capable of interacting with others rationally and peacefully, avoiding the use of violence. Contemporary Africa is made up of “Nation-States”, each of which has a geographically determined space, created in specific historical circumstances.

Kenya. Turkana. Each state is internally made up of different cultural or religious groups and different ethnic groups. File swm

Each of these States is internally composed of different cultural or religious groups and different ethnic groups. It is normal for there to be tensions and conflicts of interest between the different groups. The political theory developed in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment sees the State as a community of individuals who have inalienable rights, but in the pursuit of their interests, have come together to create structures of common life through agreement. It insists on the dignity and rights of each individual. In this perspective, conflicts are seen above all in terms of the legitimization of power, the defence of one’s rights and the pursuit of one’s interests. While not denying the importance of these factors, it seems to us that the social contract by itself is inadequate to found the community upon it. It ignores natural communities such as family, kinship or even ethnicity. The basis of the community is the relationship or rather relationality.
While not excluding dispositions, such as friendship, love, and altruism, relationality is not limited to them. It does not depend on the sympathy or good feelings that one has towards another. It is based on qualities such as a sense of responsibility for one’s actions, a sense of duty towards those who depend on us; and loyalty to those who have committed themselves, and exposed themselves for others. It is based on respect for one’s traditions and those of other cultures and on the recognition that we all share the same humanity. Going beyond individualism, it must be said that the nation is ultimately a community of communities, since the nation is not a conglomeration of individuals, but is constituted by a variety of ethnic groups, cultures and religious groups, even by a succession of generations.

Mauritania. The nation is ultimately a community of communities. File swm

In a nation, people are not only related as individuals but also as members of specific groups, each with its own identity. Each group tends to protect its own identity and demands to be recognized and respected by others. Certainly, the group must never stifle the freedom of the individual in the name of preserving the group’s identity, but the group has the right to be recognized, taken into consideration and respected. It is the lack of respect or recognition of groups as such that leads to tribal violence. It is in this context of the nation conceived as a community of various communities that a conception of democracy based on the principle of the majority must be revised, since in such a system a majority community can always democratically impose its will on the minority. Already within the European democratic systems, the weakness of the principle of the majority has been realized and some are already talking about strong or deep democracies.
It is a question of developing institutions and structures complementary to liberal democracy, in which everyone can actively participate in the discussion and contribute to the development of politics and decision-making that affects each member. Therefore, not only individuals but entire communities must be taken into consideration.

Kenya. A group of Maasai under the acacia tree. The African ‘Palaver’ highlights the principle of participation.

The African ‘Palaver’ highlights this principle of participation well. A participatory democracy based on the ‘Palaver’ will be different from a representative democracy.
Some think that the State must be above the Tribes and religions and therefore neutral towards them. But neither the Tribe nor religions can be confined to the private space at the level of the individual and groups. No true believer and no Tribe would accept this, and rightly so on the basis of their own community and social dimension. There should be an interrelation between the various religious and ethnic identities and the State. The challenge of governing consists precisely in this: trying to converge the different interests of groups and individuals in view of the common good. This is where the different African religious and cultural traditions should intervene. They can be invested for the defence of the common good and of the spiritual values that govern public life and that the State must promote.
The State should intervene, even when it comes to religious matters and Tribes, to re-establish peace and social cohesion. It seems to us that this is a fundamental fact to be taken seriously into consideration in contemporary Africa. In fact, the contemporary African situation is complex. On the one hand, we find ourselves with a certain lay, secular elite, who no longer want to hear about religions and tribes in matters of State. Religion and Tribe must be excluded from public life and there is no need to take these parameters into account since they are the source of violence in society. Ultimately, they are perhaps opposed to too great an interference of ecclesiastics in politics and to a great ideologization of the tribe. However, religion is not clericalism, nor can the community dimension of the person incarnated be reduced in reference to the
tribe and its deviations.

South Africa. Cape Town. House of Parliament. The state should intervene, even in religious and tribal matters, to restore peace and social cohesion. CC BY-SA 3.0/I, PhilippN

On the other hand, we also have fundamentalist readings of the tribe and religion. Fundamentalism in Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria allows us to realize this: very often, for political propaganda, it highlights the tribal or religious element as a criterion of public and political life. In this fundamentalist reading, democracy is seen as the domination of the majority tribe or religion over others. This is clearly seen in the tendency to falsify statistics when one wants to know how many members a religion or tribe has in a specific African country. Everyone immediately understands what is at stake and the numbers quickly inflate. The notion of the State as a community of various communities intends to oppose precisely such phenomena. The ‘Palaver’ intends precisely to promote the construction of multicultural communities. One of the obstacles to dialogue in the Palaver is the patterns of thought and stereotyped prejudices about others. Very often we tend to characterize others starting from the groups to which they belong. And the group itself is qualified as either enemy or friend, superior or inferior. Relations between groups are thus determined either by economics or by political or historical patterns of influence or domination. These attitudes can and do block dialogue in modern Africa. We need to get out of these stereotyped patterns.

The ‘Palaver’ intends to promote the construction of multicultural communities. File swm

Dialogue is sometimes hindered by our stubborn refusal to recognize the desire of others to be recognized, respected and accepted as a group in their otherness and to have a social space in which they can live and develop their identity. Instead, we limit ourselves to tolerating them without accepting them or we try to be inclusive in a relationship of domination – subordination. The others then try to affirm their identity in a revolutionary or violent way. It is clear that here a prerequisite for peace is a true will to recognize, respect and accept the other as different. Furthermore, it is necessary to create places of experience of collaboration and multi-ethnic work trying to promote justice and community. All this must be placed in the context of the ‘Palaver’ as a tool for resolving and preventing conflicts. But how can this happen in practice? (Open Photo: African Union flag and African flags, maps painted on an old wall background. Shutterstock/patrice6000)

(J.M.)

Peace depends on the community’s ability to intervene in problematic situations and resolve conflicts by re-establishing justice and truth. Every peace is built based on justice and equity and not on the annihilation of the other. The art of politics consists precisely in the ability to know how to resolve conflicts creatively without giving rise to violence and thus promoting life.

In this perspective, African ancestors invented the ‘Palaver’, a highly relevant and effective procedure today. In sub-Saharan Africa, the ‘Palaver’ best expresses the function of the word in its community dimension. Public affairs are discussed through the ‘Palaver’, conflicts are resolved, legal acts are established, etc.
From this definition emerges the popular, public character of the ‘Palaver’ as well as its purpose which is the interest of each individual and all. One can resort to the ‘Palaver’ both for matters that concern the public interest and for those of personal interests.Ultimately, an event of a fundamental community nature occurs in it that concerns order and/or community life. Thus, one could say that the ‘Palaver’ is a path of common research to find a law of social life, a lifestyle.

Kenya. Pokot. The ‘Palaver’ originates in an “infringed right” or a “disturbed order”. File swm

Given the complexity of the fields it deals with, there are also various types of ‘Palaver’: at the level of the family, the clan or the village, between villages or even between two ethnic groups; but all these contexts refer to the context of the family and the way of proceeding is always the same. Here our interest goes first of all towards that type of ‘Palaver’ that could be defined as “the reduction of a conflict through language, a humane erasure of violence through discussion”.
The origin of the ‘Palaver’ is therefore in an “infringed right” or a “disturbed order”, that is, it always starts from a complaint brought to a ruler or the community council by a member or a clan or a tribe that sees its right infringed. The complaint requires that the community be convened. The purpose of the ‘Palaver’ emerges from the very way in which the community is arranged, that is, communication, giving new life, recomposing the entire community, that is, reconciling.

Guinea Bissau. the ‘Palaver’ articulates the word as a word “given to another”. File swm

In the ‘Palaver’, the entire society itself sets out on a journey, questions itself about its references (points of reference), distances itself from violence and attempts to enter into an uninterrupted dialogue with itself and with the other in itself. It can do this only because the ‘Palaver’ articulates the word as a word “given to another”, “addressed to”, as a donation. This donation requires the donor to put it in a form that is also an articulation of meaning. It thus highlights that reconciliation can only happen as a gift, gratuitously.
It is possible only when at least one of the parties involved feels the need to give meaning to life by performing acts of gratuitousness.
In this perspective, the ‘Palaver’ also brings into play another fundamental dimension of the Word: its creativity. Everyone can speak freely and in fact, the ‘Palaver’ does not end until all participants have expressed what is close to their hearts. It is appropriate here to underline the freedom of speech of each member and of the entire assembly as well as the dialogical character that the search for truth has in the exercise of justice. In fact, not only is there dialogue in the public debate, but the very search for arguments is done in dialogue, in consultation between the groups responsible for the ‘Palaver’. In all of this, the purpose of the ‘Palaver’ is manifested, which is to put an end to conflicts through the word and its creativity.

Kenya. Borana leaders. The function of the ‘palaver’ is to ensure that a word spoken in the community is a producer of life and not of death. File swm

The failure of the ‘Palaver’ means resuming the conflict or the outbreak of violence. Therefore, a great sense of responsibility is expected from all participants in the use of the word as a revealer of the truth that creates justice. In this way, the healing function of the word is highlighted. The word is capable of producing salvation or destroying, it can build communion or destroy it. It is something effective and dynamic. The function of the ‘Palaver’ consists in ensuring that a word spoken in the community is a producer of life and not of death. This role of the word is of capital importance, given that conflicts, and the need for revenge on the part of the victim often leads them to no longer know how to manage violence, resentment, or rancour. The word placed in the context of the “Palaver” can liberate the victim.
The genesis of resentment lies in the fact that the exercise of revenge that would re-establish the offended person in the sense of his dignity, his honour, and the satisfaction to which he is entitled, is so strong that this emotion is focused on the internal imaginative expression, or even on the tendency to take revenge. It is this resentment that then translates into feelings such as hatred, jealousy, wickedness, envy and malice. Such resentment does nothing but increase the suffering endured by the victim. Such resentment debases the person and poisons his personality. The hatred hidden within the person prevents him from developing, from fulfilling himself.
Therefore, it is impossible to count on a victim who lives in resentment to build the future. Hence the need to free such individuals from their resentment through the word. Such was the strong point of the intuition of the ancestors in resorting to the ‘Palaver’.

Kenya. Turkana. In the ‘Palaver’ logic, everyone has the right to speak. File swm

In the logic of the ‘Palaver’ everyone has the right to speak. In this sense the ‘Palaver’ guarantees equality and access for all to speak with a view to the liberation of the individual and the building up of the community. The final decision reached at the end of a ‘Palaver’ process is not the result of a compromise or a vote according to the principle of the majority, but of a solid consensus among all members which allows them to glimpse the path to follow together. The ‘Palaver’ process can reach this result because in it a purification of memory takes place, a confession of one’s guilt by the aggressor and an expression of one’s resentment by the victim.
In the word, in language, liberation takes place, because in it the truth has come to light. It is typical of the ‘Palaver’ that in it the truth occurs only progressively in a long process where each of the participants expresses his opinion and his thoughts, gradually correcting and readjusting his position according to the perception of the light of truth as it manifests itself in the process of exchange. In the end, one adheres to the conclusion not because it is the expression of the majority, but because in the voice of the community, each one recognizes his voice. The ‘Palaver’ is not only a long common process of clarification in the search for truth, but above all, it is a common search for peace and communion, reconciliation with oneself and with others. (Open Photo: Maasai young people. 123rf)
(J.M.)

One could also define ‘Palaver’ as a common search through the word to maintain the integrity of the community, that is, to promote life through a reconciliation that creates peace. It is an effort by all
to ensure peace.

It is an active search through dialogue, through the word to establish a peace based on justice and benevolence, a harmonious peace. That harmony and peace are the true aims of ‘Palaver’ can also be seen from how conflicts are resolved. At the end of ‘Palaver’ one always tries to save the guilty party and not to exalt the winner too much. What matters is reconciliation and that harmony, and communion are re-established. Such a process is demanding and requires certain conditions for its realization. First of all, we need wise leaders (able to discern between good and evil), competent (in eloquence and knowledge of history) and experts in the traditions of the Ancestors.

‘Palaver’ as an instrument of reconciliation. File swm

The fundamental experience that lies at the root of the ‘Palaver’ as an instrument of reconciliation is that of communion. Communion requires taking into consideration all members of the community as speaking subjects. Communion is true only when the community promotes and guarantees the freedom of each of its members and when each member is aware of being free only in the relationship with the community. The reference to the community is fundamental for the freedom of the individual itself. Personal experience always contains a community dimension. On the other hand, every experience is about the word and therefore given communication and the community. It is within the community that the word manifests its transparency and creative capacity for life. This is why the place of the word and of verification of every experience is the community, that is, the context of the relationship with otherness.
The ‘Palaver’ is therefore a dynamic process whose dynamism is based on the ability of individuals to carry forward new experiences that enrich the community, that promote life and communion. In this perspective, the ultimate criterion of reference is not the individual, but the individual as related to the community. It is this relationship that establishes the individual as a subject.

The ‘Palaver’ requires greater objectivity and great sincerity. 123rf

Precisely because it intends to re-establish communion, the ‘Palaver’ requires the presence of all interested parties and the community as a whole, because without the agreement of each one and of all, social harmony cannot be achieved. From each one, transparency in communication, the predisposition not to spoil communication, the willingness to say frankly what motivates his actions and his expectations are expected.
The ‘Palaver’ requires greater objectivity and great sincerity. These are achieved de facto through the presence of all. When someone is not sincere, those who know him are present and can protest. As Abdon Atangana, Professor at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa, rightly says, “What is striking in the ‘Palaver’, as well as in every sincere dialogue between Africans, is the freedom and frankness in the discussion, in the way in which each frees themselves from any false courtesy, telling each other the truth to their faces”. The sincerity of the entire community is at stake here.
These conditions presuppose freedom of speech, that is, to speak and to be listened to. Everyone is responsible for social harmony. If it is true that the concept of community (relationship) is fundamental to understanding the person in Africa, it is also true that this concept is closely linked to the tribe or clan. How can one think of it beyond the tribe in the context of the construction of the nation-state and a fraternal world? This remains the challenge: how to think of plurality and community, the State as a community of communities that live harmoniously and in peace among themselves in search of the promotion of the Common Good?

“We all share the same humanity”.

At the basis of every community is the relationship, the ability to relate to the different or better “relationality”. It presupposes dispositions such as those of friendship, of altruism, without being reduced to them. Relationality does not depend on the sympathy or good feelings that one can have towards someone else. It is founded in the sense of responsibility for one’s own actions, in the sense of our obligation towards those who depend on us and of the loyalty that we must have towards those who commit themselves to others. It demands respect for one’s traditions and those of other cultures; the recognition of the fact that we all share the same humanity.
It is in this context that the principle of a democracy based on the principle of the majority must be rethought because in such a democracy minorities will always be afraid of being crushed by the majority groups. Everyone must participate. In this context, the ‘Palaver’ is a good principle. (Open Photo: 123rf)
(J.M.)