Mediation
in Burundi, Central Africa
Introduction
Since late 2007 a series of mediation
trainings have been conducted in four African nations, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo (DRC), Rwanda, Burundi, and Kenya.
All have experienced serious levels of violence in their recent
past. The trainings were done with the
support of two Quaker affiliated organizations, the African Great Lakes
Initiative (AGLI) and Change Agents for Peace International (CAPI). This article is about one mediation done in
Burundi following a three day training period.
The mediation was conducted by two mediators recently schooled in the
Transformative mediation model. Part of
the intention of the trainers was to see if this model would fit into the
context of a foreign culture.
Transformative mediation was elaborated by Joseph Folger and Baruch Bush
in the United States.
The recent history of Burundi is one of forty six
years of ongoing civil war pitting two tribes the Hutu (85%) and Tutsi (14%) on
opposing sides. A third tribe, the Twa,
represent about 1% of the population and do not figure heavily in the
conflict. Prior to independence in 1962,
the tribes lived in a somewhat symbiotic relationship, with the Tutsi
eventually placed in a position of dominance by the colonial power, Belgium. Many of the two tribes’ customs and their
language are identical, but there are underlying differences, as well,
exacerbated by the relative positioning that was imposed by the Belgians. After independence, violent conflict
began. Initially the Tutsi were dominant
but with outside pressures pushing democracy, the Hutu became politically
stronger with the exception that the Tutsi retained control of the Army.
Massacres of innocents was the order of the
day. By 1972 many people had fled into neighboring countries, particularly
Tanzania. They have lived there almost
continuously since. They are now being
pushed back to Burundi by the Tanzanians creating a second diaspora for these
people. The U.S. recently agreed to accept
14,000 refugees of Burundian origin.
There were over 15 political groups formed during the conflict, many
with their own militias operating within and outside the country. It is thought that over 500,000 people have
been killed since the early 1960’s. An
internationally driven peacemaking process has been ongoing since the early
1990’s, and recently the last of the militias has agreed to lay down their
arms. The major roads and strategic
installations in the country are still heavily patrolled by the army. The peace is at best tenuous.
It is in this atmosphere that the mediation
process has been introduced in a limited way to help people resolve daily
conflict in their communities. There
are other programs of reconciliation , Healing and Rebuilding our Communities
(HROC) also sponsored by the Quakers to help members of the opposing tribes go
through the process of forgiveness and reconciliation.
This is the account of one of the first
mediations attempted in a village in Burundi.
A four day training was completed in early
August, 2008 in Gitega, the second largest city in Burundi. After the training was completed the plan was to get a referral from a local
Peace Committee in a neighboring village to do a mediation of an ongoing
conflict. Mark, the Peace Committee coordinator in the village of Butamuheba,
about 10 kilometers outside of Gitega, invited the trainees to the
village. He indicated that he had at
least 30 cases he could refer. The group
was prepared to do two.
The case was mediated by two trainees, a
public health worker/quaker pastor (male) and a primary school teacher
(female). Both were native to the region
where the mediation was held, though not residents of Butamuheba. Phillipe, the lead mediator has written a
narrative of the mediation in French which I’ve translated and edited. His words will be highlighted, and my
comments will continue in italics type face.
Jeanne was the co-mediator.
Resume of the Mediation done in Butamuheba
Friday August 9, 2008
- The case: a problem
of finance, heritance, and rights
- The
participants: The conflict saw a
man in opposition to the widow of his elder brother. There were numerous roots to the
problem. During the mediation, the
man was accompanied by one of his two sisters while the widow was joined by her two
sons, eleven and twelve years. A
second sister of the man was in the mediation, although she was neutral in
the case. As well there were
numerous neighbors and members of the local peace committee numbering
about 15 people. Four other
mediator trainees were observers at the mediation.
It
should be noted that in their training, the mediators were taught to follow the
wishes of the disputants as to who should be allowed to attend the
mediation. Most mediations are kept
between the disputing parties and their immediate counsel. Fifteen people(spectators) attending would be
considered most unusual in a North American context. However it will be seen in this description
that some of the observers became active participants by the end of the
mediation.
- The mediation was
held in a primary school classroom with disputants widely separated
against opposing walls. The
mediators were in the middle of the room facing each other. The neighbors and other spectators were against the
back wall of the room behind the co-mediators, and the mediation observers were off to
the side on both sides of the lead mediator. The mediator-trainer also shuttled
between this case and another going on simultaneously in another building.
- Proceedings
In his introduction, the lead mediator let the
disputants know that the mediators’ sole role was to help the parties express
themselves and do what they could to restore previous relations if that’s what
they wanted. He underlined the fact that
a normal judiciary process might only separate them further and cause them much
additional expense.
He asked the disputants if they had questions or if
they were ready to proceed. They
affirmed that they were ready. The man
spoke first.
“I want to speak first, because it is me who is
greatly damaged by her offense. The
woman sitting in front of me dared to sell a portion of a property left by her
deceased husband , my older brother, without any authorization that is required by the family. As the eldest surviving brother, I represent
the family’s interests. She sold it
without consulting me, knowing full well that I represented the authority of
the family and that I was delegated such authority by my deceased brother. This being the case, I requested that the
local authorities and
administrators respect my wishes. I do not want the children of my deceased
brother to grow up without hope of owning some material possessions. The exploitation or sale of the land should
not occur until after the marriage of the two boys.”
The mediator then made a summary of the man’s
statements and asked if the summary was correct and if the man had anything
else to reveal. There was no
indication that anything was to be added at that time.
It was now the woman’s turn. Upset and in tears, she responded as follows:
“This man who calls himself the guardian of family
responsibility has done nothing to
demonstrate that he is up to the task of carrying out my dead husband’s
wishes. He has done nothing but
undervalue my abilities and mistreat me
since my husband’s death.”
“Like all his brothers and sisters, including this one
who stands here and accuses me, my
husband inherited from his father his portion of the family property. Each one of these family members has
previously sold their portion of the property.
I was never at anytime informed of those sales and was never invited to
the ‘pots de vin’ that occasioned the sale of each portion of land.”
The ‘pot de vin’ is a well recognized local custom
that consummates an important occasion such as the sale of land. It consists of the purchase of large crocks
of home brewed alcohol which is shared by participants and family members. To be ignored or left out of such a ritual
would be a serious insult.
“When my husband died, we did not have a nice house or
a source of revenue to pay school fees for our two sons. I had to make do as best I could. This man who claims to be responsible for the family has never come to our side or
even seemed to be aware of our problems.
He even went as far as being a source of difficulties for us and has
always sought to get me to leave the land left by my husband in order to get
control of it. As proof of this , it
was he who organized that I be raped.
And when I cried for help , no one in the family came to my aid. They even tried to criticize my cries for
help by saying that I had no right to ask for help.”
“From this rape , I had a child now aged four
years. But no one in the family up to
now has come forward to assist me in registering the child with the local
authorities.”
Though considered shocking to a western reader, the
rape of a woman in these circumstances, did not seem to be a major issue in the
case, because it was not part of the final resolution. I questioned several people who were present
at this case when I first read the
translation of the events discussed.
Even the pastors felt that there were some rights given to the
brother-in-law of the deceased that would be considered abhorrent in western
culture but were acceptable in local custom.
The fact that the rape was done by someone other than the brother-in-law
also seemed to be acceptable.
The woman
continues:
“In the face of multiple financial problems, I eventually decided to sell one portion of my
property. But before doing this action,
I approached one of my brothers-in-law, whom I considered least violent
and informed him of my decision to
sell. He showed himself to be
understanding and cooperative and accepting of my idea. But I was surprised and shocked to discover
that he was no longer with me on the day of the sale. In conclusion, I would like to make it clear
to those listening what I firmly believe to be my right:
1. I love my children to the
point that I cannot put them in danger as far as concerns the sale of the land.
2. I have the right to sell
my land however I want without having to explain my acts to anyone.”
The mediator then summarized the woman’s statement,
asked her if he got it right, (he did) and asked if she had anything to add
(she didn’t). He then asked the
audience which seemed somewhat agitated by her statements to calm down to aid
the comprehension of everyone present.
He also stated that only the disputants would be given the right to
speak, as well as the mediators.
There would be some criticism of the mediator
whether it was his right to limit the
conversation, if the disputants wanted to hear from the spectators. However this was not made clear whether this
happened in the mediator’s review of the case.
The co-mediator took over the process at this time and
reviewed with the parties where they were and where they wanted to go with the
case. Since disputants seemed to be at a
stalemate, the mediators decided to ask for a caucus, (speaking to each party
separately).
The disputants were both invited to go outside. The lead mediator went with the man and the
co-mediator went with the woman.
It is not clear in the document from which I’m
working, what was talked about in the caucus or whether it was more to get some
fresh air and reflect. However it is now
noted that the other mediators who were watching made several observations and
comments about the case as follows:
“With all the hate between the disputants , which is
the most important issue?”
1. The recognition of the
right of the woman to represent herself in the
disposal of the land.
or
2. The recognition of the
power of the brother-in-law to represent the family and the power of the family
in the matter.
The
mediators now requested the disputants to re-enter the classroom to continue
the mediation. When they were seated the
mediator reminded the spectators, that they were there as spectators only. He reminded the parties that the goal of the
mediation was to reweave the fabric of the family relations that had been torn
and that it was important for all to remember this.
This might be considered to be more the right of the
disputants to decide what was important in Transformative theory, however, this
is the way the case was presented.
At
this point the mediator again summarized the main points of the case and began
a series of questions and answers with the disputants involving the two issues
stated above, ie. the right of the woman to do as she pleased
with the land and the power of the family in the matter.
Finally
the man recognized the right of the woman to represent herself and her deceased
husband in the case. But he insisted
that the ‘pot de vin’ be made and that
he, the brother-in-law, be specially invited to participate in that ceremony in
recognition of his role as patriarch of the family.
The
woman’s response was that she would not refuse to offer the ‘pot de vin’ but
that it was economically impossible for her to pay for the ‘pot de vin’.
At
this point a second caucus was called.
Second
Caucus:
The
mediator asked the two parties to go out of the classroom again. This time he also asked four of the
spectators to also come out, two who had been sitting on the side of the woman
and two from the side of the brother-in-law.
As it was a time of recess for all, many other spectators came
outside. A third group formed outside
and stated that they were ready to support the widow in financing the famous
‘pot de vin’ now requested at such great insistence by the brother-in-law. At this time , an elder of the village,
clarified the importance of the ‘pot de vin’ , and the buyer of the land
guaranteed that he would pay for the ‘pot de vin’ in place of the widow. The neighbors (third group, above) added that
they would each contribute 200 francs (US $0.20) each to buy the ‘pot de
vin’ in
support of the widow.
These
‘deals’ were made during the caucus, independently of the mediators and
disputants. Quite unusual. My first contact with the mediation was at this point, and several of
the trainees approached me shaking their heads , saying that this was a very
difficult if not impossible situation we’d gotten into as mediators.
Finally
the mediator reconvened the mediation.
He summarized the offers that were made during the caucus. He asked the brother-in-law what if any
change had occurred in his position. To
everyone’s surprise , the brother-in-law stated,
“Whether
or not the ‘pot de vin’ is given, I recognize that the widow of my elder
brother is legal in her right to dispose of the land given to her by my
brother. The buyer is therefore held in
my eyes to be the owner of the land he purchased, that is to say, he has the
right to exploit it as he wishes, from this day.”
At
these words, everyone acclaimed him with cries and applause, and as well the
mediators were overcome with emotion and began crying. The widow and her children were visibly
overwhelmed with joy that showed on their faces.
The
widow now stated: “I thank my
brother-in-law for this declaration and I thank mediation which has helped us
resolve this matter. From my side I
accept with open heart this offer of the
‘pot de vin’.
The
elder son then took the floor: “I thank
my uncle for his declaration. And I feel
the need to forgive my aunt, his wife, who beat me when I recently came to
share a meal with my cousins on the day I was invited to their home
to collect 500 francs (US $0.50)
to pay for my school fees.”
It is
not unusual for uncles, older brothers, and other relatives to help children
with their school fees. This would have
been a common occurrence for the family.
The fact that the aunt beat this child indicates the tension that
existed in the family.
Numerous
acclamations continued in the classroom, and the mediator eventually led the
group to a closure. He asked four
persons to speak about what they had
witnessed. In taking the floor, each
of these persons hailed the miracle that they had witnessed, this turn from
hostility to forgiveness. They
expressed their desire that the results of this mediation be perpetuated and
that they be a model for the numerous cases of conflict still existing in the
village.
Finally
there were photos taken to be hung in the classroom where the event took place
as a reminder to all how this affair was brought to a peaceful conclusion. Two prayers were then made, one by a catholic
and one by a Quaker pastor who was with the mediators, followed by a
spontaneous yet somber song.
The
case going on in the other hall was near conclusion both lasting about 3 ½
hours. There were events I had never
seen in ten years of mediating many types of cases. The mediators went beyond the things I had
trained them to do. What seemed unusual
or strange to me, probably fit comfortably into the context of Burundian
life. I was proud of the work the two
mediators did that day. I think that
there was a lot of pressure to drive
this case to a resolution which the Transformative model may not necessarily
have been compelled to achieve.
Empowerment and Recognition, two
pillars of the Transformative process really and truly occurred. The road that led to Empowerment and
Recognition may not have been on the pure Transformative pathway. Will mediation of any sort find its way into
Burundian society? I think that at least
in this area, it will continue to be a new and useful method of resolving
conflict. Can it be applied to the more
violent nature of people, I don’t know yet. There was violence in this case, the rape,
but it was not acknowledged as the most important issue by the perpetrator or
even the members of the family. I can
only judge by the reactions of the spectators, the members of the peace committee,
and the disputants that it was a successful process that needs to be
developed, maintained and further
evaluated. The need to train more
mediators is clear. There are only
twenty-five trained by our work. It
would be better to promote mediation to the level that all villages would have
several trained individuals to work in dispute resolution. There are traditional methods as well, but
many of these have been forgotten or corrupted by the adoption of European law. People are re-examining how they can bring
justice to their populations and deciding how this can be achieved. More work needs to be done, more mediations
observed and studied before a reasonable conclusion can be drawn.
George
Brose
Kettering,
OH
September
1, 2008
In a recent communication with David Bucura the director of the African Great Lake Initiative, he informed me that there have now been approximately 3,000 community mediators trained and working in the countries of Rwanda, Burundi, the Eastern Congo, and Kenya. Almost all of them are serving as volunteers in their communities. The new mediators after getting a bit of experience became trainers themselves.
George, February, 2026
One further note before closing. To more fully understand the level of violence that had been endemic in Burundi since independence in the early 1960's, on our way to the four day training we passed a memorial site where a group of Tutsi children and teachers had been put into a petrol station and the station set on fire. This occurred just seven miles from where the mediation described above was held. I won't go into details about that but if you wish to know more you can find the story on Google. This is a picture of the memorial to that incident at the village of Kibimba.
