Insight on conflict: BLOG.

Civil Society Share their Experiences in Advocating for Justice in Africa

  02 Sep 2010 | No Comments »

Civil society actors from around Africa, especially countries emerging from violent conflicts and gross human rights violations gathered in Johannesburg, South Africa on August 30-31 2010 to share their experiences on advocating justice and reconciliation in their countries. This was at a workshop on “Advocating Justice: Civil Society and Transitional Justice in Africa” organised by the African Transitional Justice Research Network (ATJRN) at Twickenham Guest House Johannesburg, South Africa. The workshop drew the participation of over 20 different civil society representatives from locally based organisations and groups advocating implementation of transitional justice mechanisms in different African countries. Stephen Oola, Peace Direct Uganda Local Correspondent attended this Workshop and here are the highlights. Transitional justice is often defined to include a range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempt to mitigate ongoing conflicts and to address a legacy of large scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, promote justice and achieve peace and reconciliation.

According to Stephen, “the quintessence of transitional justice is the balancing of the immediate need to secure peace with longer term imperatives of establishing the rule of law, good governance and preventing future conflicts.” It includes short, medium and long term local, regional, and international programmes that seek cessation of hostilities or repressive rule; address the root causes of violent conflicts, promote sustainable peace, reconciliation and justice; and nurture the rule of law in the affected societies. If comprehensively implemented and fully embraced by the population, transitional justice mechanisms like institutional reforms, prosecutions of heinous crimes, truth seeking and acknowledgement for past abuses, reparations to victims, memorialisation or memorials and traditional rituals for reconciliations have potential to achieve closure to past abuses, catharsis healing and kick-start the long process needed for local grassroots, inter-communal reconciliation and nation building.

According to ATJRN, the objective of the workshop was to bring together practitioners and scholars in order to share experiences and evaluate African civil society’s engagement with transitional justice (TJ) on the continent. It was intended to encourage individuals and organisations working on issues of peace, justice and reconciliation in Africa to document their experiences and advocacy efforts relating to influencing governments’ TJ policies before, during and after transition. Participants came from Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia and the host country – South Africa. The organisations represented were Refugee Law Project (RLP) and FIDA from Uganda; Fambul Tok International from Sierra Leone; Centre for Democratic Governance from Liberia; National Victims Network and International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) from Kenya; Penal Reform International from Rwanda; Congolese Coalition for Transitional Justice from DRC; Lawyers for Human Rights from Zimbabwe; and Khulumani Support Group, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) from South Africa.

The two day discussions explored the important roles civil society has played in catalysing development of transitional justice discourses in their very complex and challenging contexts. Civil Society groups have innovated proactive and sometimes reactive advocacy strategies to engage the victims of conflicts, their populations and governments to implement credible, appropriate and comprehensive mechanisms to deal with the legacies of large scale past human rights abuses. These strategies include civil society leading the process of designing and drafting transitional justice laws and policy frameworks, mobilising victims, consultations with key stakeholders and litigations among others. The formation of coalitions and coordinated civil society advocacy was identified as crucial for success but a lot of challenges were identified in their sustainability and staying the course. Funding politics and lack of capacity was repeatedly raised by the participants as an inhibiting factor. Many civil society organisations also work in very repressive environments making it extremely difficult to engage with governments that are often none responsive and less interested in the plight of victims.

It was humbling enough but also very inspiring to listen to stories of enormous successes accorded by some of the local civil society organisations under extremely difficult circumstances. The realisation of sustainable peace on the African continent largely depends on the achievement of equal dispensation of justice and access to opportunities. Civil societies are key agents in this pursuit but they still face a lot of challenges in their contexts. There is need for both state and non state actors to engage with civil society members and affected populations to facilitate implementation of appropriate transitional justice mechanisms relevant to each context. The African Union (AU) was noted to be increasingly taking its place in the fight for peace, justice and reconciliation on the continent and civil society was called upon to engage with the AU to adopt a comprehensive transitional justice policy framework: allowing for engagement with civil society and galvanising verifiable political will and commitment to deal with large scale human rights abuses.

The ATJRN seeks to promote and encourage transitional justice research in Africa through the development of research capacity, the building of transitional justice content knowledge, and the creation of spaces for practitioners and researchers in Africa to share experiences, expertise, and lessons learned. Established in 2004 by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (South Africa), Refugee Law Project (Uganda), Campaign for Good Governance (Sierra Leone) and the Centre for Democratic Development (Ghana), ATJRN strives to ensure that the transitional justice agenda in Africa is locally informed and owned.

Stephen Oola, Local Correspondent Uganda

Enriching Democratic Practice in South Asia

  24 Aug 2010 | 1 Comment »

The Foundation for Universal Responsibility of HH The Dalai Lama invites applications for a South Asian Peacebuilding Workshop:

Enriching Democratic Practice in South Asia: Possibilities from the Field of Peacebuilding

October 30 – 31, 2010, India International Center Annexe, New Delhi.

The two-day South Asian Peacebuilding Workshop seeks to empower youth leaders from the region with the skills and expertise to contribute to conflict prevention, resolution and transformation efforts. The focus will be on the ways in which the field of Peacebuilding, which embraces the above frameworks, can contribute to strengthening and enriching the contours of democracy in the counties of the South Asian region.

Who can apply: The Workshop is open to women and men (in the age group of 21 to 35 years) from the countries of the South Asian region (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka).

To apply: Applicants should send a CV and a 500-word note explaining why they are interested in participating and what they hope to learn from the Workshop.

Application deadline is September 6th, 2010. Applications can be mailed to wiscomp.ctprogramme@gmail.com or posted to the following address:

CT Programme, WISCOMP, Foundation for Universal Responsibility Of HH The Dalai Lama, Upper Ground Floor, Core 4 A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003, India. Ph: 91-11-24648450, ext. 105/106

Website: www.wiscomp.org

Pakistan: Appeal for Donations

  23 Aug 2010 | No Comments »

As you might know that roughly 20 million people have been affected by recent floods in Pakistan, therefore at the South Asia Centre for Peace we are collecting donations to expand the scope of our relief efforts in the country.

Flood Report of District Raheem Yar Khan, Pakistan. 19 August 2010

Please, find attached our appeal for donation and circulate it widely through your social and professional circles.

Click here to view the appeal (pdf)

Thanking you in anticipation!

Regards,

Zahid Shahab Ahmed, Executive Director, South Asia Centre for Peace, Islamabad, Pakistan. (Zahid is also the Pakistan Local Correspondent for Insight on Conflict).

Why Don’t Ugandans get the Services they Need?

  17 Aug 2010 | No Comments »

The New Vision on Sunday 15 August 2010 published results of its nation-wide survey on what most Ugandans demand from their governments and aspiring political leaders come 2011 (See What Ugandans Demand, Sunday Vision 15 August 2010 ). The result of the survey reveals that most Ugandans consider health, transport, education, children and employment as their most pressing issues. As a Ugandan, I largely agree that the above issues are quite pressing to many folks out there. Due credit must be given to the New Vision for conducting this comprehensive survey. The hope is that the current NRM government will utilise the few months of its current term in office to correct these deficiencies in service delivery to many Ugandans. Being a government owned news paper, many critics would rush to brush off its findings as politically edited. However, while the conclusion that many Ugandans do not focus on political freedoms and human rights but social service delivery might seem suspect to some, in fact we should appreciate that these are not mutually exclusive imperatives.

Certainly the obvious deficit in social service delivery impacts on the realisation of the human rights and political freedoms. In an attempt to steer clear of political controversy, the survey unfortunately did not ask Ugandans what they perceive as the possible reasons for the current state of unmet social service delivery and whose policy might be blamed. No respondent was asked on who might deliver or change the status quo. Also the survey did not ask why so many much-needed social services were not met despite continuous government figures showing intervention in these sectors- health, roads, agriculture and security. In other words, problems with individual personal security, agriculture, poverty alleviation, business as well as water and sanitation continue to dodge many Ugandans points to a much bigger structural deficit in governance. Health, a fundamental human right and precursor to human dignity was ranked by 97.4% of the respondents as their number one problem. This will not be surprising to many Ugandans, given recent revelations of scams and corruption within the health ministry  - including the over the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS and Malaria.  Ugandans will head to the poll next year to elect their political leaders and governments. There are a number of different political parties and coalitions warming up to unseat the current NRM government under the leadership of President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. But unseating Museveni is not a panacea to Uganda’s solutions.  The question is therefore: what are the structural causes that impede service delivery in Uganda today? How best can these be addressed? Which Party has appropriate policies to address what problem? How can Ugandans ensure that a regime’ policies work to their advantage in social service delivery?

Stephen Oola, Insight on Conflict Uganda Local Correspondent, 17 August 2010

PM Election in Nepal – A Neverending Story?

  12 Aug 2010 | No Comments »

The fourth-round election in the Nepali parliament was again failed to elect a new PM.

Following the three-point agreement signed by the major three political parties -Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-UML) and Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) on the midnight of 28 May 2010, PM Madhav Kumar Nepal resigned from the post of the PM a few weeks ago. The president has asked to Mr. Nepal to run a caretaker government until the new government is formed. According to the interim constitution of Nepal, the President called on the political parties to form a consensus government within a week. The political parties were unable to form the consensus government, even after being given an extended five days to do so. After the efforts to form the consensus government had failed, the president called for the formation of a majority government through voting in the parliament, based on the other provision in the interim constitution.

Mr. Puspa Kamal Dahal (Prachand) from UCPN-M, Mr. Ram Chandra Paudel from NC and Mr. Jhalanath Khanal from CPN-UML registered their candidacies for the post of the Prime Minister. The candidacy of Mr. Khanal was conditional — his party included the condition that Mr. Khanal would withdraw his candidacy if he failed to garner the approval of two-thirds of the parliament (meaning 401 votes out of 601 parliamentarians). In the event, Mr Khanal fell short, receiving support from 390 votes, from the UCPN-M and other small parties. His candidacy was therefore withdrawn.

This left Mr. Dahal and Mr. Poudel as candidates for the post of PM. The first round of election was held on July 21 and the both candidates did not obtain majority votes to elect the PM. Meanwhile, the CPN-UML and the United Democratic Front of Madhesh (UDFM), an alliance of four parties from Terai-Madhaesh (Madheshi People’s Rights Forum-Nepal, Madheshi People’s Rights Forum-Loktantrik, Terai-Madhesh Loktantrik Party and Sadbhawana Party) remained neutral. Indeed, the CPN-UML has taken as its position that it will not take part in elections for majority government, and instead insists on a national consensus government.

Similarly, the second round election on July 23 was also not successful in electing a PM. The votes of the UDFM would be enough for Mr. Dahal to get elected, whilst Mr. Poudel needs the support of both the UDFM and CPN-UML. The current political development once again revives the UDFM and strengthens their position for negotiation. After the second round election, the UDFM has forwarded its tough conditions for its support to any party. The UDFM has asked written assurance on the conditions in exchange for its votes.

Some of the major conditions out of the total 16 which were divided for three categories (related to Madhesh, Constitution making and the Peace Process) are as follows:

1. An autonomous Madhesh Province;
2. Group entry from Madhesh into Nepal Army;
3. Democratization of Nepal Army;
4. Management of PLA (Maoist army);
5. Return of seized property by the Maoist party;
6. Development of a national security policy.

These conditions have been already been accepted by the government of Nepal with the Maoist party and the Madhesh-based political parties before the constitution assembly election, with the exception of the national security policy. However, these agendas were never implemented after the constitution assembly election.

The possibility of a national consensus government by the major political parties still seems far removed. Meanwhile, the UCPN-M has published its position paper, focusing mainly on the security issues which agrees to the following agenda:

1. Democratic control of Nepal Army;
2. Development of a National Security Policy;
3. Time-bound management of PLA.

This position paper was not acceptable to the NC and the CPN-UML. The NC then published its own position paper, which did not include development of a national security policy and democratic control of the Nepal Army.

On to the third round election, which was also unable to elect the PM. Again, neither the candidate of the UCPN-M nor the NC managed to get the majority votes needed to elect the PM, despite the fact that some of the CA members of the Madheshi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF) defied the party’s decision to be neutral by casting their votes for the UCPN-M candidate Puspa Kamal Dahal “Prachand”.

On 4 August 2010, immediately after third round of the PM election, Mr. Shyam Saran, representative of the Indian Prime Minister  and former foreign secretary, made his visit to Nepal. His visit looked like being highly influential given the political context of PM election. He completed his two day visit after meeting with the major political parties including Madhesh-based parties.

However, the fourth round elections also failed to elect the PM. The CA members of the MPRF who had voted with the UCPN-M in the third round election this time followed their party’s line and stayed neutral.

Now, we await the fifth round of elections on 18 August. Before this, Mr. K.B. Rajan, former Indian ambassador to Nepal, has made another visit from India, as potentially influential as Shyam Saran’s could have been. After four rounds of deadlock, nobody can say whether the fifth round will bring a resolution to the election. The frustration of the people in Nepal is at a peak, with people saying – enough is enough! No more elections for the PM and no more political games in our name! They demand that the politicians form the consensus government and bring the peace process to its logical conclusion.

Ambika Pokhrel, Nepal Local Correspondent, Insight on Conflict, 12 August 2010