by Vincent Ogoti | Oct 4, 2015
Civil society is a term used in varied ways in different countries or contexts. Mary Kaldor in her 2003 lecture defined civil society as a “platform inhabited by activists, NGOs and neoliberals, as well as national and religious groups, where they argue about, campaign for (or against), negotiate about, or lobby for the arrangement that shape global developments.” This definition includes virtually all organizations distinct from government and business. The notion of civil society has changed over time since the Aristotelian age when they were characterized by social contract to the time of Hegel, Marx and Engels when civil societies were considered as a theatre of history and they were linked up with the idea of state perhaps till the 70s and 80s when they cut this link. Towards the beginning of 90s, civil societies transcended state boundaries and linked with other like-minded organizations in the world. The existence of International law and legislation made this connection possible. Since then, they have been involved in a lot of initiatives including activism and humanitarian aid among others.
Whether civil societies have successfully engaged in peacebuilding is debatable and furthermore it depends on a person’s idea of peace and how he defines civil society. If peacebuilding is, as extrapolated by Appleby and Laderach, a process of building constructive human relationship and if by civil societies we mean the list of organizations highlighted above by Kaldor, then the results is both positive and negative. Whereas it is important to acknowledge the constructive work some organizations have and are doing in various communities, it is also important to note the damaging consequences of some of these organizations. Cecelia Lynch has asserted in her paper on Neoliberal Ethics, the Humanitarian International, and Practices of Peacebuilding that humanitarianism weakens political accountability. Why will states strive to protect their people if humanitarian organizations can do the job? This attitude has opened avenues for corruption especially in developing countries.
Part of peacebuilding efforts is to help in the reconstruction of societies emerging from conflicts. This role might include strengthening institutions of governance, upholding the rule of law and promoting democracy. It is therefore ironical that civil societies are being criticized for their hierarchical beauracratic structures that often undermine the peacebuilding efforts. Lynch has pointed out how globalized donor relationship has shaped the humanitarian international’s increasing hierarchical and sophiscated use of market-based tools. Local NGOs and other community organizations that often rely on funding from the Humanitarian Internationals have had to tailor their narratives and fit their projects within the requirements of the Humanitarian Internationals as opposed to the real needs of a society.
Even those organizations that usually focused their activities on the short-term e.g. humanitarian relief, are now engaging in long-term activities. This has led to worlds some writers have referred as Peaceland (Severine), Humanitarian International (Lynch), and Aidland among others. In a way this are worlds inhabited by peacebuilders and the people who need peace. Often, the relationship among these actors is not constructive. With this kind of reality, how can any person hope that civil societies are contributing to sustainable peace in societies where they work?
Despite the above challenges, I do believe civil societies have a major role to play in building sustainable peace. But they will have to change their strategies. As Severine writes, everyday practices that may seem mundane to peacebuilders do affect the peace process. It is time to go back to the basics, when civil societies ruled, as Kaldor notes, based on the consent of individuals. This can be achieved when civil societies start listening to local people instead of imposing projects or trying to decide on what is good for the people.
by Vincent Ogoti | Sep 28, 2015
“The combination of hard power and soft power may ultimately prove to be the most efficient and sustainable long-term counterterrorism strategy.” George Lopez and David Cortright
Last summer I wrote an article (attach link) in the wake of terrorism attacks in Kenya, the worst one being the Al-Shabab attack at Garrissa University in northern part of Kenya, which claimed lives of 147 students. I argued that Al-Shabab has become sophisticated and that they were more interested in terrifying Kenyans and instilling fear than even killing. Their acts, which I compared to a drama performance because of their dependence on an audience, rely on the media for success. Often our media and now the ever present citizen journalism has played into the hands of terrorists, fulfilling their greatest need: publicist.
This example illustrates the changing nature of modern terrorism. From time to time I do read the official magazine of Isis, Dabiq, I can’t help noticing how the magazine has evolved since its inception, it has adapted to the best communication strategies of any successful organization. This demonstrates the incorporation of terrorism as a brand that can inspire loyalty and a sense of pride. This kind of terrorism has gone beyond what the US was fighting against in Afghanistan and in other places. This type of terrorism is headquartered in a state (not in the conventional definition of the word) and has a wide network of ambassadors and envoys in radicalized young men and women in various countries. Other terrorists are harbored in failed states where soft power cannot apply. A good example is the Al-Shabab militants in Somalia.
The fact that modern terrorists, have crafted states of their own, and the fact that they have networks of young men and women, who have been brought up in excellent communities but lured into terrorism either by fancy recruitment campaigns or have been radicalized gradually, makes the fight against terrorism the most difficult task of our century, which leads to my major concern: How can we fight an enemy that is now part of us and sometimes in states that he controls? Can anybody really talk about soft power in regard with this enemy?
When fighting terrorists in places such as those controlled by Al-Shabab or ISIS, it is hard to imagine that a non-military solution. As much as peacebuilders want to imagine that we can appeal to the humanity of terrorists or whatever means the cosmopolitans advocate for, the reality of the many beheadings of innocent people calls for a ‘ hard solution’. I am not implying that only military solutions can counter terrorism, I am suggesting that the military is an important component of this process and sometimes it is the only means. I understand that often military solutions have failed to achieve sustainable peace. I think if strategic peacebuilders can work with the military and incorporate the peacebuilding elements in military operations, peace might have a chance.
Having a UN agency devoted to counterterrorism as Lopez and Cortright suggests, may not solve the problem. I believe the UN as it is constituted has the capacity to deal with this scourge, if members especially the p5 can put politics aside. The various existing UN agencies, can be coordinated to achieve their mandate, which ranges from issues of education, human rights, environment etc. This agencies can help create the much needed ‘peace culture’. I think the complication of fighting terrorists in this century is as a result of anarchical nature of the world, whereby no any one nation commanding absolute authority. In the absence of this absoluteness, every nation plays politics that are beneficial to their national interest, and only intervene in those conflicts that threaten its national interests. A clash of interests can easily lead to an active or Cold War. A strong nation, which we can also refer to a Super Power, will be expected to champion human rights and protect the vulnerable communities by dealing with any less power that may want to interfere with peaceful existence of another nation. The realist assumption here is that the strong nation will not threaten the security of other nations. But this kind of state is difficult to achieve, as nations always want to upset the balance of power in their favor. Hence, the UN comes in as the legitimate international authority that can give the necessarily international coordination and policing. A well functioning UN can go along the way in helping counter terrorism.
by Vincent Ogoti | Sep 23, 2015
A good way to judge anything is by its history and assuming that is the case, the recently signed Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan will fail. President Kiir was under intense pressure to sign the compromise accord amid the US threats of imposing sanctions if he failed to do so. This agreement, the seventh since war erupted, was mediated by Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). Already there are complaints by the South Sudan’s Armed Opposition Faction of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM-IO) that the government of President Salva Kiir has violated the ceasefire by attacking them in oil rich states of Upper Nile and Unity. It is clear that the Government of South Sudan lacks political will of commitment to respecting the ceasefire agreement and implementing the peace deal they signed on August 26.
The 21 month conflict in South Sudan broke out in December 2013, when a split within the security forces in Juba escalated into a violent rebellion led by Dr. Riek Machar, who commands the loyalty of SPLM-IO. Although the dispute that led to the civil war was primarily political, ethnic targeting, communal mobilization and spiraling violence quickly led to horrid levels of brutality against civilians. President Kiir’s ethnic Dinka people are pitted against Machar’s Nuer. Various reports indicate that over ten thousand South Sudanese people have been killed in the fighting and more than 2 million people have been displaced. Serious human rights violations have occurred in which children have been raped and burned alive.
As the International community deliberates on last week’s move by Russia and Angola’s to delay the imposition of targeted United Nations sanctions on key South Sudan government and rebel leaders obstructing peace in South Sudan, one wonders what happened to this once considered major U.S foreign policy success story. Three US presidents, Clinton, Bush and Obama, worked to birth this new state in the world. But now the collapse of this world’s new nation might end up being a case study in the limits of American power as the U.S government’s state-building efforts hasn’t yielded sustainable peace. In the absence of substantial national interests, the US has not been at the forefront in bringing peace to South Sudan. It is then less surprising that the US government ignored the mutual enmity that was boiling within the ethnically polarized South Sudan.
At the beginning of violence, the US government made it clear that they will not support the overthrow of a democratically elected government, however, it remained reluctant in supporting the very democratic government against the rebels. This ‘do no harm’ attitude and the lack of assertiveness may have fueled the violence.. Worse, it weakened the US ability to influence events.
To say that the US has lost leverage in South Sudan is an understatement, the reality is that IGAD and the US supported peace agreement that was signed last month by rebel leader Dr. Riek Machar and President Kiir amid US threats may not lead to sustainable peace. Every conflict in South Sudan has in the past approached in the same way with the same solution, which is usually twofold: share power and integrate militias. Justice is sacrificed for the sake of short-term “peace”. From the start South Sudan was set for failure. At independence the country had virtually nothing save for oil, which is also a major cause of conflicts.
The US may have succeeded in bringing the government and rebels on the negotiating table and leading them to sign the peace agreement, albeit through threats of sanctions, there is little hope that continued sanction threats will be fruitful given the fact that both Sudan and South Sudan government have demonstrated that they can lobby some UN security council members to veto such efforts. Indeed relying on sanctions is problematic, first, by their very nature, sanctions are perceived negatively, hence difficult to implement. Second, convincing all permanent members of UN Security Council to endorse sanctions is not easy. The process is usually politicized.
This peace agreement is not even a perfect solution for the conflict, but it is the best shot the South Sudanese government and the international community have to build sustainable peace. The agreement proposes a start of new constitutional process, formation of various commissions and most importantly a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission to help address historical grievances like the bitter history between the Dinka and Nuer which continues to influence conflicts. Though the US ability to influence events in South Sudan has dwindled, a fact that has been explained in Foreign Affairs magazine by Cameron Hudson, who worked on South Sudan Policy in both Bush and Obama administration.
Despite these drawbacks, the US is the only one that can pressure South Sudan leaders to implement the peace agreement. Unfortunately, the US has anchored its foreign policy on South Sudan on humanitarian terms, which in itself in insufficient in strategic peacebuilding.
Last year during a Foreign Relations Senate Committee hearing, Mr. Booth, the former US envoy to South Sudan, highlighted that US will create a mechanism to monitor and verify compliance with the peace agreement. Any such mechanism should go beyond imposing sanctions and practicing coercive diplomacy. These tools are not sufficient either in achieving sustainable peace in South Sudan.
The US should push for a wider mandate to United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNAMISS). Currently, its mandate places it second to SPLA, which limits their capability to protect civilians. In addition, rather than working through proxies or military contractors, the US government should consider beefing up its presence in South Sudan perhaps deploying military advisers to work alongside South Sudan’s military and to help integrate rebel and government soldiers. While it is understandable that military advisers may not do much in transforming the ethnic identities of various soldiers, they can help them embrace discipline and respect for human rights.
Neighboring nations taking sides in this conflict should be held accountable by the international community. There should be monitoring of the movement of weapons in South Sudan. As the UN Security Council discusses imposing an arms embargo on South Sudan, they should consider doing the same to countries fueling conflicts in South Sudan.
The International Criminal Court should work with the African Union Commission of inquiry to begin investigations on individuals who have committed crimes against humanity. Involving ICC will curb further violations of human rights.
South Sudan is a major beneficiary of the US Foreign Aid, hence, the US government can use the opportunity this aid provides to advocate for strong institutions of governance in South Sudan. They should also seek to empower ordinary citizens economically. The people of South Sudan have been on the run close to a century, first with Khartoum and now the civil war. It is time the international community helped them settle down in the place they call home.
by Vincent Ogoti | Jun 8, 2015
Not everyone has been a bully or the victim of bullies, but everyone has seen bullying, and seeing it, has responded to it by joining in or objecting, by laughing or keeping silent, by feeling disgusted or feeling interested
– Octavia E. Butler
Many employees get bullied at their places of work but most of them have no idea that what they go through is a form of bullying. Those who are aware of this situation choose to keep quiet for fear of being victimized.
Workplace bullying can take any of the following forms: an employee being assigned heavy work load, removing responsibilities from an employee, being asked to do menial tasks in the name of delegation of duties, stifling an employee’s opinions and overruling decisions, denying an employee resources or withholding information useful for an employee’s functioning, direct professional attacks and flaunting status and power among other things.
Workplace bullying is a form of violence though it rarely involves assault. That is why it is often ignored. Workplace bullying came into the forefront in 1980s when a German psychiatrist, Heinz Leymann established the International Anti-bullying Movement. But the word “workplace bullying” was coined in 1992 by Andrea Adams.
Defining workplace bullying
There are many definitions of workplace bullying. For the purpose of this article, I will use the definition given by Dr. Namie, who brought workplace bullying to the American media. She defines it as a “status blind” interpersonal hostility that is deliberate, repeated and sufficiently severe as to harm the targeted person’s health or economic status.
Usually, workplace bullying is driven by the perpetrator’s need to control another person. It is a psychological violence, both in nature and impact.
Regardless of how it is expressed, whether verbally or in a form of strategic move, in order to render the target unproductive or unsuccessful, it is the perpetrator’s desire to control the target that motivates it. That is perhaps why most of the time it is never reported; silence by the targeted person is understandable because shame stems from being controlled and humiliated. Other employees may also not take any action for fear of being targeted.
Research shows that both men and women can be perpetrators. Researchers have found that when the targeted person is a woman, she is bullied by a woman in 63 percent of incidents; when the target is male, he is bullied by a man 62 percent of incidents. Our laws most of the time protects opposite sex harassment, hence, it is easier to ignore workplace bullying.
Effects of Workplace bullying
Workplace bullying can cause severe anxiety, disrupted sleep, and loss of concentration, clinical depression and panic attacks.
If it is left untreated, and with prolonged exposure, cardiovascular stress-related diseases can result from pathophysiological changes to the body that transform social factors into damaging biological consequences.
Researchers have also found out that workplace bullying is worse when trauma is induced by intentional human design. It is the emotionally unintelligent perpetrators who escalate their tyrannical misconduct when they feel threatened by, and react in response to, target’s asserted independence, technical and social skills.
Bullied victims have a 70 percent chance that they will lose their jobs, either voluntarily or through constructive discharge, after being targeted.
Identifying the perpetrators?
Most perpetrators outrank their victims. They are mostly bosses. Some writers have categorized them into four groups:
The Gatekeeper, who is obsessed with control. She allocates time, money, staffing and information in ways that ensure her victim’s failure. Then she has an excuse to complain about “performance problems”
The Two-Headed Snake, who defames the reputation of targets to boost his own self-image. He turns co-workers against the target through spreading rumors and engineering “divide and rule”. His version of events is always believed while the target’s perspective is ignored.
The Screaming Mimi, who controls the emotional tone for everyone else. He is prone to unpredictable display of anger and mood swings. He humiliates targets publicly, hence, scaring other employees. He can easily turn to physical violence.
The constant Critic, who is obsessed over others’ performance so as to hide her own deficiencies and insecurities. Sometimes she resorts to name calling and she loves to complain about everyone else’s incompetence. She invents targets’ “errors” to belittle and confuse them. She mostly prefers behind-closed-door settings but she can berate targets in public as well.
Stopping workplace bullying?
Bullies have one thing in common: they are controlling competitors who exploit their cooperative targets. They will stop if bullying was punished. Unfortunately, most employers are reluctant to even recognize incidences of bullying in their businesses. They prefer to minimize it as “personality clashes”. These might change if we had a legislation on workplace bullying.
The victims may not be able to solve this problem. Companies and other employers should have a code of ethics to guide interaction among employees.
Having laws against workplace bullying will enable victims to seek justice in a court of law.
Workplace bullying closely resembles the phenomenon of domestic violence. Both are often shrouded in silence before being brought to public. Employers should maintain an open door policy that can encourage victims to report cases of bullying.
I invite you to follow me on twitter @mchanganuzi or email me at Vincent.ogoti@fulbrightmail.org
by Vincent Ogoti | Jun 4, 2015
Taking away the audience might reduce the performances
I have often wondered what transpires in a terrorist’s mind before he pulls that trigger that ends an innocent life. Does he really believe that his cause is noble and that his act is justified? Does the smell of his victim’s blood remind him of the human life he has taken? Or does he still hold unto his belief that those he smothers are less human?
Some scholars have advised that we should not assume that terrorists are irrational, if anything, it is their rationality that drives them into committing acts of mass terror. By killing a few innocent people they expect to cause mass psychological casualties. And in this, with the help of mass media, they have always succeeded.
With the emergence of social media, instant messaging and all sorts of quick communications, terrorists have found a big audience for their inhuman performance. The media ethics that once defined journalists from amateurs is no longer followed. Just like teenagers in a theatre performance, filming parts of the play to share with their peers, we have all fallen into these acts; we have played into the hands of terrorists, granting them their greatest desire: an audience.
With our smartphones we take videos and pictures of a terrorist beheading a human being and then proceed to share with the public. We scan through our twitter and Facebook feeds in search of horrible videos and pictures, that we may share them with our friends.
No matter how condemning our captions are or how angry we appear, we are witnesses as well as perpetrators. We might as well be considered as fans.
It is true that as the public, we deserve to know what is happening in our country and around the world and in this, the media has done well to act as our surrogate. But at what cost?
This is not easy to answer but the following paragraphs might drive the reality home. Believe it or not you are unsuspecting audience who has paid to watch the beheading of a loved one.
The kind of terrorism we have experienced in the recent past can be called ‘modern terrorism’. If you are wondering what that possibly means, you are not alone. This kind of terrorism is like a theatre performance. It has all elements of drama, complete with an audience.
This performance like any other begins from a narrative stage. At this point the terrorists are convinced of their uniqueness as a chosen people. A special breed. A representative of a supreme god in an evil world.
They begin their indoctrination program, teaching young generation as well as old people a story of their perceived uniqueness. This story becomes a reservoir of beliefs that every member must subscribe to, and are often handed down to generations through a word of mouth and recently through means of mass communication.
People are encouraged to go out and try to sell this story of a unique people to others. But then, there emerges a small group that believes the wider community is ineffective and that through violence, many people might be scared into buying their narrative. This small group is what we now call extremists. They are the people who plan scare performances. They are the ones who go out to recruit the cast.
The cast may include experienced actors from among them, those who have performed in other stages around the world or they may include newly recruited local youths. Ones who have been indoctrinated to believe that by killing innocent people – people whose humanity they have lowered and their existence questioned – they are doing a supreme god a service. Like every good actor, they have rehearsed their roles excellently and they are faithful to the script.
Rehearsals usually begin when the experienced actors cross our porous borders often by bribing agents who masquerade as security officers.
These actors are usually hosted by our very own people. They live on the hospitality of their unsuspecting victims, who through their ancestors’ teachings and that of their gods, believe that it is noble to welcome strangers as they might be angels in disguise or ancestral spirits roaming from house to house, looking for a person to bless.
Choosing a stage for the performance is a very important step. It must be a place the audience will care about. The players prefer the direct audience, those who will pay for this performance with their own blood, to be of young age and extremely helpless.
The actors may rehearse in secret places but their impending performance is not entirely a secret or unknown to authorities. Often, they are confident that the authorities will ignore warnings given by either the public or the intelligence officers, and if the authorities choose to stop them (this is very rare), they will do so when it is late. Many a times the authorities have ended up being part of the much anticipated audience.
These actors have nothing to lose, to die during a performance or to live to perform another one is both a win. Theirs may be a painful performance but it is welcome, as the worst that can befall them, death, is still a victory.
The truth is, these actors are not in the business of selling their narrative: They are angels of death, who have been disowned by the brothers and sisters they are allegedly part of; their main goal is to punish those who have a different narrative from theirs. There is no instance when they even pretended to offer their victims a chance to be part of their narrative.
I believe we can stop these performances. First, we should deny these actors an audience, for what is a performance without its audience?
Second, our security personnel at the borders should be reminded of their patriotic duty. They should know that by accepting those few coins in form of a bribe, they have sold the blood of their brothers and sisters.
Third, Philip Gourevitch, writing in We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families, tells a story about school girls who were killed by the militia because they could not accept to be grouped as either Hutu or Tutsi. Will Kenyans, stand as a group and shame the Al Shabaab that seeks to group them according to their religion?
Finally, if somebody is out to kill you and he is convinced that your death is a service to his master and you know that at no cost will he spare your life, must you die like a hog?
I encourage you to follow me on Twitter @mchanganuzi or better still email me your opinion at vincent.ogoti@fulbrightmail.org
