Northern Ghana Peace

Threat Narratives, Group Identity and Violence

What is the relationship between value systems and ethnic identity formation? How does the difference in value systems influence the salience of identity and conflict? Through narratives from in-depth interviews, this document analyzes group identity formation and their impact on conflict. Understanding the role of competing value systems in the formation of salient identity and relations between identity salience and violence, in my opinion, may help us explain why some ethnic groups are prone to violence in northern Ghana. There is the need to shift our research focus from the use of ethnicity, chieftaincy and land as causal factors of conflict to their interpretation, perception and employment in the process of social identity formation, interests and perceptions of the other. Very often through narratives an enemy is created out of the "other" and violence towards then justified.Download Clement Aapengnuo Thesis

Tradition, Memory and Truth Telling in Conflict Situations

Tradition, Memory and Truth telling in Conflict situations: Some insights from Cognitive Psychology.

When people go to court to testify in a case, they take an oath before mounting the “box”. Depending on your religion, a holy book will be used or something else. The oath often goes thus: “Do you promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?” “Yes I do”. What then follows is suppose to be the “truth” and nothing but the “Truth”. Let us not complicate matters by asking the philosophical question “..and what is the truth?” In the aftermath of the murder of the King in Dagbon, a commission of enquiry was set up to investigate the disturbances. People moved from Yendi to Sunyani to testify. These were people who either witness events or knew the tradition.

In mediating chieftaincy and land conflicts, the word “Tradition” keeps coming up. This is our tradition, we cannot go against tradition, it is not part of our tradition, from the beginning it has always been like that and we cannot change it. A major component of this tradition is remembering. Parties to the conflict go back in history and invoke tradition to support their claims or deny the claims of their opponents. From Bawku to Dagbon, Nanum to Wa, tradition is always invoked. In Wa I heard this local saying which is very apt. “The eye does not know grandpa (tradition), it is the ear that knows grandpa”. Implied in this statement is that “we have not seen but we have heard”. Growing up, the older people told us our history. If you are thinking that this is a phenomenon in traditional societies only, think again because history books are been rewritten in conflict ridden Balkans.

This raises the critical issue of remembering, of memory and of truth telling. When people recount history and tell stories about tradition, are they reporting facts as they happened? Is memory about the truth of events? In other words, why do people remember what they do, when, in what context and with what significance?  Are they remembering accurately? Are they telling the truth and what is truthfulness in this context anyway?

In discuss analysis it is believed that when people tell a story, narrate an event or remember an event, they perform an action. Either they make an accusation, ask a question justify their behavior or proof that someone has done something wrong. People do things with their stories. What people say will differ  according to what they are doing with the story or discourse. The narration of an event will either excuse or blame. The story is therefore put together for a purpose and to achieve a particular consequence.

When people in conflict talk about tradition, they are not going back to the past and reporting facts and events as they happened, versions of past events are constructed to achieve a purpose. Hence historical events are selected and narrated as tradition but the truth of the matter is that what is called tradition is a constructed discourse to serve a purpose.

In the Wa chieftaincy conflict, the issue was the qualification of one of the four gates and their candidate to become the paramount chief of the Wala traditional area. Contestants narrated “historical” or rather, from the warehouse of history chose events and reconstructed a narrative to support their claim. In the Dagomba/Nanumba/Konkomba conflicts, the common discourse was that Konkombas are not Ghanaians, they are “settlers”. In the Nanumba chieftaincy, each contesting family constructed their own discourse, using the same historical events but arranging them in a way to serve a purpose. In the Dagbon case, Abudus have developed a discourse over Naa Abudulai’s ascension to the throne and his dethronement, death and burial. Why are a people whose central argument is the funeral performance of Naa Abudulai suddenly using tradition to say that Naa Andani died in battle and should be buried  where he fell? Why are the Andanis refusing to critically examine the 27 years of rule (or misrule) of Naa Andani as part of their discourse? What new tradition and discourse can both families created for a new Dagbon?

One way that Dagombas can begin to address their conflict is to understand the narratives they have created as tradition and to gather the courage to create new traditions they will move them forward as a people.

The Dagbon Conflict and Emotional Processes

A second set of theories which help explain the Dagbon conflict are theories of social emotions. These theories help us understand the way individuals and social groups perceive, interpret, and react emotionally to experiences. The appraisal theory states that an individual appraises an event or situation on the basis of; how it positively or negatively affects him/her (goal significance), level of control over the event (coping potential) and whether or not the situation violates a norm or expectation, (legitimacy), before determining how to react emotionally to the situation (Brewer 2003, p.12). Emotions therefore “have an inherent  cognitive component that involves judgment about what actions are appropriate to the stimulus, about the acceptability or unacceptability of the emotional expression, and about the extent to which it can be indulged” (Harre & Sterns 1995, p.37). In the group, people experience emotions on behalf of their group. Where the group is threatened, fear and anger beseech the individual even if there is no evidence of a personal threat (1995, p.37). Group based anger and fear are activated when there is a perception that the well being of the in-group is threatened.

The king of Dagbon is the head and the soul of the tribe. His power and invincibility is mythologized. The position of  king of Dagbon is a coveted one. Belonging to one of the families became a more salient identity over and above the Dagomba identity. The refusal to allow the Abudu’s to celebrate the funeral of Naa Abudulai constituted a threat to the very existence of the Abudu family, which created fear, anxiety and anger as Naa Andani stayed on the throne for twenty 27 years and there were no signs of his early demise. The sale of dagbon lands and appointment of Andanis to chieftaincies traditionally reserved for the Abudu family, constitute a threat to the very existence of the Abudu Family creating fear and anger leading to violent skirmishes. For the Andanis, the brutal murder of the king constitutes a threat to the entire family. If the invincible can die in this manner, who is safe? Herein lies the anger, fear and frustration of the Andanis which often turns into violence every now and them.

The above indicates a logic in the dagbon conflict. Rather than a senseless phenomenon, it has an internal logic deriving from human cognitive and emotive processes. Events that would go wthout notice in one area of the region, will generate conflict in Dagbon. The meaning we attach to the events and our reaction to our perception, and interpretation of the event the drives conflict. In this dynastic struggle for power, we see a house divided against itself, categorizing itself into two distinct groups. Events and situations are processed based on this categorization and either accentuate or diminish the categorization as people struggle to give meaning to events. This process is loaded with biases which can lead to serious errors in attributing causes. Depending on the goal significance, coping potential and legitimacy, specific emotions are conjured with corresponding behavior. Such an understanding is important for any resolution processes.

References: Brewer M. (2003) Intergroup Relations. Philadelphia, Open University Press

Harre, R. and Stearns P. (1995). Discussive psychology in practice. London Sage.

The Dagbon Conflict and Cognitive Processes

On March 27, 2002, the King of Dagbon, an ethnic group in Northern Ghana was brutally beheaded and his body badly mutilated. This event re-ignited a five decades old intra-ethnic strife between the two royal families of Dagbon, the Abudu and the Andani resulting in massive loss of lives and destruction of property.  The conflict remains unresolved and probably irresolvable. The divisions, feelings of insecurity, anger, frustration and the capacity to commit gruesome acts of violence against each other goes beyond normal and needs some explaining. While majority see the conflict as senseless, I argue that there is a logic in the evolution of conflict. Rather than a senseless phenomenon, conflict has an internal logic deriving from human cognitive and emotive processes. Events by themselves do not generate conflict; it is the meaning we attach to the events and our reaction to our perception, and interpretation of the event the drives conflict. In the dynastic struggle for power in Dagbon, we see one family re-categorize itself into two distinct groups, Abudu/Andani. Events and situations are processed based on this categorization and either accentuate or diminish the categorization. These social categorization processes influence the interpretation of events and situations and causal attributions made as people struggle to give meaning to events. This process is loaded with biases which can lead to serious errors in attributing causes. Depending on the goal significance, coping potential and legitimacy, specific emotions are conjured with corresponding behavior. Such an understanding is important for any resolution processes.

Human beings are organized into social groups in which they interact not only as human beings but also as representatives of their respective social groups. These social groups are created through a process of social categorization in which a person is put into a social group and becomes a member of that group (ingroup) or a non-member (outgroup). Ones these categories are formed, group members tend to exaggerate the similarities with the in group and contrast with the out group. This process of category accentuation creates homogeneity within categories and distinctiveness between categories. This ingroup-outgroup distinction and the consequent accentuation of differences between groups is important for understanding intergroup relationships and conflict.

Dagombas are divided into two categories, Andani family and Abudu Family. This categorization has to do with the chieftaincy institution in Dagbon. Dagombas move in and out of these categories. One is born an Andani and later in life becomes an Abudu. There were also cross categorizations in terms of political party and religious affiliations (one group maybe predominant in a political party or religious group). The boundary lines were however clearly drawn in 1965 when an Abudu king was deposed and an Andani king enthroned. In 1994 the boundaries were blurred as Dagombas mobilized to fight a common enemy, the Konkombas. However with the death of the king in 2002, the boundaries were clearly drawn and each category became salient. Andanis and Abudus accentuated their differences, denigrated and vilified each other. Some couples who were married for over twenty years separated.

It is in this context the question of the cause of the death of the king and who is to be blamed is constructed. There are bound to be errors of attribution on both sides.

The theory of social attribution is concerned with the way people explain human actions and events to themselves. People like to have answers to puzzles so they seek to explain and interpret the causes of events and experiences. The explanations they come up with have a major impact on how they react both emotionally and behaviorally to events. Attribution theory therefore looks at how people perceive and explain social events, their behavior and the behavior of others. From the above, the narratives that both families constructed to explain the causes of death of the Ya Na makes sense. The family of the deceased king (Andanis) accused the other family (Abudus) of premeditated cold blood murder of the king with tacit support from the government. The Abudus explained the death of the king as a result of war. Dagbon was at war with itself and the king died in a war he himself started the Abudus explained. These causal attributions had consequences in the emotional reactions and behaviors of both families. For the Andanis, Abudus are responsible for the king’s death and the perpetrators of the crime must be identified and prosecuted before the king is buried before any negotiations can take place (early days of the conflict). For the Abudus the king died in battle and there are clear stipulations in the culture as to what to do in such circumstances. These positions taken by both families based on the process of social attribution has influence the violence and the stalemate the peace process is experience.

In attributing the cause of the death of the King, there are bound to be biases. Put simply one is always right and one’s opponent is always wrong. In the days following the death of the king, ultimate attribution biases were clearly at play as each family tried to explain the cause of the death of the King to the group’s favour. For the Andanis, the king was brutally murdered by the Abudus so that they could get their own son into power. Lack of any indisputable evidence notwithstanding one could not question this storyline without meeting some violent reaction. All Abudus were described as dishonest, untrustworthy people who would kill at any excuse. The Andanis who were involved in the violent exchanges of fire which led to the death of the king were defending themselves from an unprovoked attack. These were gallant sons of Dagbon defending their king.

For the Abudus, the king was paying for his 27 years of ‘mismanagement’ of Dagomba affairs, his blatant refusal to have the funeral of Naa Abudulai celebrated and his abominable declaration of war against his own people. In these narratives, people sought information which confirmed their held beliefs, lending more weight to information which supported their beliefs, while discarding contradictory information, a process known as confirmation bais. Confirmation bias helps the group demonstrate they are right and ensures that entrenched positions are not challenged, thus making believers feel more confident.