CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.0  Introduction

National dialogue is an increasingly popular tool for conflict resolution and political transformation. It can broaden debate regarding a country’s trajectory beyond the usual elite decision makers. However, it can also be misused and manipulated by leaders to consolidate power. This research is therefore on National Dialogue as a strategy for intra-state conflict resolution in the intra-state conflicts of African states with a case study of the Anglophone Cameroon. Chapter one covers background of the study, the problem statement research questions, study objectives and literature review. Others include the study hypothesis, justification, theoretical framework, methodology and finally the chapter outline.

1.1  Background to the Study

Globally, over the past few decades in the 21^st century, national dialogue has been viewed as a critical tool for the prevention of intra-state conflicts and for managing political crisis and transitions.¹ Despite the fact that national dialogues have vastly been analyzed and debated by national governments, political parties, religious leaders, civil society groups, international policy makers, diplomatic community, donors as well as armed movements their popularity has to date not been matched by conceptual clarity and reality. Few studies have been undertaken to provide proper and fundamental guidance and practical support for those who are exploring this strategy as one possible way to move beyond political stalemate, disruptive intra-state conflict scenarios, or unrestrained periods of transition.²

The utilization of national dialogue as a strategy for conflict resolution has proven to be effective across the globe with success cases being witnessed in Europe, Middle East, Latin America and Africa. Major conflicts in the Middle East region commonly referred to as the Arab Spring have depicted a vivid picture of the population exerting pressure of legitimacy on the governing institutions.³ The pressure from the population has exerted the narrative of inclusivity and participation at the heart of national dialogue. The complex nature of intra-state conflicts especially in Africa has called for application of dynamic formats of national dialogue that entail a wide range of participants in order to address the multidimensional causes of conflict in the continent

In Europe, Poland witnessed social unrest by the citizenry against poor economic conditions and political repression.⁴ There was greater agitation for greater freedom in 1956 and this was followed by food riots in 1970 which were on the increase and continued to mount pressure against the ruling regime. By 1980 the protests gained momentum with increased strikes at the Gdansk shipyard, foundation of the independent trade union Solidarity and the forceful use of martial law from 1981to 1983.⁵ The talks commenced as crisis management but ultimately developed into negotiations on a new social contract.

In East Africa, Kenya held a National Dialogue after the disputed 2007 presidential election that led to post violent conflict, which quickly escalated to an economic and humanitarian crisis. The African Union through its chairperson mandated a Panel of Eminent African personality to initiate a reconciliation process. The Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation process brought together the two opposing sides to address key issues that had emerged namely: undertaking speedy actions to stop the rampant violence and reinstalling fundamental rights and freedoms; secondly, to overcome the prevailing political stalemate; thirdly, coming up with long term solutions such as constitutional and legal reforms to prevent a similar occurance.⁶ The instantaneous aftermath of the process was the signing of a power-sharing agreement that would establish a coalition government and the office of the prime minister.

The Sudanese national dialogue materialized from the prolonged intra state conflict involving the South Blue Nile, South Kordofan and Dafur coupled with political instability and internal crises.⁷ The then ongoing conflict between government and several opposition leaders reached a detrimental stalemate with neither side having an outright advantage over the other. As a result of this hurting stalemate in 2014 January, the government through the president called upon the political forces of Sudan both pro-government and opposition parties coupled with armed groups to join in the national dialogue process with the key objective of re-establishing the political and constitutional foundation of the country through an inclusive perspective involving all the Sudanese. The entire process resulted into the adoption of the national document for Sudan which acted as the foundational basis for a new constitution. However, the process continued to face challenges after the withdrawal of the largest opposition parties and armed movements thus lacking adequate representation and substance to being fully effective.

Inspired by the Tunisian uprising of December 2010, massive protests took place in Egypt from January 25th, 2011 where the population was discontent with Mubarak’s decades of repressive rule, accusing him of defrauding the 2010 elections and Egypt’s socioeconomic conditions. Refusing to meet the population’s demands, Mubarak sent army tanks and troops to impose a curfew on the population. Despite several episodes of violence, the arrest of many people, including members of opposition groups, journalists, and youths, and the death of more than 800 protesters, demonstrations continued until Mubarak eventually resigned from power on February 11th, 2011. Power was then transferred to the military; taking charge of the interim government and assuming full executive and legislative powers. Already on January 31st, the army had declared that they would not use violence against the protesters.⁸

In March, Egyptians adopted constitutional amendments through a referendum, which led to an election process. From the end of March 2011, the SCAF organized a national dialogue process to bring together all relevant political and societal forces into a multi- party inclusive negotiation process. The national dialogue fits into the first modality of inclusion presented in the previous section as direct representation at the negotiation table. The process had background support from the UNDP. Following decades of emergency rules preventing non-governmental political activity, the national dialogue aimed to gather for the first time the opinion of a broad range of political factions from all sections of the population to discuss their agenda instead of continuing the demonstrations. The national dialogue discussed the following five key themes: Democracy and human rights, social and human development, economy, media and culture, and foreign relations.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) national dialogue came into place after the prolonged intrastate conflict and the overthrow of President Mobutu Sese Seko’s regime in 1997. DRC witnessed horrendous conflict involving most of her neighbors’. International pressure to end the conflict began almost as soon as the Second Congo conflict of August 1998 erupted.⁹ Following a year of international pressure and the arrival of a military stalemate, the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement was signed on July 10th, 1999 by the DRC, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Uganda, and Rwanda. Chapter V of the Lusaka Agreement provided for the Inter-Congolese political negotiations, a national dialogue tasked with structuring a new political administration during the transitional period,

The conflict in the DRC was substantially a regional phenomenon. One of the most direct causes of the war being Rwanda and Burundi’s interest in maintaining political influence in Kinshasa and in combating the rebel groups staging attacks on the two states from Congolese territory. A significant reason why the Sun City agreement was greeted with renewed violence in the Eastern DRC was the marginalization of the Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD), which ignored Rwanda’s goals to increase its influence in the DRC.¹⁰

The RCD-Goma desired to overthrow Kabila and was supported by Rwanda, which had the same interests.¹¹ The RCD Movement for Liberation (RCD-ML) gained support from Uganda, which desired to change the DRC’s leadership. Allies of the DRC government intervened for different reasons. Angola was again motivated by security reasons regarding the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). Namibia was “more or less obliged to follow the lead of its Angolan patron,” and Zimbabwe intervened for economic interests.¹²

The escalation of violence by Rwandan and Ugandan backed forces after the partial agreement in Sun City led the United Nations Organization (UNO) to appoint two new special envoys, former prime minister and seasoned politicians from Senegal, to mediate a new process. This led to the Global and Inclusive Agreement on Transition in the DRC accented to by all parties in December 2002, and the Final Act signed in Sun City in 2003, which affirmed many of the provisions of previous agreements.