MuseumDESCRIPTION:
After 12 years of civil war marked by atrocities against civilians, what does peace mean for the people of Burundi? Peter Uvin, author of Life After Violence: A People’s Story of Burundi, discusses what Burundians across the country told him about their hopes for the future and their views of each other and the state.
TRANSCRIPT:
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: Welcome to this week’s episode of Voices on Genocide Prevention. With me today is Peter Uvin, who is the Henry J. Leir professor of international humanitarian studies and academic dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He’s here to speak with us today about his latest book, Life After Violence: A People’s Story of Burundi. Peter, thank you for joining me today.
PETER UVIN: Pleasure.
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: The book that you’ve just published, A People’s Story of Burundi picks up the story of Burundi pretty much where it is today. Can you talk about your methodology? What is the research behind this book?
PETER UVIN: Two or three years ago, I essentially went walking for nine months or so through some parts of Burundi and I had these open-ended conversations with hundreds of ordinary people. So the idea here was that I wanted to get a sense of what do regular, ordinary folks living in villages, in popular neighborhoods--actually, they’re not popular, they’re just poor, but living in urban poor neighborhoods--how do they look at life after war? What do they dream of? What do they hope for? What do they do about it themselves? I wanted to get a sense essentially of the view from below on these big conflicts, prevention, conflict management, democracy, agendas that we, in the international community, come with.
And so I did it essentially through a relatively random methodology. I asked a set of 20 or so extremely open-ended questions and they were deliberately designed to have no answer whatsoever that you could deduce from the actual question itself. Questions like, “Who do you admire?” Which are, like, totally weird questions in a way. People have never heard these even but it tells me a lot about what people value in their life and so on. Or questions like, “If you were the local administrator here, what is the first thing you would do?” And, once again, people found these very interesting. In the beginning, they might be a little bit feeling surprised about it because nobody has ever asked a question like this but, once they get going, they have a lot of things to say. And so these were all deliberately designed not to talk about my agenda, not to come there with, “What do you think of democracy and human rights” and so on but rather to give opportunities for people, if they did think that, for example, democracy or human rights were important, to talk about. But if they didn’t, they could talk about whatever else was on their minds. And so that’s what I essentially did.
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: The one thing that’s really amazing about the book is how that sense of an open-ended conversation comes through. I mean, it reads as if you were there with the reader continuing this conversation. One question that I believe you say you asked to most of them was the large open-ended one, “What does peace mean to you?”
PETER UVIN: Yes.
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: What kind of responses did you get to that?
PETER UVIN: Yeah, this was one of the most specific questions that I actually asked. “What does peace mean to you?” And I actually only asked at the very end of the interview because it was more specific than the others. And I did this, in a way, to get a sense precisely of what is it that people understand to be peace after 13 years of brutal civil war and lots of mutual slaughter, which indeed extremists at both sides have called genocide.
And so the answers were quite fascinating. Not unexpectedly, the number one answer I received was indeed that peace means essentially the absence of violence which, you know, you would expect this after 13 years of war. And people typically used the same image, by the way, over and over again. There is this one image: to be able to sleep at night, that came back over and over. And so it comes in first position. I think about 30% of all answers evolved around that.
On the other hand, that means that 70% of all answers actually did not evolve around what is the most evident definition of peace; i.e., peace is non-war, right? So the number two category, then, very close behind, actually, somewhere 25 plus percent, is that peace is defined really as development in a way. But, of course, people don’t use that word. They use other images and a typical image that always came back is precisely the image of having enough to eat and, “how can there be peace in my community if my children cry of hunger at night? How can there be peace in my community if my neighbor’s children are dying?” So many times, I go to hear that back, too. This is clearly a far more substantive definition of peace.
Then in third position came a definition of peace which is, indeed, another dimension of it again, of peace as good social relations between people. “There is peace in my community if we trust each other,” which is clearly a higher level. It’s more difficult to achieve this than to merely not have a war going on. And, again, that was heard quite a bit. “There is peace in my community if we can talk to each other and we feel at ease.” So that came in the third position. By the way, contrary to what one might have assumed, it was not the case that women used any of these sort of-- either development or the human relations definition more. This was equally used by men, women, young and old.
And then, in fourth position but very far behind, we are now down to below 5%, came sort of highly political definitions of peace. “Peace is when there is a democracy and our rights are being respected. Peace is when the justice system works and we all have something to say or whatever,” right? And this is quite interesting because, in a way, the war officially was about that. It was actually about creating a true democracy that’s inclusive of especially the Hutu population and so on and yet this comes very, very low on the list of definitions of peace.
So one more remark about this whole business of what people answered to me, very many of them, more than half, actually used multiple definitions or multiple criteria. They’d give me two or three at the same time. They tell me, “peace is when I cannot be afraid to go to the market but also then, when I go to the market, that I can talk to people of all sides and feel at ease with them and that I can sell enough there to feed my kids.” So it’s, like, three of them at once, which suggests that precisely they are using a sort of almost a human security, much more integrated and holistic vision of what peace means.
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: And even in the answer you just gave, there is a sense of this larger discussion that goes on in the book between the language and vocabulary and structures that internationals have and how that gets interpreted into programs in any particular society. You just spoke of some of the more concrete examples that people in Burundi would give, “My child isn’t crying at night from hunger.” What did you find about how these two different understandings or interpretations of what’s needed post-conflict, an international one and a very local one, how did they compare to each other? There’s a lot of crossover, a lot of differences?
PETER UVIN: Yeah. I mean, there is good news there. The good news is that, largely, at a very large level, sort of purely conceptual, the pillars that we privileged in the international community in what we could call our peace building agenda are quite similar. Actually, they’re quite similar to what I just told you. We have essentially four pillars, you could argue, right? One is the security pillar and this one has to do with, of course, first ending war, potentially having peacekeeping troops out there and so on with things then like demobilization and disarmament programs, security sector reform, there is that pillar. It’s important. We spend quite a bit of money and attention on this and, indeed, in Burundi, we have, too. There have been peacekeeping troops. There has been and still is actually a major DDR program and so on.
Then our second pillar is governments, essentially this belief that we have to create systems of governments that are inclusive and that means, in practice, essentially, democracies, right? Electoral democracies. We, typically, within two years organize elections. Our third pillar then is essentially the broad development pillar. We have to improve the conditions of life for people, not only because it is the right thing to do in terms of ethics and shared humanity, but also because, in so doing, we’ll hopefully be undermining the conditions that frequently allow violence to grow more easily. And then our fourth one is essentially a justice and reconciliation pillar. We’re not entirely sure what reconciliation means necessarily, but we do think that something about reestablishing good human relations, being able to look jointly to a future where there is less division, justice having a major role therein in terms of getting truth out, separating guilty from non-guilty, and so on. So those are our four pillars. In a way, the definition of peace I just gave you reflects those four with security coming in first position and so on. So, from a very big perspective, this is not half bad. We are talking about the same things. We are not totally from different planets and so on. Even though we outsiders use different words, we are talking about the same things.
At the same time, though, once you start digging in deeper, differences and often serious differences start emerging, of course. These can have to do either with the sense of priority that people attach to these different pillars or with the concrete form that these pillars will take in people’s lives. So, for example, even already in my answer that I gave you regarding peace, but more broadly as well, the attention we pay to democracy as the only right way to organize a post-conflict society is not at all mirrored actually amongst Burundians. While they do care about issues of governance and being treated with respect and being listened to and being treated equally--they do care about that--there is overwhelmingly no clamor for democracy at all as a system as such. Similarly, for example, justice, there is actually almost no demand for any of the modern justice systems that we are proposing in terms of tribunals and truth commissions. There is much more a demand for either forgetting and letting go of the past or, indeed, sort of dialogues to share mutual pain and to reestablish relations, but not on the basis of assigning guilt, more on the basis of understanding joint suffering and moving forward. So, as you can see in this example, both the priorities may differ and the particular way of doing it may differ and, of course, when it comes down to it, those differences are relevant.
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: One of the things that I felt like I really learned through reading your book was about how Burundians placed value on what you were saying earlier, qualities, the qualities that underwrite a human rights agenda: basic dignity, respect, care and concern and ability to listen to the people and their concerns. But not, and this is sort of a repetition of what you just said, but not structures of governance.
PETER UVIN: Yeah.
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: Which I thought was really interesting.
PETER UVIN: This, to me, too, was one of the most fascinating insights from my work. In a way, for example, on this question, “Who do you admire?” I frequently got answers that precisely suggested I admire somebody who treats everybody equally, the big and the small. Or on the question of, “What was the first you would do if you were the local administrator?” I got answers-- of course, I got many answers that said, “I would create jobs for everybody” or “I would give cows to everybody” because, obviously, Burundi is one of the three poorest countries in the world. People have desperate and stunning needs for survival that are not being met. But actually this other category of answers is really a very big one and it’s all answers, again, about equality of treatment, about respect, about dignity, about being listened to and so on.
In a way, what this sounds like human rights. Maybe again, not the words, nobody was quoting the article 17 or whatever, right, of the Convention. But actually, in a way, it is the philosophy that underlies human rights, or so I thought. I was about ready to make an argument that Burundians, essentially, in their own way of understanding the world, do possess the concepts of human rights. I still think that this is in part correct.
However, when I came actually home and I started looking at these interviews in more detail, I observed that they were actually talking about something far more precise and far more specific and it is what you just hinted at. When we talk about human rights in the west or in the international community, in general, we think of structures, essentially, right? Mechanisms of governance that guarantee those rights through good legislation that is justiceable; it can be enforced in courts, separation of power, media and so on. Yet Burundians never talked about this. They never talked about better structures. They only talked about better people. In so doing, they had in their minds very clearly a traditional institution that existed in Burundi for hundreds of years called “bashingantahe,” which was precisely these were wise men that were elected by the community based on their characteristics of impartiality, concern for the public good, deep wisdom and profound local knowledge. What they were thinking about and talking about was really better people, not better structures, which is quite fascinating. There is clearly a basis there for convergence. We can talk together. But there is also a major different understanding and so the question is, how can you build on that? Are there places where you can move forward jointly? I believe there are. That’s the interest of doing a research like that.
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: So, for you, the main conclusions from this book, are they for the international community? Are they for Burundi? What would you think the main conclusions be?
PETER UVIN: They’re at both levels. I mean, in a way, a book like this is more interesting for the international community than for Burundians. After all, Burundi is more or less know Burundi. It’s just us who don’t and who run around there with big wallets and very big cars. So, in a way, it’s more for us. On the other hand, I must confess that, to some extent, while Burundians may know a lot about their own societies, they rarely maybe publicly talk about a lot of those things and, for example, my book has actually been serialized in ten episodes and put on the radio in Burundi. So in ten broadcast programs where people called in from the country and so on...
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: What was the response?
PETER UVIN: Oh, it was very much fun. People loved it. They were calling in from all over the country and so on because sort of hearing these voices of ordinary people projected back, holding a mirror up, in a way, to Burundi, that doesn’t get done enough. It’s always the same sort of talking heads who talk, but rarely do you hear the voices of ordinary people and I have sort of do a bit of that. So there is a bit of a use there, even for Burundi itself directly. I mean, there is an indirect use, I hope, to the extent that policies are better informed by an understanding of what lives truly amongst Burundians will be hopefully better policies for Burundians.
So what are those major insights? I think some of them are very positive. We just discussed the deep grounding amongst all Burundians of a desire for a mode of governance that is actually quite similar to democracy, although it is not really democracy as such. But that there are values there that we can build on and work together with to make steps for us.
Another fascinating one is that I am very convinced, based on all my conversations, that Burundians truly have turned this ethnic page. That whole division along ethnic line, the sense of war and exclusion and mutual hatred, they’ve given war a chance, so to speak, and they have found it doesn’t work and they are sick of it. It’s a profound thing. It doesn’t mean that every moment of the day they manage to live up to these standards of trust and whatever. Trust is in short supply, as a matter of fact. But there’s this overwhelming desire everywhere to turn that page and to move beyond ethnicity. And sort of the extremists of both sides are totally, totally marginal. This is very good news, actually. This means that there is one issue that will not normally return if, of course, we can work with people to create a future that makes sense.
At the same time, there is also bad news there. I think that many of the policies which we have been following still aren’t adapted to where Burundians are and don’t reach Burundians for that matter. They stay at a level of national rhetoric and what looks like formal institutions of “justice” or “good management” or all these things but actually they don’t produce anything that people recognize as being just or well managed or benefiting them very frequently. And this juncture is really very serious and that is worrisome. I think we are missing many opportunities to make concrete differences in peoples’ lives because we flow too high up and we listen more to ourselves precisely than to Burundians. You know, as always, things are a mixed bag but there are real opportunities for change. Whether they’re being grasped and used well, that’s of course the question.
BRIDGET CONLEY-ZILKIC: Peter, thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me today.
PETER UVIN: You are very welcome.
NARRATOR: You have been listening to Voices on Genocide Prevention, from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. To learn more about preventing genocide, join us online at www.ushmm.org/conscience. There you’ll also find the Voices on Genocide Prevention weblog.
