1

The Practice of Indigenous Conflict Management Systems in a Multiethnic Society:

The Case of Shimgelena in Guangua and Dibate Districts of Metekel Area; Ethiopia1

By: Wondyrad Asmamaw (MA in Peace and Security Studies, PhD student in Peace and Security Studies)

woaat@yahoo.com or wondyrad3@gmail.com +251 912 05 63 88

Abstract The overarching objective of this study was to examine the practice of indigenous conflict management system named Shimgelena in the two adjacent multiethnic districts of Metekel area. The study is presented in a descriptive manner employing a qualitative approach to analyze the data gathered through semi-structured interview, focus group discussions, document analysis, and personal observation. The findings revealed that the institution of Shimgelena deal with a wide range of conflicts that are often caused by competition over natural resources, contestation over regional administrative boundaries, and incessant harmful traditional practices. To address these conflicts, the institution uses special rituals including but not limited to oaths and curse. The contents of the rituals include a mix of cultural, social and religious values & beliefs of the various ethnic groups of the study area. The absence of enforcement mechanisms and incentives militate against the effective application of the institution in the resolution of local level disputes. Notwithstanding this, the establishment of joint peace committee, and the introduction of new initiatives that allow possession of a seal and badge for elders contribute to sustain the practice of indigenous conflict resolution. The study also assessed the merits and demerits of the institution vis-à-vis the formal justice system. Whereas the cost effective, pliable, participatory, and social fabric oriented nature of the institution is the advantage the prevalence of sexism and the lack of codified laws are the demerits of the institution.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study In this imperfect world no society lives in a complete harmony with itself and others. Peace

rather requires a continuing engagement in the prevention and resolution of disputes giving rise

to the contemporary craft of conflict prevention and resolution. However, the contemporary

forms of preventing and resolving conflicts have became widely known and practiced for not

more than eighty years (Malan, 2005). This does not mean that conflict prevention and resolution

is a recent invention. Even before the introduction of the ‘modern’ ways of dispute management

mechanism (such as the court), different societies have been using their own institutions of

conflict management mechanisms (Pankhurst, 2008).

1 This paper has presented in the “1st National Research Conference on Culture, Social Mobility, Governance and Development organized by Faculty of Social Science, Bahir Dar University, Bahir dar – Ethiopia, April 24-25, 2014”.

2

The promotion of peaceful settlement of disputes as well as peace and reconciliation is a

prerequisite and an indispensable condition for the development of one nation’s economy, social

harmony and national integrity (Giday, 2000). To do so, identifying and knowing a socially

acceptable indigenous conflict management mechanism is vital. It is also imperative to pay

attention to the study of indigenous conflict management mechanisms. This, however, is not for

the sake of its historical validity; it has also significance for those who are dealing with current

conflicts (Malan, 2005).

Among many ways of resolving conflicts and reconciling conflicting parties in Ethiopia,

shemgelena is the one which is the most well known and widely practiced in different parts of

the Amhara region [even possible to say in Ethiopia] (Solomon, 1992; Yohnnes, 2003; Yoseph,

2006). Even though the basic concern of this institution is similar across the region, it varies in

its procedure and context where it is implemented. Hence, it is important to inquire how this

institution functions in a multi ethnic society; in managing and preventing interpersonal,

intergroup and interethnic conflicts. This is believed to be useful for strengthening the nascent

Ethiopian ethno linguistic federal political system through providing alternative means of

conflict management that works across ethno-linguistic and cultural boundaries. It is also found

helpful to apply the methods, insights and skills that are relevant in conflict situations of our

time.

In this regard, this study gave major emphasis on the nature of conflict and practice of

Shemgelena as an indigenous mechanism of conflict resolution in a multi ethnic setting using the

case of Gungua and Dibate districts of Metekel region.

These districts were formerly among the constituents of Metekel Awuraja (sub-province) of

Gojjam Kiflehager (province). They are now under two different zones of the Amhara National

Regional State (here after ANRS) and Benshangul Gumuz Regional State (here after BGRS)

respectively. While Guangua district belongs to the Awi Nationality Zone of ANRS, Dibate is

carved in BGRS. These sites are also popular for hosting various ethnic groups who came to the

area in different times (Wondyrad, 2011).

3

Referring to oral traditions various authors wrote that Metekel is named after the name of one of

the seven houses (brothers) of the Agaw ethnic community, i.e. Mitikili (Tsega, 2002; Bekalu,

1994). Other associate it with a mountain known as Metekel that located in the Mandura district

(Tsega, 2002). The researcher, however, has not able to get any supportive view about the

existence of a mountain named Metekel in Mandura district in his field work. Wherever the

name has derived, Metekel has been a home of multiple ethnic communities for centuries.

Indeed, the area was one of the seven administrative awurajas of Gojjam province (Bender,

Bowen, Cooper, & Ferguson, 1976; Bekalu, 1994). Following the 1991 political change and

administrative restructuring, the majority of Metekel area has been carved within Benishangul-

Gumuz Regional State (Tsega, 2002). Metekel is now the name for one of the three

administrative zones of Benishangul Gumuz Regional State though the public use the term to

note the whole of former Metekel. Hence, its name still represents the area that includes parts of

the ANRS like Guangua district.

Regarding ethnic composition, Metekel presents a mosaic of ethnic groups speaking different

languages and professing different religions. According to CSA (1996), there are above seven

major ethnic groups who permanently live in Metekel. The Gumuz, Amhara, Agaw, Oromo,

Shinasha, Kambata, Hadyia and others are the major ethnic groups living in the area. Other

ethnic minorities such as the Kunfel (Qollenga Agaw), Gonga and Qimant are also present in

Metekel (Taddesse, 1988b; Dessalegn, 1988).

Likewise, the focal areas of this study, Guangua and Dibate woreda, contain multiple ethnic

groups. The Gumuz, Amhara, Oromo, Shinasha and Agaw are the major ethnic groups in both

districts.

The multiple ethnic groups in Metekel region in general and even in Guangua and Dibate

districts in particular can be divided in many different ways. For instance, they can be broadly

categorized in to four, based on their language family. Thus, there are Semitic (Amhara and

others), Cushitic (Agaw and Oromo), Omotic (Shinasha), and Nilo-Saharan (Gumuz) language

family speaking people (Bender et al, 1976). The presence of all these ethnic groups makes the

study sites a melting pot of diverse people from different ethnic and religious background. This

4

means the conglomeration of ethnic groups representing the four major language families of

Ethiopia justify the given explanation for the area – “A Miniature Ethiopia”.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Africans have their own means of addressing and resolving conflicts since the remote past

(Zartman, 1989). Tirsit (2002: 28&29) also notes that traditional approaches of conflict

management are an important component of the cultural heritage of African societies.

Africa, therefore, has a number of indigenous conflict management mechanisms which helps its

people to manage and resolve conflicts ranging from inter personal to interethnic ones. The role

of such African born conflict management and reconciliation methods is observed in the Gacaca

traditional courts in Rwanda, Kacoke madit meetings in northern Uganda (Malan, 2005), Kidepo

valley communities of eastern Equatorial and Mato Oput of the Acholic people of northern

Uganda (Brock-Utne, 2001).

Nevertheless, all these ways of African conflict management and reconciliation methods have

began to lose their place in the society due to the coming of colonialism and western oriented

education. In relation to this, William Zartman (1989:1) also asserts that “traditional societies in

Africa and elsewhere are reputed to hold secrets of peacemaking locked in their ways, formed

from centuries of custom before the disruption of colonialism.”

Furthermore, owing to the impact of colonialism and cold war, Africa hosted the greatest number

of violent conflicts. Understanding this fact, practitioners and governments have been striving to

address via national armies and conventional mechanisms which is alien to the society at below

(Brock-Utne, 2001). However, an attempt to solve an African problem by a mechanism which is

imported from abroad alone is just like trying to clap single handedly. This is to mean that, the

way practitioners, government officials and others who are working to solve the prevalent violent

conflicts of Africa have ignored the traditional approaches while they are crucial (Ibid).

In a nut shell, it is valuable to know indigenous conflict management mechanisms of Africa for

both to take a lesson and apply in appropriate way. These traditional approaches of African

conflicts are closely related with the socio-economic and political aspects of the people (Rabar

5

and Martin, 2004). As a result, its strong link with the history and culture of the people gives it

great role to play.

As part and parcel of the African continent, Ethiopia cannot be an exceptional case. Needless to

say, Ethiopia is a country which hosts diversity in terms of ethnicity, culture, religion, language

etc. and the diverse groups had been living in cooperation and conflict. They have also

developed and employed their own mechanisms to solve different conflicts that arise due to

divergence of interest and other factors. Luba Basa, Harma Hodha and Mitchu of Metekel

Oromo (Tsega, 2002), Nemo of the Shinasha (Wodisha, 2010), inter alia, are some of the many

indigenous systems of conflict management in Ethiopia.

The proper understanding of indigenous conflict management mechanisms in a multi-ethnic

society is a corner stone to find out the appropriate way of handling and resolving perceived and

actual conflicts. It is also an explicit fact that durable peace can be ensured not only through top-

down approach. Hence, it is vital to analyze how indigenous mechanisms function at the grass

root level. In addition, identifying the challenges and opportunities of the mechanism is also

indispensable to promote the constructive management of conflicts in Federal Ethiopia.

Therefore, the major purpose of this study was to examine the practice of indigenous conflict

management system named Shemgelena in two adjacent and multi ethnic districts of Guangua

and Dibate of the former Metekel Awuraja or the present ANRS and BGRS respectively. The

two adjacent districts are well known in hosting various ethnic groups like the Agaw, Amhara,

Gumuz, Shinasha and Oromo with a significant number (CSA, 1994).

Though these ethnic groups have lived together for a long, it is not safe to say that they always

have amicable interaction. It is rather characterized by cooperation and conflict. Hence, the area

has been experiencing both intra and inter-ethnic conflicts (Tsega, 2002; Berihun, 1996 & 2004;

Wondyrad, 2011). In line with this, these ethnic groups have also developed and practiced

different conflict management mechanisms to manage both intra and inter-ethnic conflicts.

Shemgelena is the one that is being utilized to solve conflicts which occur among different ethnic

groups. Even though the role of Shemgelena in the area is significant, to the researcher’s

6

knowledge, it is not adequately studied. In support of this view, Mutisi (2011) also stated that

African indigenous institutions of conflict management are not yet adequately addressed by

scholarly and policy research.

Indeed there are a handful of studies regarding Shemgelena made by Solomon (1992),

Yohanness (2003), and Yoseph (2006). All of them, however, focus only on how Shemgelena

functions within the Amhara people. For instance, Solomon attempts to show the case of

Shemgelena in the Shewa Amhara. While Yohannes illustrates the case in the Gondar Amhara,

Yoseph gave a glimpse on how it works in the Gojjam Amhara. As a result, all these previous

studies unable to address how this mechanism works in an area where the Amharas and other

ethnic groups live together. They did not also show the contemporary challenges and

opportunities that the institution is facing.

From this point of view, studying the overall practice of Shemgelena in the multi ethnic areas of

the two neighboring areas of Guangua and Dibate of the former Metekel Awuraja (or the present

ANRS and BGRS respectively) is reckoned to be crucial. Therefore, the researcher has attempted

to fill some of the chasms which had not been adequately addressed by previous studies.

In an effort to fill the above mentioned gaps, the following four fundamental research questions

were formulated to be addressed.

1. What are the major causes that lead different groups in to conflict in the area?

2. How does Shemgelena work to resolve conflicts that arise in multiethnic areas like

Metekel?

3. What are the contemporary opportunities and challenges posed for/against the practice of

Shemgelena?

4. What are the merits and demerits of Shemgelena?

1.3.Significance of the research

As a plethora of researchers acknowledge, it is inevitable to have incompatible interests in a

society where different ethnic groups exist. However, examining the overall nature of the

conflict and looking for possible accommodative indigenous solution is crucial for the peaceful

7

coexistence of the society. This is what a practitioner of Peace and Security Studies is mandated

to deal with. Hence, this study has the potential to benefit the Administrative and Security

Bureaus of both regional states (ANRS and BGRS) where the specific study sites lay, the

Ministry of Federal Affairs, NGOs and other concerned organs who are working on conflict

management, conflict prevention, peace building and development. In a nut shell, the findings of

this study can serve as an input for policy makers, practitioners and a stepping stone for further

researches.

1.4. Scope of the Study

The study is delimited to Guangua and Dibate districts of the former Metekel administrative area

(the present ANRS and BGRS respectively). It focused on the role, functions, challenges and

opportunities of practicing the indigenous conflict management system called Shemgelena in a

multi ethnic setting. Thus, members of different ethnic groups on both districts were subjects of

the study.

2. Review of Related Literature

2.1. Origin and Meaning of Shemgelena

Shemgelena, like other Ethiopian indigenous conflict management mechanisms, has been

practiced since the remote past in the absence of state justice system and now where there is

(Pankhurst, 2008). Though there is no written document which tells about how and when

shemgelena had began to be practiced, Yohannes (2003:163), based on his study in Gondar, has

stated as it had been exercised since time immemorial.

Etymologically, on the other hand, the Amharic term Shemgelena is the verbal noun form of

Shemagele (Solomon, 1992) which per se implies two things; 1) an old man 2) a peace maker,

reconciler and mediator (IELSC, 2001; Amsalu, 1987). In the former sense the meaning of

Shemagele stress on ‘how many years one has lived’. In this case, since there is no a socially

agreed specific age to be called Shemagele (or an old man), the commonly used parameter is

either physical appearance or entering in the range of sixty or seventy years old (Yoseph, 2000).

8

In the second sense, Shemagele is an individual who plays a vital role in the mediation and

reconciliation process (Pankhurst, 2008; Solomon, 1992). And therefore, the concept of

Shemgelena denotes the process of mediation and reconciliation so as to resolve conflicts

between different parties. Indeed Pankhurst has also described it in the following way.

… Dispute management mediation is often termed shimgilina a noun from the word

‘elder’ [Shimagele] whch one might translate as ‘eldering’ [Shemgelena] (Pankhurst,

2008:14).

In a nutshell, Shemgelena is an indigenous institution by which a third party intervenes to contain

and resolve conflicts. It is therefore, a mechanism through which conflicting parties resolve

disputes outside of the ‘modern’ court (Yohannes, 2003).

2.2. Conflict in Multiethnic Ethiopia

Ethiopia is a country, known by archaeologists as a cradle of human kind, where its history can

be counted in millennia recognizing those who do in decades or century (Teshale, 1995; Henz,

2000). It is also the only African nation which keeps its age old independence save the case of

Liberia. The nation is gifted with the asset of ethnic diversity. As historian Taddesse Tamrat

(1988a: 192) aptly stated the Ethiopian society “has always been a rich conglomeration of

different ethnic and linguistic communities” since the time of its appearance in the annals of

history. This is proved true in hosting above eighty ethnic groups (Young, 1997; Levine, 2000).

That is why “Carlo Conti Rossini describes Ethiopia as ‘un museo di popoli’ – a museum of

peoples” (Merera, 2003). To authors like Levin (2000), Ethiopia is also a truly “multi ethnic

national society” that evolves out of centuries interaction and acculturation among variety of

ethnic groups.

Similar to many other multi ethnic states, the nature of relationships among these ethnic groups

is featured by both cooperation and conflict (Asnake, 2004). The nation has been plagued by

series of events resulted from both domestic and external actors (ibid). These events include both

the traditional conflict between different regional rulers under different banners to conquer one

against the other and the war against external aggression.

9

Even owing to the unabated conflicts that had been emerging, Ethiopia is considered by some as

a land of war. For instance, Merera (as cited in Asnake, 2004) calls the history of Ethiopia as the

history of conflicts. Mesfin W. (1999) also agrees as the Ethiopian people had been forced to

bear the brunt of dreadful conflicts in its long history. In general, the process that made the

country multiethnic and the consequent regimes tactic of governance has its impact on the issue

of peace and stability in the country (Asnake, 2004). According to Markakis (1994) the relation

that was created between the “expansionist” Ethiopian rulers and the newly incorporated diverse

ethnic communities was asymmetrical.

The causes and names attributed to various conflicts that take place in different times are also

different. It has been taking place in the name of class, ethnic, religious and regional aspect

(Asnake, 2004; Tafesse O., 2003). For instance, in traditional Ethiopia conflict emerged out of a

series struggle for power among different regional elites by which they could acquire military

supremacy in their region and if possible in the country as a whole (Mesfin W., 1999).

With regard to the causes of conflict, some lists discrepancy in accessing resources such as “state

power, economic resources, social status, etc.” as the crux of grievance that engender conflicts in

the country (Tafesse O., 2003:65). Tafesse further states that different horizontal local conflicts

are derived from competition over farmlands, water, and grazing areas.

Similarly, Asnake (2004:68) maintains that “access to state power, competition over scarce

resources and others” were the underlying causes of conflict in Ethiopia. This had become more

complex due to the “misguided policies” of Ethiopian regimes and the dynamics of politics in the

Horn of Africa. Asnake further tells us the existence of inter ethnic tension and conflicts even

after Ethiopia officially adopts ethnic based federalism as a means of responding the long

awaited “national question” and mitigating conflict by providing self determination to all

‘nations, nationalities and people’ since 1991. He categorizes the present time ethnic conflicts

and tensions of Ethiopia in to three: “inter ethnic competitions and conflicts in multiple identity

regional states, tensions in majority-minority relations; and problems delineation of regional

boundaries” (ibid: 55). Assefa F. (2006), on the other hand, argues that conflicts between ethnic

10

groups over grazing land, water and other resources is a long existed reality even before the

introduction of ethnic based federalism. He views the prevailing inter ethnic conflicts following

the post 1991 political change as the outburst of ancient animosity.

3. Research Design and Methodology

3.1. Methodology

A qualitative study was designed to gather and analyze information regarding the overall nature

of conflict and indigenous conflict management system called Shemgelena in the multi ethnic

region of Metekel. This approach is helpful to understand “the social world through an

examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants” (Bryman, 2004:266). Creswell

(2009) also asserts the “participatory and self reflexive perspective” of qualitative inquiry is

highly useful. And hence, in this study, it is employed to gain a better understanding of the

indigenous conflict management system from the participants’ perspective. In addition, a

descriptive research design is chosen for this study.

3.2. Samples and Sampling techniques

For the purpose of this study, local elders, government officials, victims of conflict and members

of various ethnic groups were chosen to participate. In order to collect the necessary and

adequate data which were helpful to answer the earlier mentioned research questions the

researcher employed non probability sampling technique. To put in another way, the sample was

recruited through non probability methods via purposive and quota sampling techniques. The

later technique is preferred for its usefulness in generating an in-depth analysis and producing “a

sample that reflects a population in terms of the relative proportion of people in different

categories such as gender, ethnicity, (…), region of residence, and in combination of these

categories”(Bryman, 2004: 102).

3.3. Instrument and Procedure

In this study both primary and secondary sources of data which were considered relevant had

been utilized. Therefore, a combination of data collection instruments was employed to obtain

and crosscheck information. This includes: semi-structured interview, focus group discussion

and document analysis. The data collected through these instruments were qualitatively

analyzed.

11

4. Findings and Discussion

In this section, an attempt is made to discuss and analyze the data gathered through four focus

group discussions (with council of elders of Guangua district, settlers, Gumuz as well as

Shinasha communities of Dibate) and interview with 12 key informants. The next part, therefore,

begins with describing the overall nature and causes of conflict in the study area. It is followed

by presenting how Shemgelena works in dealing with conflicts, the opportunities and challenges

posed for/against it, as well as the merits and demerits of employing Shemgelena as Conflict

management system.

4.1 Nature and causes of Conflict in the area

4.1.1. Competition over Natural Resources

Competition over natural resources is one of the frequently mentioned causes of conflict between

dwellers of Gungua and Dibate districts. It is mainly over land and related issues that conflict

erupt among members of different ethnic groups in the study area. As the data gathered through

key informants’ interview, Focus Group Discussion (FGD) as well as document analysis witness

conflicts because of farming land, grazing land and farming land border trespass are a common

incident among various ethnic groups of the study areas. In fact, there are also other natural

resources such as water and forest (woodland) which is explained by some informants as they

cause conflict intermittently. However, what is boldly explained as the major cause of conflict by

all participants of the study is severe competition over natural resources mainly of land and land

related issues.

a) Farming Land Farming land is one of the structural causes underlying the conflict in both Guangua and Dibate

districts. All participants of FGD and key informants interview have confirmed this fact.

As FGD and key informants outline, the threshold of the conflict that virtually translated into an

issue of ethnic groups is the disagreement between two individuals. This mostly arises either due

to disagreement on land lease arrangement or sold land. Such type of conflict largely occurs

between the settlers and the Gumuz. According to FGD and interview participants, the Gumuz

who relatively have fertile and large plots of land rent out and sometimes sell their land to the

settlers who have insufficient or no land at all for different factors. However, this practice is not

12

free of conflict between the land holder and the client. And conflict is reported to emerge in

ploughing (farming) and harvesting seasons.

According to the Shinasha and Settler FGD participants as well as most key informants, the

reason that conflict becomes prevalent in ploughing season is when the land owner, i.e. the

Gumuz, rents and receives money from two different persons on the same land. In harvesting

time, however, the conflict is due to the demand of the land holder for additional rent fee which

is not part of the mutually agreed contract. This happens when the land holder sees the surplus

product that the land has given to his client. At this time, the owner feels that he is deceived by

his client who pays a very small amount of money for the land that produces a lot.

All FGD participants in Guangua and Dibate districts as well as the majority of key informant

interviewees have explained the existence of conflict due to land lease arrangement. Of which

the settlers and the Shinasha participants alleged the Gumuz whom they rent land. They also

depict the Gumuz as greedy and jealous who requires additional payment after seeing the surplus

product of their client. They even repeatedly stated that “when we say no! The Gumuz have

begun to respond ‘whose land this is after all?’ ‘Smell the soil;’ ‘does it smell tiqur (black) or

qay (red)’.” Some of the Gumuz FGD participants, conversely, accuse both the settlers and the

Shinasha (or whom they call Shuwa) for being unwilling to return back and claiming the land

they peacefully rent from them. According to these Gumuz participants, it is because of this that

conflict recurrently blows up due to land lease arrangement.

Another land related issue that brings conflict among various groups that inhabit both districts is

dispute over sold land. Even though both the FDRE and constitutions of the two regional states

proclaim that land is a common property of the people and prohibit the selling of land, FGD

participants and some key informants confirm the existence of informal farm land marketing.

This process of land sale usually resulted in conflict. The conflict is said to occur due to

reclaiming of the sold land by the Gumuz.

In general, all informants commonly agree that the disagreements between a Gumuz land owner

and a non Gumuz (Shuwa) who rented or bought often become a source of tension and conflict

that finally get interpreted as the conflict of different ethnic groups.

13

b) Farming Land border Trespassing Conflicts due to farming land border commonly occur between two land holders who have an

adjacent farming land. It is when either of one ploughs the land of the other passing their

common border that conflicts erupt. It sometimes also happens when one claims over a tract of

land which is not properly differentiated. This kind of conflict is common even among

individuals who belong to the same ethnic group or even within a family provided they have

adjacent farmlands. However, as most non Gumuz informants assert, the intensity of conflict

changed when it particularly happens between the Gumuz (Begga or Tiquroch equivalent to the

black) and the non Gumuz (Shuwa or qayoch equivalent to the red). Because, when disagreement

occur over land and other related issues among other groups the offended party usually appeals

to the local elders or the court and get solved. On contrary, it often changed in to violent conflict

when it is between the settler or the Shinasha and the Gumuz. This later remained the issue of the

two ethnic groups until it gets solution through local elders known as Shemagele.

Though some key informants have seen the problem on land and land related issues with the

increasing number of population and scarcity of resources, none of FGD participants raise

scarcity as a cause. They rather attribute with greediness, the absence of land use policy,

certification and redistribution, inordinate desire to own grazing and farming lands in monopoly

that could enhance their economic benefits.

4.1.2. Theft Theft in terms of cattle rustling and stealing agricultural products is the most underlined cause of

conflict mainly raised by all FGD participants and key informants. Even though, one group

accuses the other, it is presented as cause of conflict in the area. For instance, the Gumuz alleged

the Shuwa (non Gumuz or the red) whom they considered ‘thieves’ and even who teach them

stealing. A Gumuz participant in FGD highlights how ‘theft’ is causing conflict between the

Gumuz (Begga or tiqur) and non Gumuz (Shuwa or the qay):

They [the Shuwa] always cheat us selling or exchanging stolen commodities, illegal firearms for our ‘pure’ money or nice cattle. However, we later confiscated our property by the police for being stolen that we had bought from the Shuwa. This finally gets us conflict with the Shuwa (FGD with the Gumuz, Dibate, February 20, 2010).

14

Nevertheless, according to all informants, all ethnic groups are found participating in this illegal

business.

4.1.3. Contested Administrative Regional Boundary The territorial boundary of ANRS and BGRS is not yet clearly demarcated as key informant

officials’ accord. Informants also confirm that the presence of mutually shared ethnic groups and

commonly utilized resources along the “boundaries” of the two regions has delayed the

delineation and demarcation process of the state frontiers. As a result, all FGD groups also assert,

inhabitants along the adjacent districts [Guangua and Debate respectively] of the two regions are

getting intermittent conflict claiming over natural resources such as farming land, grazing land,

forest (woodland), water etc.

4.1.4. The Incessant Harmful Traditional Practices “Harmful traditional practices” such as committing homicide and revenge are the most widely

practiced and well recognized cause for the recurrent conflicts in the study areas. Indeed there

are other practices (such as abduction, exchange marriage, believes in witchcraft) mentioned as

the major causes of intra-Gumuz conflict which its adverse impact occasionally extends to other

ethnic groups. But, all non Gumuz participants both in Guangua and Dibate districts underscore

arbitrary killing as a common source of conflict with the Gumuz community. As most

participants state, in both districts arbitrary killing is a common source of tension and conflict.

All the data gathered also reveals that killing or homicide for “no reason” by the Gumuz against

members of other ethnic groups is the unabated and unbearable triggering cause of conflict.

According to most participants of this study, it is an accepted norm to kill a “Shuwa” or “qay”

people for the sake of getting social value during the festival of Mesqel (the finding of the True

Cross) and around Tezkar (a ceremony to their deceased relative). This is mainly carried out by

the Gumuz ethnic groups. Individual killings are socially valued and ascribed with high social

status and prestige. Because, individuals who commit murder are admired and respected and

even get priority to take wives. They further explained that a Gumuz who killed a Shuwa man

has his own ‘cup’ to drink borde (a locally made beer) rather than sharing a common cup with

others, and sit on a special place. This honor and respect is not only confined to the killer but

also extended to their wives who deserved to privilege or priority in social service like fetching

water.

15

This action of the Gumuz, however, has become intolerable to both the settlers and the Shinasha

who raised a question “up to when ‘lack of awareness’ will be a plausible reason for the

incessant homicide they [Gumuz] commit?”. They were also frequently questioning that “who

has not lost his brother, son, father or a relative? Nobody!” Some of the key informants at

regional and woreda level mentioned as Dibate woreda has been nick named “Darfur” due to the

frequent homicide and ensued revenge which consecutively carried out.

4.2. The Process and Procedures Mediation and Reconciliation in Shemgelena

As the data collected via FGD, interview and the researcher has also observed, Shemegelena is

found to be the most commonly practiced mechanism of resolving various types of conflicts

(ranging from inter personal to inter ethnic level) through mediation and reconciliation. It is also

an institution for which all ethnic groups gave recognition.

As a result, now the Shemageles are now organized in each Kebele as Demaderaqi Shemageles

which refers to elders who work to ‘contain the continuity of blood feud’. The major activity of

the Shemageles is mediating and reconciling conflicting parties including extended members of

the party. Through the inquiry and investigation they carried out, the Shemageles finally identify

the causes of the conflict and who the offender and the offended are. This virtually enabled them

to adjudicate over the conflicting matter. In this regard, with the exception of homicide, the

institution deals with conflicts that happened because of theft, debt, land border trespassing, land

lease, revenge etc.

The first step in the Shemgelena process is case initiation. Similar to what earlier studies by

Pankhurst (2008) and Yohannes (2003) proved, call for Shemgelena can be initiated by either

litigants, elders, neighbors, friends or kin of either party. The pressure on both conflicting parties

to come to shemgelena increases when the conflict took interethnic nature or blood feud. This is

in order to deter the continuation of retaliation undertaken by both parties and to give an end for

the hostile relation that might potentially cause mistrust and chaos in the society. According to

informants, however, getting willingness from both parties could require a thorough effort. It is

after both parties agreed to come to shemgelena that the whole process will begin.

16

After the conflicting parties agreed to be mediated by the Shemageles, the Shemageles proceed to

the next step. Thus, they shall call for a meeting on a day which is convenient for all parties. On

that specific day a gathering held under a tree yard with the presence of both conflicting parties

and their relatives. Now a day, as the researcher has observed, the gathering is also conducted

within the precinct of the local kebele administration. However, the central logic that has

remained intact is the place where mediation and reconciliation process undertaken should be at

a relatively fair distance for both parties – the aggrieved party and the defendant.

With the briefing of the chair person of the Shemageles about the case and for what reason the

meeting is called, the over all process of mediation and reconciliation begins. The Shemageles

will begin to listen both parties, and sometimes let the rivals go, to discuss the case, investigate

the evidence, and reach a consensus on a verdict. In all this process, the role of the Shemageles is

convincing both conflicting parties and pulling them to come to at amidst alternative and

enabling them to work cooperatively on their shared conflict. Adding to this the Shemagles also

determine the amount of Kassa (compensation) and its period of payment; if the conflict was

asymmetric and the aggrieved has lost much. So that, the Shemageles exert much effort to pursue

both parties to reach at agreement.

The Shemageles are not only confined on managing conflicts, they also work in preventing the

outburst of conflict due to vengeance of extended members of either of the group. Therefore,

they make both members of conflicting groups under oath that bind them not to revenge each

other and widen up the scope of the conflict. If the conflict has involved loss of life, the

Shemageles primarily forced the offender group to hand over the miscreants to the law and later

reconcile the remaining members of the conflicting parties. They also inform to the concerned

bodies of the local government when the situation becomes beyond their capacity.

There is also a very special ceremony that should be observed while making an oath that helps to

oblige both parties to tell the truth about what happened before as well as not to involve in a

conflict, hide actors of conflict, and revenge each other. As all informants underscored, it is

believed that if one breaches the oath or makes an oath falsely, it will backfire on himself and his

17

family. Something bad is expected to happen on the life and property of the family. According to

informants, there are also some who have become ill, mad, and died.

There are some materials that are needed to conduct the ceremony. These include; a lamb,

Clashinkov guns, a spear, knife, spiny leaves of a plant, dried wood hit by thunder, ash, snake’s

head, bone etc. All these materials have their meaning and representation. Then after, all these

materials shall be collected and put together on one place. The Shemageles will slaughter the

lamb in a single knife together signifying unity. The whole people who have attended the

ceremony shall make a line and leap over it after making an oath. The following are some of the

statements said while committing an oath under the guidance of the Shemageles.

If I hide the truth;

If I hide a miscreant;

If I cooperate with criminals;

If I commit a crime;

If I involve in a conflict;

If I violate this deal,

Let my blood pour like this lamb,

Let these guns be a fire and hits me

Let the spear strike me

Let the knife pierce me

Let the earth be spiny where ever I go

Let a thunder burns me

Let I be ash and be in vain in my life

Let a snake bites me

Let I left naked like the bone which lost its flesh

After the entire oath, there are different ceremonies that took place. This of course may vary on

the degree of the destruction and type of the conflict. But in an interpersonal conflict which

caused loss of life and has an interethnic nature, a sheep or an ox can be slaughtered and food

with borde (traditional beer) as well as locally made gin called araqe is served. Both parties will

18

hug and kiss each other. And finally, the Shemgelena process will be culminated by elders and

religious leaders blessing.

It should also be noted that Shemgelena and its overall rituals, in the multi ethnic districts of

Guangua and Dibate, represents a confluence of cultural, social and religious values and beliefs

of the various ethnic groups in the area. As a result, as participants of the study confirmed, the

majority of the community gave legitimacy.

4.3. Challenges and Opportunities

4.3.1 Challenges

The practice and continuity of Shemgelena as an indigenous conflict management mechanism in

the multi ethnic and conflict prone area of Guangua and Dibate districts in particular and

Metekel region in general is being threatened by different factors. The following are some of the

major challenges mentioned by most informants as a threat posed against the institution.

The absence of enforcement mechanism

Though Shemgelena has been tremendously serving in maintaining peace and security of the

society, the ability of Shemgelena to enforce its decisions is very limited. The only way of

enforcing decisions is creating social imposition. As a result, if one fails to implement the agreed

points, there is no further way of enforcement which is really contemporary challenge against the

practice of Shemgelena in the area. It is also diminishing the value, role and status of the

institution in the society. One key informant has put the situation “when we face some defiant

individuals, we feel in vain and bewildered on what we can do”. He further expressed his opinion

that “the defiant are usually those who are illicit arms dealers, who take theft as a business etc.”

The absence of Incentives

The absence of incentives given for Shemageles at least for their per diem while they roam from

place to place for the purpose of reconciliation is another challenge. Shemgelena is a social

service without any payment. As members of the institution boldly mentioned, it is simply an

activity that emanates from moral responsibility of individuals to maintain and promote peace

19

and security in the area. In this regard, an informant has succinctly explained the justification

behind being a Shemagele in the following way: “We are just working in the institution while we should manage our livelihood affairs. It is to let

peace thrive in our environs. Because; if peace is lost, it is us who will first die. We are working

for the sake of ourselves, just to prevent the emergence of interethnic conflicts, like we heard in

other places, in our community. However, the government has not paid adequate attention and

support to us.”

Despite their significant jobs in keeping peace and social harmony, the government has not

provided any concrete support that can ensure the continuity of the system. Even covering the

expenses for fulfilling the necessary materials for reconciliation ceremony has become a

challenge that disenchanted most elders.

4.3.2. Opportunities

The establishment of a Joint Peace Committee

The role of this committee is not less significant. It is jointly established by the elders of the two

adjacent districts. The Committee is organized by the two local administrations as an ad-hoc

committee that works on conflict management and prevention in the area. The JPC is responsible

to catch and hand over those who participate in homicide, theft, as well as other conflict causing

activities and try to hide themselves in another district. The committee has mainly contributed to

easily manage conflicts that occur between inhabitants along borders of adjacent districts.

Though the role of these institutions is great, they are understood that they could not go further

medicating the symptoms of conflict than tackling the underlying causes. Despite its limitations,

the JPC has created a forum where in Shemageles of the two adjacent districts can meet once a

month, discuss and consult on various achievements and problems of the institution in the area.

New initiatives from the local government

Despite the presence of some challenges that are discouraging the Shemageles and weakening

the performance of the institution, Shemgelena as a conflict management mechanism has so far

the popularity in the community. Henceforth, the number of people and groups who take their

cases to it are increasing from day to day. Cognizant of this fact, the local administration has

been making some measures that promote the position of the institution in the community. First

and for most, the two adjacent districts are alternatively conducting Annual Peace Conference

20

which is found very indispensable not only in dealing with conflicts but also enhancing people to

people contact through which one can understand better the other groups of the region.

On top of this, the local administration has also recently begun to make some initiatives that

further strengthen and enhance the position of the institution in the community. According to

informants, letting the institution to have its own seal, the preparation of badge for the elected

Shemageles and the emerging provision of moral support are some of the positive strides being

made by the local administration. Such reinforcing measure of the local administration is

anticipated to ensure the continued existence of Shemgelena as one alternative indigenous

conflict management system in the region.

4.4. Merits and Demerits of Shemgelena Vis- a- Vis the formal Justice System

It may be a utopia to think of having an absolute and perfect conflict management mechanism

without any limitations. If it is so, many of the conflicts that prevail in the world would be

solved. Shemgelena per se cannot be an exception. It has its own strengths and shortcomings.

This part of the paper tries to see some of the merits and demerits of Shemgelena vis – a - vis the

modern justice system.

4.4.1. Merits of Shemgelena There are two fundamental factors boldly mentioned by informants for why most people prefer

to resolve their case in Shemgelena rather than the modern courts. These include cost

effectiveness, and pliability and participatory nature of the institution.

Cost Effective

One of the most important advantages of indigenous conflict management mechanisms is their

cost effectiveness. In this regard Shemgelena is found an alternative to expensive and

complicated formal judicial procedures for the people in the area. Interethnic as well as

interpersonal conflicts are often solved in a relatively quick and flexible way. This is concurrent

with the view of (Tirsit, 2002) which rightly states that indigenous conflict management

mechanisms do not require any complicated organizational structures and expensive campaigns

rescuing both parties from spending their money and precious time. For instance, in Shemgelena

21

parties are not expected to recruit a solicitor. Besides this, since the mediation and reconciliation

process takes place in the village of both adversaries, their expenditure in the modern court in

terms of money and time is reduced.

Pliable and Participatory

Another advantage of Shemgelena is its pliability and participatory nature. In the way that

supports this view of informants’, Aberra Jembere (2003:839) explained that “customary law is

made by the people and not by the state”. Thus its legitimacy is acquired “from participation and

consensus of the community and its recognition of the same government”. According to

informants, “everything in Shemgelena needs the final consent of both disputant parties”. In the

modern legal system, however, decision is made only based on the evidences provided and either

of one parties can be dissatisfied (Brock-Utne, 2001). Shemgelena also gives power for both

parties to be judged by persons who are commonly accepted. As it is underscored by most

informants, if people take their cases to the modern court, the alleged party may not be willing to

present before the court and choose, in some extreme cases, to live in the bush leading a banditry

life, which further harden the conflict. Even if both parties present to the state court, as to the

informants belief, the court by itself could be vulnerable to bribery while this is immoral and

unthinkable in Shemgelena process. On top of this, no one is courageous enough to lie in front of

the Shemageles since nothing is believed to be out of the eyes and ears of the Shemageles since

they are part of the community itself. In strengthening this view, an informant has mentioned two

Amharic sayings; ለዳኛ እብለቱን፣ ለሽማግሌ እምነቱን - literally means ‘one may lie before the judge but

confess the truth for the Shemagele’, and ምን ያውቃል አገር፣ ምን ያጠብቃል ማገር literally means ‘who

knows well is the people and what makes the house strong is the pillar’.

Furthermore, adjudication by Shemgelena is not mandatory even if it is socially accepted.

Henceforth, when an agreement could not be reached with the verdict either of one party can

take the case to the formal court (Pankhurst, 2008). However, it has an increasing cost

implication for covering the whole expense needed in using the modern legal system (Giday,

2000).

22

Social fabric oriented

Indigenous approaches like Shemgelena, focuses on repairing the broken social fabric and

maintaining the breached peace. Prime attention is given for the creation of harmonious relations

than simple punishment of the offender. As all informants confirm, Shemgelena is characterized

by win-win approach, while the formal legal system, in contrast, is like a zero sum game. This is

consistent with what Brock-Utne (2000) explained about the modern justice system that solely

emphasize on investigating the guilty and punishing based on codes without considering the

consequent impacts on the offender and his family.

In a nutshell, Shemglena and its mediators - the Shemageles have legitimacy and importance in

the multi ethnic society of Guangua and Dibate districts of Metekel region. This is because the

overall principles and norms being applied in it are derived from people’s shared beliefs and

traditions, rather than from alien models. Thus, a conflict which is settled by the Shemageles has

a rare chance to recur. That is what the following Amharic adage cited by informants tells us

“beshemgele Yetareqe, betsehay yedereqe”. Meaning ‘a reconciliation done by the Shemageles

cannot be breached and the conflict will not re-occur again’.

4.4.2. Demerits of Shemgelena

Sexism

The major weakness of Shemgelena is its gender bias. Whatever wisdom they have, women

cannot be one of the Shemageles. According to participants of the study, Shemgelena involves

only males as a mediator and reconciler. Based on the recommendation of the local

administration, however, an attempt is made to incorporate women though none of the women

are practically attending in it. Indeed, this is justified by women’s excessive home activity, role

of pregnancy and child bearing (Yoseph, 2006). Women can only attend in the process either as a

disputant, witness or audience in the final ceremony. This implies Shemgelena is men’s

institution where women are also to be judged. Moreover, the Amharic term for an old woman,

arogit, by itself does not show respect as it is given for a Shemagele. Arogit is a word which has

a derogatory connotation (Solomon, 1992).

23

The Absence of codified law

Due to the absence of codified law, the Shemageles make inconsistent verdict for the same type

of cases. Informants have also confirmed as Shemageles make a decision in the way they believe

appropriate. This often causes inconsistency in the judgments they give which is resulting

societal negligence to the institution.

5. Conclusions

The institution of Shimgelena deal with a wide range of conflicts that are often caused by

competition over natural resources, contestation over regional administrative boundaries, and

incessant harmful traditional practices. To address these conflicts, the institution uses special

rituals including but not limited to oaths and curse. The contents of the rituals include a mix of

cultural, social and religious values & beliefs of the various ethnic groups of the study area vis-à-

vis the practice in a homogenous society.

Despite the few shortcomings, the institution has functioned in reconciliation and peace building

through forgiveness for a long period of time. It has helped members of various ethnic groups to

address conflict causing problems, reaching agreement by making both conflicting parties and

the Shemageles part of the solution and rebuild relationships. This cultural heritage of the area

has still survived with all its limitations. Filling the gap, improving its weak side, developing its

strength and making it more appropriate for the current generation is the task of the

contemporary modern peace activists and concerned bodies.

Since this entails genuine and concerted effort of all, policy makers’ government officials, peace

activists and other stake holders should able to integrate such meaningful traditions in their

activities. Observing it as anachronistic value and relying only on western oriented mechanisms

doesn’t serve, otherwise.

24

References

Abera, Jembere. (1990). An Introduction to Ethiopian Law: sources

of Law and the Administration of Justice. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa

University.

Amsalu Aklilu . (1987). Amharic English Dictionary. Addis Ababa:

Kuraz publishing Agency.

Asnake Kefale. (2004). Federalism Some Trends of Ethnic Conflicts and their

Management in Ethioopia. Alfred G. Nhema (Ed.), The Quest for Peace in Africa:

Transformation, Democracy and Public Policy. Addis Ababa: OSSREA.

Assefa Fiseha. (2006). Theory versus Practice in the Implementation of Ethiopia’s Ethnic Federalism. In D. Turton (Ed.), Ethnic Federalism: The Ethiopian experience in Comparative Perspective (pp. 131 - 164). Oxford: James Currey Ltd.

Bekalu Molla.(1994).Traditional Agricultural Practices and Resource Management among the Agaw of Gojjam (Master’s Thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.

Bender, M.L., Bowen, J.D., Cooper, R.L., & Ferguson, C.A. (Eds.). (1976). Language in Ethiopia. London: Oxford University Press.

Berihun Mebratie .(1996). Spontaneous Settlement and inter-ethnic relations in Matakal: North West Ethiopia. (Master’s thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.

______________.(2004). The Past in the Present: The Dynamics of Identity and Otherness among the Gumuz of Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation). Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Gottingen.

Brock – Utne, Birgit. (2001). Indigenous Conflict Management in

Africa. University of Oslo: Institute for Educational Research.

Available on http://www. africavenir. Com/pblications/occasional

papers/ Borckutne Tradconflict Management.pdf.

Bryman, A.(2004). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University press. Central Statistical Agency (CSA). (2008). Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007

Population and Housing Census. Addis Ababa: FDRE Population Census Commission

Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: SAGE publications. Dessalegn Rahmato.(1988).Resettlement and Indigenous People: The case of Metekel. In

Proceedings of the workshop on Famine Experiences and resettlement in Ethiopia (pp.23 - 46). December 29-30, 1988. AAU: Institute of Development Research

Ethiopian Languages Research Center (ELRC). (2001). Amaregna

Mezgebe Qalat (Amharic Dictionary). Addis Ababa: Artistic Printing

Press.

25

Henz, P. B. (2000). Layers of Time. London: Hurst & Co. publishers Ltd.

Levine, D. (2000). Greater Ethiopia: The Evolution of a Multi-Ethnic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Malan, Jannie. (2005). Traditional and local conflict Management. In

Paul van Tongeren (et al.) People Building Peace II successful stories of

Civil society (pp. 449-494). USA Lyne Rienner publishers, Inc.

Markakis, J. (1994). Ethnic Conflict and the State in the Horn of Africa. In Katsyoshi Fukui and John Markakis (Eds.), Ethnicity and Conflict in the Horn of Africa (pp. 217-237).London: James Currey.

Merera Gudina. (2003). Ethiopia: Competing Ethnic Nationalisms and the Quest for Democracy,1960 – 2000. Netherlands: Shaker Publishing.

Mesfin Wolde-Mariam. (1999). The Horn of Africa: Conflict and Poverty. Addis Ababa: Commercial Printing Press.

Mutisi, Martha. (2011). The Abunzi Mediation in Rwanda: Opportunities for Engaging with Traditional Institutions of Conflict Management. Policy and Practice brief of

ACCORD.Issue No. 012 Pankhurst, Alula. (2008). Understanding Customary Dispute

Management in Ethiopia. In Alula Pankhurst and Getachew Assefa

(Eds.), Grass Roots Justice in Ethiopia: The contribution of Customary

Dispute Management (pp.) Addis Ababa: French Center of Ethiopian

Studies.

Rabar, B. and Martin, K.. (2004). Indigenous Democracy:

Traditional conflict management Mechanisms Pokot, Turkana,

Samburu and Marakawet. Retrived, 3/25/2005 fro

http://www.itgd.org/docs/region- east- africa/ indigenous-

democracy. pdf.

Solomon Gebre. (1992). Conflict Management in Traditional Amhara

Society. In Alula Pankhurst and Tshai Berhane Selassie (Eds.) ,

Sociology, Ethnology Bulletin, volume I, Number 2 march 1992 (pp 55-

60) Addis Ababa University: Department of Sociology and social

administration.

Taddesse Tamrat. (1988a). Processes of Ethnic Interaction and Integration in Ethiopian History: The Case of the Agaw. In Proceedings of 9th International Congress of Ethiopian Studies (pp. 192 - 206), USSR Academy of Sciences Africa Institute Moscow, 26 – 29 August 1986. Moscow: Nuka Publishers.

----------------------. (1988b). Nilo Saharan Interaction with Nehibouring Highlanders: The

26

Case of the Gumuz of Gojjam and Wallaga. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Famine Experience and Resettlement in Ethiopia (pp. 7 - 21). December 29 - 30, 1988, Institute of Development Research, Addis Ababa University.

Trisit Girshaw, ed. (2002). Ethiopia’s Experience of working on

Conflicts (workshop on Conflict Prevention, Nazreth 16th – 20th of Dec.

2002.

Tafesse Olika.(2003). Dynamics of Conflicts in Ethiopia: Exclusion, Resistance, and the Ascendancy of Ethnic Politics. In Tafesse Olika, Yacob Arsano and Oyvind Aadlan (Eds.), Topics in Contemporary Political Development in Ethiopia: Proceedings of the launching workshops of the DPSIR and the NIHR (pp.90 – 108). DPSIR: Addis Ababa University.

Teshale Tibebu. (1995). The making of modern Ethiopia: 1896-1974.

Lawrencevine: The Red sea press, Inc.

Tsega Endalew. (1997). The Oromo of Wombera: A Historical Survey to 1950 (MA Thesis). Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University

-------------------. (2002). Conflict Management through Cultural Tolerance: An Analysis of the Michu Institution in Metekkel Region, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: OSSREA.

Wondyrad Asmamaw. (2011). The Dynamics and Implications of Conflicts in Multiethnic Society: Cases in North West Ethiopia. Saarbrucken: Lambert

Academic Publishing. Yohannes Birhanu. (2003). Shemglina (moot): Indigenous

Institutions for resolving conflicts outside the codified legal system,

case studies from six kebeles in North Gondar. In Tafesse Olika,

Yacob Arsano and Oyvind Aadlan 9Eds.), Topics in Contemporary

political Development in Ethiopia (Towards research Agenda in the

Framework of DPSIR-NIHR Research Programmed, 1998-2003). Addis

Ababa University: DDSIR.

Yoseph Getnet (2006). Bahelawi erq bemisraq Gojjam Mestedader

zone Debay Tilat Gin Worda ( Traditional conflict Management in East

Gojjam Administrative Zone Debay Tilat Gin Distric). Addis Ababa

University: MA Thesis.

Young, J.(1996). Ethnicity and Power in Ethiopia. Review of African Political Economy, No. 70, 531-542.

Zartman, I. William (1989). Traditional Cures for African Conflicts.

New York: Oxford University Press.