Introduction: The politics of diaspora and religious groups’ involvement in the Liberian peace processes

Summary

The involvement of non-state actors in seeking to resolve civil wars in Africa is relatively recent. Until the 1990s, the general norm was for states to exercise this function, usually through the offices of the United Nations (UN), or other intergovernmental organizations. The logic of the Cold War invariably dictated a rather static and state-centric approach to conflict resolution, and space for non-state actors, particularly from the realm of civil society, was circumscribed at best. Even today, peace interventions in Africa remain largely dominated by intergovernmental and state actors, or their appointed representatives. The most utilized constituency for leading peace processes is serving and former heads of state and, to a lesser extent, former heads of multilateral institutions and retired ambassadors. The reasons for this are easily explicable given that most conflicts are as a result of the struggle to gain control over the state and the state is at the centre of political contestations, often in a zero-sum game for power. However, a gradual increase in the number of non-state actors involving themselves in efforts to end civil wars has been noticeable in recent years, with religious organisations often at the fore. A few examples from Africa would include the mediation efforts of the Roman Catholic Order, Sant’ Egidio, in the Mozambican civil war and the role played by the World Council of Churches and the All African Conference of Churches in Sudan (Assefa, 1988). While international legal instruments have not been significantly altered to grant greater conflict resolution legitimacy to such non-state actors, they have become progressively more important in conflict resolution.

In turn, various scholars have engaged in the study of non-state actors in conflicts. Though this has usually focused on non-governmental organizations (NGOs), individual efforts and involvement in peace interventions have also been analysed (Johnston and Sampson, 1994; Appleby, 1999; Gopin, 2001; Johnston, 2003; Richmond, 2003; Coward and Smith, 2004; Miall, 2004; Nan, 2004; Barnes, 2005; Goodhand, 2006; Smock, 2006; Svensson, 2007; Bartoli, 2009; Bercovitch and Kadayifci-Orellana, 2009; Harpviken and Røislien, 2009).