“Traditional” Resolution of Land Conflicts: The Survival of Precolonial Dispute Settlement in Burundi

• Author: Alexander De Juan
• DOI: 10.1177/0010414016688006
• Published date: 01 November 2017
• Date: 01 November 2017

https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016688006

Comparative Political Studies

2017, Vol. 50(13) 1835 –1868

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0010414016688006

journals.sagepub.com/home/cps

Article

“Traditional” Resolution

of Land Conflicts: The

Survival of Precolonial

Dispute Settlement in

Burundi

Alexander De Juan1

Abstract

Where and how have precolonial institutions of conflict resolution remained

intact? Although it is often argued that “traditional” institutions can play a

key role in managing communal conflicts, little is known about the conditions

of their “survival.” This article argues that historical, political, and cultural

topographies are essential to understanding patterns of the persistence and

demise of precolonial institutions. Traditional modes of conflict resolution

remain strong where they have been internalized over centuries: in the

cultural and political centers of precolonial states. I use original geocoded

survey data and historical spatial information on precolonial Burundi to

analyze this hypothesis. The estimations yield robust correlations between

the geographic patterns of the precolonial kingdom and current modes of

resource-related conflict resolution.

Keywords

land conflicts, subnational politics, pre-colonial institutions, state building

1German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, Germany

Corresponding Author:

Alexander De Juan, German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Neuer Jungfernstieg 21,

20354 Hamburg, Germany.

Email: dejuan@giga-hamburg.de

688006CPSXXX10.1177/0010414016688006Comparative Political StudiesDe Juan

research-article2017

1836Comparative Political Studies 50(13)

Introduction

Violence escalated in Burundi when incumbent president Pierre Nkurunziza

announced in April 2015 that he would run for a third term in the next presi-

dential elections. Beneath ethno-political cleavages, local land conflicts have

played an essential role in fomenting violence in the country. Because of

Burundi’s very high population density and its economic dependence on agri-

culture, land is a key resource: “Around Burundi, brothers are killing broth-

ers. Sons are killing fathers. And it’s all for land” (Keenan, 2015). For

centuries, the precolonial institution of the bashingantahe has been the cen-

tral mechanism for the peaceful management of resource-related disputes;

although the institution has lost its influence across large parts of the country,

in the opinion of many observers, it remains the primary communal instru-

ment for conflict settlement and reconciliation (Dexter & Ntahombaye, 2005;

International Crisis Group [ICG], 2003; Kamungi, Oketch, & Huggins,

2004). Understanding the determinants of its persistence and demise is there-

fore essential for understanding and effectively capitalizing on local-level

capacities for conflict resolution in Burundi.

Disputes over access to resources are important drivers of local-level ten-

sions in countries as culturally, politically, and economically diverse as

Sudan, Brazil, Ghana, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Kenya, or Yemen (Adano,

Dietz, Witsenburg, & Zaal, 2012; Alston, Libecap, & Mueller, 1999;

Bigagaza, Abong, & Mukarubuga, 2002; Broegaard, 2005; Daudelin, 2003;

for example, Flint & de Waal, 2005; Fred-Mensah, 1999; Thompson, 2010).

Across these cases, local institutional configurations have been found to be

essential in determining where scarcity and distributional conflicts result in

actual insecurity and violence. Notably, so-called “traditional institutions”1

have received much attention in this regard. Precolonial modes of conflict

resolution are viewed by many as particularly effective in settling land dis-

putes because they draw strength from high levels of traditional legitimacy

and due to their specific restorative, consensus-based character (Boege, 2006;

Yamano & Deininger, 2005; Zartman, 2000). Consequently, where they have

“survived,” they are deemed to be particularly well placed to prevent the

escalation of resource-related communal strife (Kibreab, 2002; Tubiana,

Tanner, & Abdul-Jalil, 2012).2

Despite the academic and policy interest in traditional conflict resolution,

and precolonial institutions more generally, little is known about the factors

that have allowed them to withstand colonial and postcolonial reform and

retain their key role in local-level governance. Focusing on the case of

Burundi, this article contributes to filling this gap: Where and how do preco-

lonial institutions of conflict resolution remain socially salient?

De Juan 1837

Academic and policy studies on communal conflict resolution tend to

explain the persistence of precolonial institutions with reference to formal

states’ absence, weakness, or noninterference (Beall, Mkhize, & Vawda,

2005; Deininger & Castagnini, 2006; Mercy Corps, 2011; Tubiana et al.,

2012). From such a perspective, traditional conflict resolution is seen to have

remained intact in rural peripheries where colonial and postcolonial interven-

tions were marginal and where state presence has always been fragile. In

short, the population continues to resort to precolonial modes of conflict

resolution to solve their resource-related conflicts because alternative formal

institutions are not available or not effective.

Such a state-based perspective disregards the fact that many precolonial

institutions are deeply entrenched in local communities, making them resilient

to change even in areas of strong state presence and effective enforcement of

formal state institutions. Consequently, colonial and present-day political

topographies may be less relevant in explaining the patterns of persistence and

demise of traditional institutions. Rather, precolonial institutions are likely to

remain salient in the historical strongholds of the precolonial political and

cultural systems where traditional modes of conflict resolution have been par-

ticularly deeply internalized and enculturated over several centuries.

I investigate this argument in the case of Burundi. For centuries, the so-

called bashingantahe was the key conflict-resolution institution with a strong

role in mediation of disputes over access to land. Colonial and postcolonial

reforms substantially weakened the institution. Finally, in 2010, the bashin-

gantahe was formally stripped of its marginal remaining functions in local-

level jurisdictions. Still, whereas in many parts of the country, people resort

to formal state agents for the resolution of land-related conflicts, they con-

tinue to turn first to the bashingantahe in many others. This article investi-

gates the determinants of the spatial patterns of these institutional choices.

I draw on three main sources for the empirical analysis: I measure varia-

tion in current modes of local-level resolution of resource-related conflicts

with an original opinion survey implemented in Burundi in late 2014. I iden-

tify geographical variation in the historical strength of precolonial institu-

tions based on published and unpublished historical works on the precolonial

Burundian kingdom. The empirical analysis lends support to the argument

that traditional conflict resolution remains particularly strong in the histori-

cal, political, and cultural centers of the kingdom. Current patterns of state

presence and capacity, however, are very weak predictors of the persistence

of the bashingantahe.

These findings add to the extant literature in three main ways: They contrib-

ute to research on communal violence by clearly showing that historical politi-

cal conditions can continue to shape present-day capacities for, and patterns of,