religion as a double edged sword; a source for conflict and a resource for peace.

Introduction It is general knowledge world over that all human beings yearn for peace. What is not always very clear, however, is what each person’s interpretation of peace is and how it is understood to be achieved and consolidated. Religion and peace have been almost natural companions in the minds of humans in time and space, and in different cultures of the world. This is simply because, although far too many adherents and leaders of different religions in the world have disrupted peace in society by promoting violence and wars, the vast majority of believers still hold that true religion is a source and guarantor of individual and societal peace. Invariably, religion influences the cultural behaviours and perceptions of individuals and groups, to varying degrees to the extent that people who get involved in violent conflicts often declare that they fight and kill others in defence of their culture and identity, political beliefs and religion. Take a casual glance at the state of the world today and one is almost forgiven for suggesting that, in the last two decades, religion has been at the heart of most violent conflicts. For instance, by taking a glimpse at the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Nigeria and Sri Lanka, one would likely conclude that, indeed, religious differences are the epicentre of these conflicts. As observed by Mohammed Abu-Nimer, since the end of the Cold War, many scholars have argued that most conflicts are driven by clashes of community identity based on race, ethnicity and religious affiliation. Essentially, conflicts based on religion tend to become dogged, tenacious and brutal types of wars, and a threat to the meaning of life. When conflicts are couched in religious terms, in most cases they become transformed into value conflicts. Since time immemorial, some religious contributions to social evolution have been characterised by intolerance, divisiveness and resistance to change. Thus, sometimes religious convictions have become too absolutist, to the extent that compromise has been rendered useless. In such instances, it is all too often a reality that religion has been used as a badge of identity, which is usually employed to fuel or abate conflict for political ends. More so, as a major source of soft power, religion has been used or misused by religions and governmental organisations to pursue their interests, to a greater extent. Yet religion’s ability to inspire violence is intimately related to its equally impressive power as a resource for peace, especially in the growing number of conflicts around the world that involve religious claims and religiously inspired combatants. One strange phenomenon, noted by Scott Appleby, “is that terrorists and peacemakers may grow up in the same community and adhere to the same religious tradition. The killing carried out by one and the reconciliation fostered by the other indicates the range of dramatic and contradictory responses to human suffering by religious actors. Douglas Johnston buttresses this point and concludes that religion is a double-edged sword, in that it has the capacity to cause conflict and abate it. Nevertheless, it remains a tremendous resource for the creation of a just and egalitarian society that the world seeks to achieve. Religion as a Source of Conflict In the contemporary discourse, many of the intractable conflicts appear at least on face value to be driven and/or motivated by religion. Although this may appear to be minimalist in interpretation and analysis, there is a dominant school of thought that traces religion as a source of conflict all the way back to the religious wars that ravaged seventeenth century Europe. Embedded in this polemic is an established fact that religious warfare was and still is a theme that runs throughout human history, notwithstanding that all religious traditions are built around the concept of peace. Arguably, there are some aspects of religion that make it susceptible to being a latent source of conflict. Notably, all religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question. This has, oftentimes, led to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. After all, if it is the word of God, how can one compromise it? At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation. Conflict can, therefore, arise over whose interpretation is the correctone – and this conflict cannot be solved because there is no arbiter. The winner generally is the interpretation that attracts the most followers, who ultimately must also be motivated to action. Although, almost invariably, the majority of people of any faith hold moderate views, they are often more complacent, whereas extremists are motivated to bring their interpretation of God’s will to fruition. Almost inevitably, religious extremists can contribute to conflict escalation. More often than not, they see radical measures as necessary to fulfilling God’s wishes. Fundamentalists of any religion tend to take a Manichean view of the world in that, if the world is a struggle between good and evil, it is hard to justify compromising with the devil. Any sign of moderation, thus, can be decried as selling out, more importantly, of abandoning God’s will. And, of course, religion is a contentious issue. Where eternal salvation is at stake, compromise can be difficult or even sinful. Therefore, as a central part of many individuals’ identity, any threat to one’s beliefs is a threat to one’s very being. This is the primary motivation for ethno-religious nationalists. In virtually every heterogeneous society, religious differences serve as a source of potential conflict. Since individuals are often ignorant of other faiths, there is some potential tension – although it does not usually follow that conflict will result. Although religion is not necessarily conflictual, it serves – as with ethnicity or race – as a way to distinguish one’s self and one’s group from another. Often, the group with less power – be it political or economic – is more aware of the tension than the privileged. When the privileged group is a minority, however – such as the Jews historically were in much of Europe – they are often well aware of the latent conflict. Many religions also have significant strains of evangelism – a phenomenon that has gripped Africa of late – which is potentially conflictual. Believers are called upon to spread the word of God and increase the numbers ‘in the flock’. For example, the effort to impose Christianity on people was an important part of the conflict surrounding European colonisation. Similarly, a group may seek to deny other religions the opportunity to practise their faith – the suppression of Christianity in China and Sudan being two contemporary examples. Looking at religion as a resource for peace some scholars have advanced various ideas in support of the same. For instance in proposing his concept of the ambivalence of the sacred, Appleby makes a critical contribution to the understanding of the way religion reinforces the human psychological construct, where we are all capable of love and creativity but also hatred and destructiveness. Although the great world religions vary widely in their substantive differences, as Appleby says, “One can trace a moral trajectory challenging adherents to greater acts of compassion, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Sadly though, a scan through most of the literature on religion in the contemporary world relates to the negative aspects of religion and its contribution to instability across the globe. What many scholars have often overlooked is the positive role that religion plays in preventing and resolving conflict. Religion has the capacity to bring parties together, based on the increased trust that it can introduce in certain situations. Certainly in the case of Mozambique, the religious group Community of Sant’Egidio played a cardinal role in resolving an intractable conflict between the two feuding parties, Frente de Liberação de Moçambique (FRELIMO) and Resistência Nacional Moçambicana (RENAMO). There are many other such examples in the world where religion and religious bodies were responsible for building trust between protagonists in conflict. Although the peacemaking potential of religion is still a debatable issue – more particularly in Western policymaking circles – it has (in other parts of the world) been central as a defining element of national security and, hence, is far too important to be marginalised. In many conflicts, it would be important to understand the religious dynamics at play, if any, so as to deal effectively with their confrontational aspects – orperhaps most importantly, to capitalise effectively on their harmonising elements. To unpack this dichotomous polemic, a few questions would help direct the discourse. If this is the dilemma that confronts religion, how have the institutions and actors transcended this problem? How have they been able to contribute meaningfully to conflict resolution and peacebuilding? What tools have they employed to achieve this seemingly monumentous task? These are questions that require careful interrogation in the discourse on religion and its potential to build lasting peace. In the latter half of the 1990s, one of the favoured discussions in the peace discourse was the reflection on the role and importance of civil society in the area of conflict prevention and transformation. Comparative advantages and challenges were noted and it was argued that a new culture of peace needed to be established, encompassing a broad-based alliance of government actors, international organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other civil society organisations (CSOs). A decade later, the centrality of CSOs in the field of conflict prevention and transformation is no longer a matter of principled discussion but the locus of most successful peacebuilding initiatives. In the same vein, religious institutions working in the area of peace have since grown, with a greater percentage of them extending their mandate from relief and development to peace and conflict resolution. As Cynthia Sampson acknowledges, although the religious sector’s contribution was largely unknown, it has become the most expanding in the field of international conflict analysis and transformation in the contemporary world. She observed that: “What for decades was the untold, unnoticed story behind the news, the undocumented history of religiously motivated peacemaking and reconciliation efforts – has now begun to grab the attention of scholars, journalists, diplomats, various governmental and non-governmental agencies, and funding organisations as these efforts have become more numerous, more visible and more needed. In a greater percentage of the conflicts that ravaged Africa after the Cold War, civil society, NGOs, inter-governmental organisations, the church and other religious institutions have continued to play a critical role in resolving conflicts and building peace. A plethora of examples are quite evident throughout the length and breadth of the African continent from the world-acclaimed roles played by the Community of Sant’Egidio in Mozambique; the Council of Churches in South Africa; the Catholic Church in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Zambia, Burundi and Rwanda; the Acholi Religious Forum in Northern Uganda; Christian–Muslim Dialogue in Nigeria; and the Community of Sant’Egidio in Algeria. These examples indicate that civil society – particularly religious institutions – have continued to play a fundamental role in ending hostilities on the continent, cementing the argument that religion is indeed a resource for peace. Conclusion Although religion can be referred to a double-edged sword, the various religious doctrines are premised on peace. In many of the intractable conflicts around the globe, religion has continued to play a pivotal role in the resolution of these disputes. The role of religious leaders in creating spaces for interfaith and inter-religious dialogue cannot be overemphasised in this regard. Hence, the creation of an environment where genuine debate is possible is important. Extremist rhetoric clearly flourishes best in an environment not conductive to rational deliberation. Needless to say, extremist rhetoric is very difficult to maintain in a discursive environment in which positions taken or accusations made can be challenged directly by rebuttal, counter-propositions, cross-examinations and the presentation of evidence. Without a change in the environment of public discourse within and between religious organisations, demagogy and rhetorical intolerance will prevail. Key to this observation is the erasure of ignorance, which is fertile ground for intolerance and extremism. REFERENCES Abu-Nimer, M. (2000): Conflict Resolution, Culture and Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 685–704. 3 Ibid. Reychler, Luc (1997): Religion and Conflict. The International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1. Appleby, R. Scott (2000) The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion,Violence and Reconciliation. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.. Van Tongeren, Paul et al. (2005) People Building Peace II: Successful Stories of Civil Society. Boulder, London: Lynne Reinner. Sampson, Cynthia (1997): Religion and Peacebuilding. In Zartman, I. William and Rasmussen. www. globalcrisis.info/peace_negotiation.html/11/09/2012 www.worldpeacefestival.org/11/09/2012