Why people go to war

Everybody knows that wars are very nasty. People lose their lives, their relatives and their friends as well as their properties. The survivors are driven off their lands into exile or into camps as displaced persons, where social and economic conditions are extremely difficult and cultural values break down in an attempt to survive. Wars have been fought from time immemorial between states and increasingly within states. And no end is in sight.

People go to war for various reasons. The wars of colonialism were waged by whites against defenseless people in new lands for God, Glory and Gold as well as European settlement resulting in loss of lives, property and land.

In Kenya for instance, the war between the British and the Kikuyu was costly in lives and property. Kikuyu villages and crops were destroyed, people were killed and over 4,000 goats, sheep and cows were captured. The survivors were herded into overcrowded reserves.

In Bunyoro of western Uganda the war against colonial rule and the associated famine and pestilence reduced the population to 25 percent.  

When the struggle for independence began in Africa, it was fiercest in areas of white settlement – particularly in Algeria, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe – where the minority white settlers resisted majority rule by Africans.  Peaceful negotiations failed to resolve the impasse. As a last resort, the Africans waged guerilla wars against white regimes fully aware that the results would be costly.

In Kenya, an insurgency known as Mau Mau fought the British in the 1950s mainly to get their land back. At the end of it, some 11,500 Kikuyu, 2000 other Kenyans, 95 Europeans and 29 Asians had lost their lives. Realizing that time was running out the British finally accepted independence for Kenya in 1963 based on majority rule.

In many conversations, I learned that fighters in Southern Africa and their civilian supporters preferred to die with honor than to remain in bondage in the land of their ancestors. And they fought hard, lost lives and properties. Others were sent to jail for long sentences, the survivors including Nelson Mandela were released when it became clear that the Africans were winning. 

Others go to war to maintain their dominant position in society especially when they are in a minority status. They convince themselves that they are born to rule over others and come up with mythologies to prove their point.

In the Great Lakes region – Burundi, Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Western Uganda – false stories have been told that the pastoralists – Bahima, Batutsi, Bashambu and Banyamulenge – who originated in ‘Europe’ are lighter skinned, physically attractive, more intelligent and superior to Bantu. They are more visionary and born leaders. Although the pastoralists are serologically black, and there is increasing evidence that they are Luo from southern Sudan, they have not accepted this scientific finding.

The pastoralists named the Bantu-speaking people they found in the region Bahutu in Burundi and Rwanda and Bairu in Ankole and Rujumbura in western Uganda, an epithet – a term of abuse – meaning slave or servant. 

To maintain their dominance, the concept of comparative advantage was created in the region whereby the minority long-horn cattle people became leaders while the majority cultivators (who lost their short-horn cattle to become cultivators in the new game) became workers or slaves or servants in perpetuity. The servants produced food and labor for the leaders in exchange for so-called protection. In the process, the servants lost their cattle, ate little of virtually no nutritional value and became stunted according to some research findings.   

During colonial rule, this pre-colonial exploitative relationship was strengthened through indirect rule. The servants sank into poverty, hunger, disease and ignorance through forced free labor and heavy taxes. They suffered in silence.  

Independence in the 1960s based on majority rule changed pre-colonial and colonial arrangements. The slaves – Bahutu and Bairu – with majority populations dominated the political scene in the region. The former minority groups who had dominated the political, economic and social stage were not prepared to accept majority rule.

Because they could not win at the ballot box, they have resorted to other means – the barrel of the gun. That explains why the Great Lakes Region has been unstable since the 1960s.

Through alliances with outside interests, the minority tribes have continued to rule the majority. However educated one is one’s role in these countries is almost pre-determined. A close look at who heads which ministry in these countries or who owns which business will give you an idea.

The leaders in the Great Lakes Region came to power through the barrel of the gun with foreign support in one form or another. Some leaders are referred to as the ‘blue-eyed darlings’ of the West who receive advice from western ‘experts’ and are accountable to them and not to their people.

The introduction of western democracy based on multi-party politics has not changed anything. The former military leaders just changed military uniforms into western suits, occasionally wearing military fatigues to remind the people who they actually are. Democracy has been conducted at gun point. Strong opposition parties have been muffled or simply banned. Constitutions are changed while the promoters of democracy just watch. And many people are beginning to lose interest in the whole democratic exercise.

With the world drifting into something resembling cold war days, we are likely to see block formations and resort to other means to achieve their objectives. This can be avoided only if those who sponsor minority groups would call for genuine democratic forms of governance.

Otherwise the silent majority may choose to die with honor than to remain in bondage. Peace loving people throughout the world who believe in fairness and human rights for all should make their voices heard before it is too late. Prevention is better than cure.