Christopher Appiah-Thompson

This article explores the African religious, cultural and philosophical dimensions of peace, conflict and conflict transformation. It seeks to examine African traditional religious and philosophical ideas as resources for the promotion of peace and justice and their implications for intra-state and inter-state conflict resolution activities. Specifically, it examines how the cultural dimensions of peace and conflict and its nonviolent resolution as expressed in the traditional religious and philosophical oral texts (the documented proverbs and symbols) of the Akan people of Ghana can contribute to our understanding and mechanisms for conflict transformation and peacebuilding strategies in Africa. It argues strongly for the promotion of some of the understudied positive elements in the religious and philosophical traditions of Africa for finding solutions or ‘cures’ for contemporary conflicts in Africa such as electoral disputes and internal ethnic conflicts, and their peaceful resolutions. Hence, it demonstrates how the African traditional methods for conflict resolution when effectively developed can substitute (or complement) in critical situations when the formal political institutions such as the Judiciary becomes ineffective. Finally, the study demonstrates how indigenous conflict transformation strategies can infuse some innovations, creativity and sustainability to the national and international attempts at resolving intractable African conflicts.

This article critically reviews, assesses and refines Lindberg’s theoretical proposition that African states will become more democratic if they simply keep holding elections, irrespective of the degree of ‘freeness and fairness of the elections’, by using new empirical evidence from Ghana. Specifically, it highlights three fundamental challenges to Lindberg’s thesis on theoretical, methodological and empirical grounds. To achieve the objectives of this article, first, a systematic and logical approach will be employed to assess the theoretical and methodological justifications underpinning Lindberg’s argument and some contributions to the debate from his critics. Second, it introduces new empirical evidence from Ghana, which clearly ‘deviates’ from Lindberg’s theoretical expectations in the long run, thus, calling for theoretical refinement and elaboration of the latter’s initial thesis. Finally, it draws from the analysis some conclusions and implications for the study of democratization in Africa in the future.