Bottom-up peacebuilding in Action: Institutionalization of Indigenous Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

Despite the continued importance of Indigenous Conflict Resolution (ICR) mechanisms in resolving communal conflicts within societies across Africa, their formal integration, hence institutionalization by African governments, is largely uneven. This study examines conditions under which some governments integrate ICR mechanisms into their legal and policy frameworks while others do not, using high-stakes communal conflict as the primary explanatory variable to explain variations in institutionalization. Guided by hybrid governance and post-colonial state formation theories, it argues that governments are more likely to institutionalize ICR mechanisms when escalating communal conflicts threaten national security and state control over valuable economic assets. It employs a structured, focused comparison of four cases exhibiting divergent governance structures: Judiyya (Sudan), Gadaa (Ethiopia), Gacaca (Rwanda), and the Ateker Initiative (Karamoja Cluster). Findings reveal partial support, showing that whereas conflict stakes bear significance, institutionalization is mediated by governance structures, external support, and colonial legacies. Gacaca’s full institutionalization differs from Judiyya’s marginalization and Gadaa’s symbolic recognition. It concludes that ICR institutionalization is best accounted for by a multifaceted intersection of these factors. Future research should explore these interaction effects while designing specific operational indicators capable of evaluating ICR Integration within hybrid governance structures.