The Complexity of Ethnic Conflict

(1)

Hema and Lendu Case Study

Nelson Tusiime

960816-1411

International migration and Ethnic Relations Bachelor Thesis

Course code: IM245L 15 Credits

Spring 2019

Supervisor: Beint Magnus Aamodt Bentsen Word Count: 12,141

(2)

Abstract

This research paper investigated the Hema and Lendu conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1999-2003. Five significant theories; Primordialism, constructivism, instrumen-talism, greed and grievances were applied to explain the causes of this conflict and to find out the role ethnicity played in triggering the conflict. Using secondary data, a single-case study was conducted, and results show that colonialism, inequality, poor government policies, greed from local and external forces are the primary causes of this conflict. Based on the results, one theory on its own is not substantial enough to explain the cause of this conflict since it was triggered by a combination of different factors. However, the Hema and Lendu did not fight because of their ethnic differences. Ethnicity was used by militia leaders as a tool for mobili-sation thus ethnicity being a secondary factor and not a driving force. Therefore, ethnicity did not play a significant role in triggering this conflict.

(3)

List of Acronyms

FNI- Nationalist and Integration Front UPC- Union of Congolese Patriot

UPDF- Uganda’s Peoples Defence Force FRPI- Revolutionary Front for Ituri

RCD/ML- Congolese Rally for Democracy/ Liberation Movement PUSIC- Party for Unity and Safeguard of the Integrity of Congo APC- Alliance Patriotique Congolese

(5)

1.0 Introduction

As a Hema from Bunia, the capital city of Ituri province. To be called a Mulendu was the big-gest insult in town. I grew up being told a Mulendu was a sub-human, the most uncivilised and a terrible being that one could ever be. After experiencing the Hema and Lendu conflict between 1999-2003, I left DR. Congo believing a Lendu was an enemy of the “Bahema”. However, today I perceive things differently. And, this is one of the biggest motivations behind this research.

1.1. Introduction to the Topic

Ituri district is in Orientale province in the north-eastern corner of the Democratic Republic of Congo in the Great Lakes region bordering Uganda to the east and Sudan to the North.

Djungu, Mahagi, Irumu, Aru and Mombasa are five territories found in Ituri (Dan, 2011). Ituri is a resource-rich province, with gold, diamond, coltan and Timber (Pfefferle, 2013). Ituri has a population of between 3.5 to 6.5 million. There are approximately ten ethnic groups in Ituri with the Hema and the Lendu being the dominant ones. However, the Lendu are more numer-ous than Hema. Both Hema and Lendu did not originate from Ituri (Camm, 2012). Although the Hema and the Lendu once coexisted, tensions between them have arisen for the past 50 years. Reports show that the conflict in Ituri led to more than 50, 000 deaths and 500, 000 dis-placed civilians, however, there has been continuing unacceptably high mortality since 1999 (L, et al., 2006). Armed conflict continues to the present day with the most recent attack in 2018 was in Djungu territory driving 100,000 people out of their homes. Many became inter-nally displaced or refugees in neighbouring Uganda (Sungura, et al., 2019). However, this pa-per will focus on the conflict from 1999 to 2003 because it was the most violent pa-period (Human Rights Watch, 2003). Nevertheless, the findings of this research paper could contrib-ute to understanding the recent attacks since it is the same ethnic groups that are still involved.

(6)

1.2. Research Problem and Aim

Ethnic strife has been the biggest challenge many countries in Africa have faced since the end of the cold war (Sundberg, et al., 2012). One of the most notorious ethnic conflict was the one that erupted in Rwanda in 1994 (Njogu, et al., 2010). Following the tremendous impact of the Rwandan genocide, tensions started to rise between the two groups the “Hema and Lendu”. They had once co-existed but now became hostile to the extent of killing one another (Human Rights Watch, 2003). The conflict took place in the north-eastern region of Congo in the dis-trict of Ituri. It was reported that the conflict in Ituri led to more than 50, 000 deaths and 500, 000 displaced civilians (L, et al., 2006). Moreover, up to date, there is still low-level animos-ity between the two ethnic groups (Blakeley, 2014). Ethnic conflict is a worldwide phenome-non and, there is still scope for analysis on the issue of multi-ethnic society and conflict erup-tion especially when it comes to explaining the causes and the role ethnicity plays in such conflict (Wimmer, et al., 2004). There are two contesting arguments from different scholars when it comes to explaining the role of ethnicity in triggering ethnic strife. Some scholars ar-gue that difference in ethnicity is the cause of conflict while others arar-gue that differences in ethnicity are not the cause of ethnic conflict (Horowitz, 1985). Therefore, using Hema and Lendu conflict as my case, I will investigate explicitly into the history of their interaction and conflict through the theoretical lenses of primordialism, constructivism, instrumentalism, greed and grievances to make a fair assessment of the causes of the conflict. Moreover, the conflict being portrayed by the media as an ethnic strife (GGTN Africa, 2018), it is important to understand the role ethnicity played in fuelling or triggering violence between the two groups.

1.3. Research question

To be able to address my research problem, I will attempt to answer the following questions;

• What are the main factors that fuelled the conflict between the Hema and Lendu in the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1999-2003?

• What role did ethnicity play in triggering the conflict between the Hema and Lendu 1999-2003?

(7)

1.4. Terminology

• An ethnic conflict is a dispute between two or more ethnic communities or groups (Matsievsky, 2000, p. 62)

• An ethnic group is a group of people who are generally recognised by themselves and/or by others as a distinct group, with such recognition based on social or cultural characteristics (Wimmer, et al., 2004, p. 17)

My understanding of ethnic conflict and ethnic group throughout this research paper is based on the above definitions.

1.5. Relevance to IMER-International Migration and Ethnic Relations

This research is relevant to IMER since it deploys the concept of ethnicity and discusses its role in conflicts that erupt in multi-ethnic societies. Ethnic conflict is one of the biggest chal-lenges of multi-ethnic societies (Horowitz, 1985). This has led to forced migrations as many become internally displaced or refugees. Besides, multi-ethnic societies emerge through mi-gration with an example of the Hema and Lendu that migrated to DR. Congo (Pottier, 2010). Therefore, my research is within the IMER field due to its links to migration and ethnicity.

1.6. Delimitation

This research focuses on the chosen theories which are: Primordialism, constructivism, instru-mentalism, greed and grievance in analysing this conflict. Conflicts are broad, and I must ad-mit that the theories I deploy are not the only ones that could be used to explain this conflict. This conflict could be explained from many other theoretical perspectives especially depend-ing on one’s research question. Moreover, I deploy a sdepend-ingle-case study in my research focus-ing only on the Hema and Lendu ethnic conflict in DR. Congo, which would not give my pa-per grounds for generalisation. Nevertheless, this study could provide insight that could be ap-plicable in other cases. Besides, this research would have been richer if interviews of both

(8)

Hema and Lendu victims of this conflict were carried out to get first-hand information and to have a broader perspective of the conflict.

2. Previous Research

In relation to this topic or subject, it is essential to discuss previous research of other cases in order to understand the direction this topic has led researchers.

Similar research has been conducted but from a different case which is Yugoslavia. Sotirop-oulou (2002) carried out research to find out the role ethnicity played in the Yugoslavian eth-nic conflict. She states that etheth-nicity played a huge role in triggering conflict between differ-ent groups in Yugoslavia (Sotiropoulou, 2002). However, the conflict was not determined by ethnicity in itself but rather ethnicity played an essential role in mobilising masses to take up arms. Ethnicity carrying a symbolic power, elites took advantage of this to mobilise people in order to fulfil their agenda (Sotiropoulou, 2002). The Yugoslav kingdom was made up of Cro-ats, Serbs and Slovenes. During the creation of a new state after the communist, nationality was primarily based on ethnicity, for example, the south Slavs were seen sharing the same ethnicity and therefore put in the same state (Sotiropoulou, 2002). This created in-groups and out-groups in the socio-political arena of the state as groups were antagonising each other. Elites were using myths to mobilise masses; for example, Croatia’s mythical struggle was an independent Croatian state (Sotiropoulou, 2002). They lost their independence in 1902, and they believed that they should get it back and become autonomous (Sotiropoulou, 2002). It was a political struggle for the preservation of old historical rights as they believed they were encroached by the Austria Habsburgs. Sotiropolou (2002) states that ethnicity played an portant role in the Yugoslavian ethnic conflict in terms of mobilisation. It became an im-portant element for groups identification and thus making it easy for the elites to manipulate (Sotiropoulou, 2002). Sotiropoulos explains how ethnicity can be used as an instrument to ful-fil economic and political agenda thus pointing towards instrumentalism.

(9)

Mohammadzadeh, carried comparative research to find out the causes of ethnic conflicts. The comparative study was to find out what factors are associated with ethnic violence across dif-ferent regions in the globe in the globe and, what factors are shared among countries experi-encing ethnic conflicts (Mohammadzadeh, 2016). Mohammadzaeh claims that cultural diver-sity and inequality are significant factors in determining the likelihood of ethnic conflict (Mohammadzadeh, 2016). Asia and Africa were the regions that have experienced more eth-nic violence in his findings. Where there is etheth-nic diversity, there is group formation which leads to discrimination thus sparking violence. He further states that the number of people im-migrating into a country is a contributing factor and plays a huge role in determining whether a society is prone to ethnic violence. (Mohammadzadeh, 2016). Mohammadzaeh looks at eth-nicity conflict in a primordial lens and claims that ethnic diverse societies are prone to con-flict.

Markussen et al did a research on the case of Kenya to find out why ethnic tensions between groups sometimes but not always lead to violence. Using greed and grievance theory, Markus-sen et al carried research to find out when is an ethnically diverse society prone to conflicts. They investigated in the post-election period of Kenya in 2007-2008 and found out that, eth-nic strife during this period was triggered by economic forces such as poverty, male youth un-employment and lack of access to public services (Markussen & Mbuvi, 2011).

He argues that since drivers of ethnic conflict appear more economical in nature, dealing with ethnicity directly would not be the best way to avoid ethnic conflict for example policies such as decentralisation of local governments in ethnically homogeneous areas may not be the most effective way to deal with the issue of ethnic conflicts (Markussen & Mbuvi, 2011). Markus-sen and Mbuvi suggest that the most effective way to avoid ethnic conflict is through ensuring economic development. Ethnicity did not play a huge role in the post-election ethnic conflict in Kenya, but it was only used for mobilising and distinguishing groups (Markussen & Mbuvi, 2011). Markussen et al represent the greed theory, claiming that ethnic conflicts are caused by rational beings who weigh the opportunity cost of starting a rebellion. He concludes that economic forces such as poverty and lack of access to public resources triggered the post-election violence in Kenya.

(10)

In relation to the Rwanda case, Nikuze traces the cause of ethnic conflict between the Hutu and the Tutsis back to the colonial days. He claims that the colonial masters made the Hutu and Tutsi believe that they were different which created hostility among the two groups. The Tutsi were considered superior to the Hutu (Nikuze, 2014). Tutsi’s were favoured by colonial-ists and had access to resources and services such as education and were given administrative positions. In short, the Tutsi ethnicity was given more value compared to that of the Hutu (Nikuze, 2014). This implies that ethnic difference which was constructed by the colonial masters sparked violence between the two groups. In this case, Nikuze concludes that ethnic-ity played a huge role in fuelling the conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu, they believed that they were ethnically different, and this causes hatred thus leading to aggression among them (Nikuze, 2014). Nikuze states that, colonialism created a polarity between the two groups that once co-existed by making them ethnically conscious.

My research was highly influenced by other researchers work which has been discussed above. Different researchers have come to different conclusions on different cases. With this in mind, I was motivated to investigate the Hema and Lendu ethnic case to see what conclu-sions I will draw. Not much research has been done on this case. Therefore, this study will be the first or among the first ones to investigate in-depth into the conflict through the lenses of the chosen theoretical framework to expose the factors that led to this conflict and to find out the role ethnicity played in fuelling this conflict.

3. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Primordialism, constructivism, instrumentalism are theories of ethnicity that have different understanding of ethnicity and they therefore predict different reasons of why conflict would arise.

Greed and grievance are theories of intrastate conflict, since ethnic conflict is an intrastate conflict in most cases and these theories explain the eruption of ethnic conflicts. I found them relevant to apply on this case.

(11)

3.1. Primordialism

According to primordialism, ethnicity lies in the blood, and it is something unchangeable, and it is inherited in us as human beings (William, 2013, p.269). Therefore, ethnicity is perceived as a stable feature of individual and group life that can endure over a historically long period (Malešević, 2004, p.176). This explanation on ethnicity invokes an essentialist perception of ethnicity where one sees ethnicity as absolute and a finished object (Baumann, 1999, p.83-84). Moreover, there is no human agency; ethnicity happens to us at birth before we have the opportunity or capacity to make meaningful choices (Cornell & Douglas, 2007, p. 49). Basi-cally, it is a factor that individuals are not able to control and are compelled to it. Baumann (1999) criticises this theory by arguing that it does not really explain why ethnicity and cul-ture ever change or why in fact most ethnicities and culcul-ture we know change over time (Bau-mann, 1999, p.85-87). Additionally, Cornell et al state that if ethnicity is a basic identity, then primordialists fails to explain why some people attach little importance to ethnicity and why some people become more compelled to other identities such as religion and not ethnicity (Cornell & Douglas, 2007, p. 53). However, the primordialists have been praised for their fo-cus on the intense internal aspect of group solidarity, and the subjective feeling of belonging (Cornell & Douglas, 2007, p. 55).

In relation to ethnic conflicts, primordialism explains ethnic conflicts as natural and unavoida-ble. Ethnic conflicts stem naturally and inevitably from ancient hatred between

different ethnic groups (William, 2015, p.147). Ancient hatred is an element of ethnic emo-tions, and when group identity such as ethnicity is at stake, the reaction of ethnic emotions evolves into conflict. These emotions reflect primordial attachment such as blood ties, histori-cal memories rather than immediate necessities (Cornell & Douglas, 2007, pp. 55-58). Fear of domination, hatred and anxiety are embedded in these emotions hence becoming a motivating element that drives groups and individuals to partake in violence (William, 2015, p.147). Pri-mordialism theory is useful in explaining the emotive and passion-driven dimension and be-haviour of ethnic conflicts.

However, there are critics of this theory regarding ethnic conflicts. This theory looks at the ethnic conflict in an abstract form by claiming that cultural differences trigger conflict, it does not provide an explanation on the economic and political disparities that could be attached to

(12)

ethnicity (Malešević, 2004, p.178). Moreover, it treats ethnic conflicts as natural and to be ex-pected and ignoring other causes like economic and structural processes (William, 2015, p.147 and Malešević, 2004, p.176). In addition, primordialism does not explain why conflicts erupt at the time they do and not earlier and why conflict falls and rise at different times.

3.2. Constructivism

According to the constructivism, ethnicity is a fluid identity that can be formed through vari-ous means for example conquest, immigration or colonisation (William, 2015, p.149). Malešević argues that ethnicity is a variable rather than a fixed state of being (Malešević, 2004, p.70). In relation to colonisation, constructivism argue that ethnicity is a product of so-cio-political dynamics of colonial states (Ibhawoh, 2010, p. 224). Ethnicity is negotiable and is constructed in daily life. Moreover, it continues to unfold. Therefore, constructivist is a contesting theory of primordialism, Baumann argues that ethnicity is not about blood as such or ancestry rather a product of people’s actions and identification, not a product of nature working by itself (Baumann, 1999, p.63).

In relation to ethnic conflicts, constructivists argue that ethnic conflicts are a product of his-torical processes that affect relationships between different ethnic groups hence leading to an-imosity (William, 2015, p.149). The critic towards this theory is that it fails to explain why people divide themselves the way they do explicitly or why do societies have certain cleavage structure (Fearon & Laitin, 2000, p. 850). Moreover, the primordialists argue that although ethnic identity could be constructed, they could become internalised and institutionalised in a way that it acquires deep meaning and generate emotions similar to a primordial identity as groups share a persisting sense of common interests and identity based on the shared histori-cal experience, values, cultural traits, religion language and shared territory(William, 2015, p.149).

Moreover, it does not explain why some states with similar historical processes experience different conflict histories (Jackson, 2002, p. 62). It does not explicitly explain why conflicts erupt at a certain time of the historical process (William, 2015, p.149). Additionally, Bauman claims that not only historical process does play a part in affecting different ethnic relations but also contemporary situations like poverty and increased competition for resources increase intra-ethnic solidarity and cross-ethnic tensions which lead to ethnic conflict whereby ethnic

(13)

belonging becomes a resource in an economic competition (Bauman, 1999, p.33). Although this theory explains the macro level of ethnic conflict, it misses out in explaining what hap-pens at the grassroots level ignoring existing animosity.

3.3. Greed

Greed focuses on explaining conflict from the individual and group level. Basically, it tries to understand why individuals take up arms and join rebellions. Greed is the economic motiva-tions of conducting conflict. Collier et al, use the expected utility theory argue that war is con-ducted if the perceived benefits outweigh the cost of rebellion (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004). People are rational agents and have a choice, also in the settings of war (Demmers, 2017, p. 108). Therefore, violence is seen as a product of individual rational actions. Ethnic Civil war is fuelled by self-interested behaviour as rebels are motivated by greed than grievances (Re-gan & Norton, 2005, p. 322). Moreover, individuals are utility maximisers, meaning they set goals, preferences and choose the ones with the lowest opportunity costs. War will only be waged if actors from both sides expect it to be profitable (Demmers, 2017, p. 109). Greed is about opportunities faced by the rebel group such as; financial prospect, viability of rebel or-ganisation through lootable primary commodities and diaspora funding is the most significant factors leading to the ethnic civil war (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004). One of Collier and Hoefflers main findings on this theory are; Firstly, ethnic civil wars are overwhelmingly a phenomenon of low-income countries. Secondly, the presence of natural resources which are scarce and easily lootable leading to competition. And, finally a high degree of the fractionalised society whereby the groups that are fighting are clearly different from the rest of the population. Fur-thermore, Collier explains how to know whether a war is driven by greed using the following variables; the number of young males in the total population and the averages years of school-ing. And, the share of primary commodity exports in gross domestic products (Demmers, 2017, p. 110).

Based on greed one could conclude that poverty lowers opportunity cost of rebellion hence becoming prone to conflict. However, greed has been criticised for referring to individuals as rational actors with perfect information. This could be wrong as there could be limited infor-mation to individuals. It is difficult for people to be perfectly capable calculated, self-inter-ested and brutishness for the purpose of acquiring wealth (Demmers, 2017, p.112)

(14)

Greed theory and instrumentalism are interchangeable as they both focus on rationality and both perceive ethnic identity as a strategic basis for groups and individuals to fulfil their inter-ests. Interests and utility are the central features of both approaches. The only difference is that greed theory leans more to economic interests while instrumentalism focuses on both eco-nomic interest and political interests. Below I discuss instrumentalism.

3.4 Instrumentalism

Instrumentalism believes that ethnicity is neither inherent in human nature nor intrinsically valuable. Instrumentalism perceives ethnicity as an instrument or a strategic tool to gain sources (Yang, 2000, p.46). Similarly, ethnicity can be used for gaining political power or re-sources; it therefore masks a core interest which is economic and political (Varshney, 2007, p.282). Malešević argues that ethnicity is a powerful political resource for generating popular support in competition between political elites (Malešević, 2004, p.111). Varshney states that conflict arises because leaders strategically manipulate ethnicity for the sake of political power or extracting resources (Varshney, 2007, p.282). Additionally, instrumentalism argues that it is rational for individuals to organise along ethnic lines depending on the benefits it will bring to them (William, 2015, p.148). It is therefore a result of actors’ rational activities of widespread interests such as prosperity, power and security. This theory elaborates on why in-dividuals and groups are easily mobilised into taking up arms by their leaders. Ethnic mobili-sation is a coordination game which it is rational to cooperate if you see others cooperating. Instrumentalism explains why some individuals participate in ethnic violence although they are not convinced but still follow the crowd (William, 2015, p.148). However, this theory has been criticised for failing to depict ethnicity appeal. Why is it easy to mobilise people along ethnic lines? Moreover, it depicts people as being credulous that can easily be manipulated by elites (Ibhawoh, 2010, p. 224). Besides the economic and political gains, it fails to explain how atrocities of members of ethnic groups such as; genocides, rapes and torture contribute to the gains of those members (William, 2015).

3.5 Grievances

Conflicts occur when grievances are acute enough for people to risk their lives to change the socio-political system (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004, s. 564). Grievances some sort of hatred that

(15)

exists between two parties, this can be among different ethnic groups, different religious groups or population against their government (Demmers, 2017, p. 110). Discrimination, so-cial inequalities, religious hatred and ethnic hatred, are some of the soso-cial grievances (Oy-eniyi, 2010, p. 314). Grievance theory evokes the concept of relative and targeted deprivation. Relative deprivation is the gap between expectations of certain values and the capabilities of obtaining them. In other words, it is the gap between expectations and satisfaction. Zartman terms it as denied “Need”. Denied “Need” can refer to a broad range of grievances; economic repression or even political repression (Wimmer, et al., 2004, p. 141) . “Need” can be codified as rights, but they are ultimately subjective, people rebel when there is a shortfall in their ex-pectations.

While targeted deprivation occurs when “Need” is unevenly distributed for unacceptable rea-sons. When people no longer see themselves as poor or deprived because of “ It’s Gods will”, or that’s the way things are but because they are being singled out as a group (Wimmer, et al., 2004, p. 142). This makes people feel as collective targets of repression and deprivation for what they are or for what they have done. People may feel targeted because of their social po-sition or ascriptive membership (Wimmer, et al., 2004, p. 143). Targeted deprivation leads to injustice, the feeling of injustice and denied dignity start to awake emotions turning them into anger. Basically, deprivation spreads frustration which leads to anger, and anger leading to aggression. People start to revolt when they lose hope in attaining their societal values (Saleh, 2013, p. 165). However, grievance theory has been criticised for ruling out the fact that indi-viduals are utility maximisers which the greed theory tries to explain (Demmers, 2017, s. 111). Nevertheless, Collier argues that the incidence of rebellion is not explained by motive but atypical circumstances that generate profitable opportunities (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004, s. 564). This means that the economic prospects for rebelling are what pushes one to take up arms hence downplaying grievances.

3.6 Theory interconnectivity

Although these theories are nuanced in explanation, they are interconnected at some point. Each theory on its own is not substantial enough to explain ethnicity and ethnic conflicts. Therefore, I introduce the idea of Bauman “Ethnicity as wine and not blood”. He states that,

(16)

“Wine is made of grapes hence enjoying the reputation of natural product, and so does ethnic identities are usu-ally associated with natural bonds, forebears and descendants. However, nature itself does not produce wine, just as little does ancestry itself produce ethnicity: natural ingredients need to be added to achieve the process of fer-mentation, just as ethnic categorisation needs political and economic interests in order to turn them into markers of identity that can operate in daily life. At the next stage wine needs the right condition to mature just as ethnic-ity needs particular social conditions to acquire meaning among those who see themselves sharing it (Baumann, 1999, p.63-64)”

From this example, it is seen that primordialism “nature” and instrumentalism “political/ra-tional actors” and constructivism “society” all interconnect to make ethnicity a finished prod-uct. However, Bauman claims that ethnicity is cultivation and refinement of all possibilities given by nature but not finished by nature.

Furthermore, Baumann (1999) claims that when political leaders use ethnicity for mobilisa-tion, they tend to use “essentialist rhetoric” they present ethnicity as a natural, finished object, fixed and unchangeable with an aim to create ethnic solidarity. Additionally, Bauman clarifies that, when leaders use the “essentialist rhetoric” to reify ethnic differences, they are in the process of creating or constructing ethnicity (Baumann, 199, p.90-93). With this example, one sees links in the significant theories of ethnicity and ethnic conflict. Moreover, one also learns that primordialism is not only biological or natural but is also constituted in the language one uses which Baumann terms as “essentialist rhetoric”.

4. Operationalization

This section will explain how I will utilise the theories in relation to the method used and the data collected. Basically, defining and explaining variables that will be used when applying the theories on the data.

When collecting my data, any signs of groups making strong ethnic boundaries that are rigid will be pointing towards the primordial ways of perceiving ethnicity. For example, making ethnic division based on cultural differences and biological attributes such as body features. If ethnic differences are the main motive for carrying out violence then the conflict between could be viewed and explained through the primordial lenses.

(17)

When there is the fluidity of ethnic identities, the data collected could be seen pointing to-wards the constructivist understanding of ethnicity. Since ethnic identity and the meaning as-cribed to a group are not natural but constructed by the society, ethnicity could be regarded as being constructed or reconstructed. And if meaning ascribed and boundaries created lead to the formation of ingroups and outgroups sparking violence, then the conflict between Hema and Lendu could be viewed and explained through the constructivist lenses.

Greed could be explained by the perceived economic benefits for carrying out a rebellion. Competition for resources, poverty, availability for lootable resources such as gold, diamond and the possibilities of financing a rebellion. In this case, any economic motives that forces individuals to take up arms, will point the ethnic conflict between the Hema and Lendu to-wards a greed-based conflict.

While instrumentalism will be measured by looking at the extent at which elites mobilise folks along ethnic lines to carry out attacks. This could be seen through the rhetoric and prop-aganda used by elites to mobilise ethnic members. In this case, elites use ethnicity to achieve their agenda which could be political or economic. When ethnicity is being used as an instru-ment by leaders of the Lendu and the Hema ethnic group, then instruinstru-mentalism would be the relevant theory in explaining such actions.

Grievances, in this case, is measured by the extent at which groups are marginalised, op-pressed and discriminated. The inequality between groups, both economic and political will all explain the level of grievances between the Hema and the Lendu. Looking back at the his-tory of both Hema and Lendu, I will analyse the position of both groups in the society and their participation both in the economy and politics. The political and economic inequality and marginalisation will explain the level of grievances between the Lendu and Hema which could be considered as factors instigating the conflict.

(18)

5. Method and Design

In order to answer my research question, I will need a “Case study method” where I will be testing different ethnic conflict theories on my selected case. My research was based on a qualitative approach. Qualitative research relies on texts and image data (Creswell, 2014). Since my data is based on written texts and interpretation of those texts, the qualitative ap-proach is the most suitable one for this research. Therefore, I will be doing a qualitative analy-sis.

5.1 Case Study

A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be evident (Yin, 2014, p. 16). A single case study and multiple-case studies are examples of case study (Yin, 2014). My research will be based on a single case study which is the Hema and Lendu conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. When one is conducting a case study, it is because there is something of interest in that case. In my case, the unending conflict between the Hema and Lendu is of interest. A case study is preferred when examining the contemporary phenomenon. The Hema-Lendu conflict is still a contem-porary issue although it has roots from history (Human Rights, 2003). Moreover, I will focus on the conflict between the period 1999-2003. Since I will utilise historical data to analyse this conflict, the type of case study I will deploy is a “case history”. A case history is a case study that describes a historical event or a series of events. It is used to draw conclusions of past events (Abou-Elgheit, 2014). Case histories are used to study the causes of historical problems that are difficult to determine by regular observation method. Besides, in terms of collecting data, case histories deal mostly with secondary data (Abou-Elgheit, 2014). My re-search will be based on secondary data. Therefore, I will use secondary sources to collect the historical data of the case under study. In so doing, I will do a literature review on the history of my case. I will go beyond merely reporting and summarizing what I read by applying the chosen theories in order to be able critically assess the data. My case study will be more de-ductive as I apply different theories to interpret the data relevant to my case.

(19)

5.1.1 The weakness of the Case study

Trouble in generalizing is one of the biggest challenges of the case study method (Yin, 2014, p. 20). Since I will be using a single-case study, it will be difficult to generalize from only one case. However, to some extent there is the possibility of generalizing especially when one is using a more deductive approach, when theories that are known are being applied on a case (Tight, 2017, pp. 161-162 and Moses & Knutsen, 2012, p. 137).

Case study method has been criticized for lack of rigour. Many times, biased views could in-fluence the directions of the findings and conclusions (Yin, 2014, p. 19). This occurs mostly when a researcher has already preconceived notions. I recognise that I have my own biases on this conflict, but I hope to explore different perspectives and carry out this research with an objective eye, while recognising my position. However, this is not a weakness just to case study method but also to other scientific methods (Moses & Knutsen, 2012).

5.1.2 Strength of Case Study

A case study is unique as it looks at a case in a broader way compared to other methods (Thomas, 2016, p. 20). A case study is good in collecting rich information, and it involves seeing something from its completeness, looking at it from many angles (Tight, 2017, p. 30). This will be useful for my research since as I go in-depth to understand the Hema and Con-flict. Moreover, studying individual cases in-depth provides information that one did not an-ticipate finding from the start. Because of this, a case study is good in creating hypotheses and advancing knowledge into a field (Krusenvik, 2016, p. 5).

Since I am looking at ethnic conflict in DR. Congo, this case could expose certain patterns that could contribute to the theories that already exist in relation to ethnic conflict.

5.2 Methodology

Naturalism and Constructivism are two philosophical perspectives (Moses & Knutsen, 2012). Naturalist argues that there exist regularities or patterns in nature that are independent

(20)

observer and society in constructing the patterns we study (Moses & Knutsen, 2012). Ethnic-ity being the main concept in this research, it falls more under the constructivist ontology and epistemology.

Ontologically, ethnicity is neutral and is a concept that is open to different interpretation based on who is perceiving it. It is not a fixed reality. Epistemologically, I will analyse and interpret the history of the conflict between the Hema and the Lendu and find out the role eth-nicity played in triggering this conflict. Since etheth-nicity is neutral and could be interpreted dif-ferently based on one’s beliefs, the knowledge I will acquire from the phenomenon will be so-cially constructed based on my interpretation of ethnicity. My research question could bring different researchers to a different conclusion based on how they perceive ethnicity as a con-cept and its relation to conflict. For example, the primordialism would conclude that ethnicity is natural, inherited by blood; thus, ethnic difference is the cause of the conflict while con-structivists will seek to understand different social factors that contributed to the conflict in relation to ethnicity itself. Therefore, the epistemology of this reality is subjective rather than objective hence falling into the constructivist philosophy of science.

In relation to my methods, I will use a qualitative case study which is more of interpretation of data (Creswell, 2014). I will be testing theories of ethnic conflict on my case to be able to answer my research question. My case study is more exploratory which means I will be test-ing theories and interprettest-ing at the same time. When one is testtest-ing theories in a case study, one’s work becomes more of interpretations (Thomas, 2016, pp. 113-118). This means that the qualitative case study method I deploy will be epistemologically constructivist when seek-ing to understand the ontology of my research “ethnic conflict”.

6. Data and Material

My research is primarily based on secondary materials which are already written work by other researchers. I collected data form articles, journals and websites that report on this con-flict. Johan Potter’s work was my main source of data, as he is one of the researchers that have written much about history of the two groups and the conflict itself. Many other re-searchers make references to his work. When collecting data, I used reference lists of different articles and journals to enhance my research. I compared data from different sources in order

(21)

to come up with reliable information. Besides I also collected data from Non-profit Organisa-tions websites that report on this conflict such as the Human Rights Watch, the International Rescue Committee and Relief web.

7. Background History

The Hema are believed to have originated from Uganda, from the Bunyoro where they were known as Hima. In the seventeenth century, they migrated towards eastern Congo. However, there were two waves of this migration. The Gegere were the first group of Hema to migrate into eastern Congo and settled among the Lendu South-west of Mountain Aboro (Pottier, 2010). They intermarriage with the Lendu-Bale to the extent that they lost their own language and became entirely Lendu in their speech. The second wave of Hima known today as south Hema moved towards the south near Kasenyi. The south Hema retained the Nyoro language until today (Pottier, 2010). On the other side, one of the Lendu group, the Lendu-Bindi moved southwards and settled around Gety and were named Ngiti meaning South Lendu. The Lendu-Bindi were neighbours of the South-Hema. The Lendu are believed to have origins from Su-dan and immigrated into eastern Congo before the sixteenth century (Camm, 2012) . Neither of the two groups originated from Ituri district. Hema and Lendu had a peaceful though une-qual relationship. The Hema were pastoralists, and the Lendu were agriculturalists despite dif-ferences in their economic activities, these two groups co-existed. Having no chiefs and no cattle, the Lendu were subjugated by the Hema though their relationship remained friendly, they exchanged their products and adopted each other economic activities. Some Lendu be-came pastoralist and Hema bebe-came agriculturalists (Anseeuw & Alden, 2010 and Pottier, 2010).

During colonialism, the Belgians gave the Hema a privileged position in education, politics and admiration. They considered the Hema superior and a more intelligent race than the Lendu people (Pottier, 2010). According to Pottier, they perceived the Hema to be handsome, nice, features compared to the Bantu race of the Lendu. The Hema was seen to be a race close to that of Europeans. As a result, the Hema were territorially separated from the Lendu people and were given more productive lands than the Lendu (Camm, 2012). The Lendu showed re-sistance towards Belgians and called them “white men who taxed and exploited them”

(22)

(Pottier, 2010). This made the Belgians construct a negative stereotype of the Lendu group thus favouring and cooperating with the Hema instead.

After colonialism, the Hema continued to be the business elites, owning land and having po-sitions in the administrations. For example. In 1962, when new territory was formed, kibali-Ituri, no Lendu obtained positions in the Mobutu admiration (Human Rights Watch, 2003) Moreover, in 1969 President Mobutu appointed a Hema as the minister of agriculture

(Anseeuw & Alden, 2010). In 1973, the Mobutu administration introduced the Bakajika land law; this was a law that gave the state full control over land in the Democratic Republic of Congo territory (Pottier, 2010). It undermined the traditional formal recognition of customary rights. This law made it possible for already occupied or inhabited land to be purchased. The details as to what specific rights people could enjoy on this customary land were supposed to be indicated by presidential decree. The Bakajika land law was more beneficial to the Hema who were economically stable than the Lendu people (Pfefferle, 2013). Many Hema had the upper hand when this law was reinforced as they were able to purchase land to carry out their economic activities, the Lendu were driven away from their ancestral lands by the Hema that owned these lands under the Bakajika law (Pottier, 2003 and Blakeley, 2014). This inequality that was embedded in the Bakajika law and Mobutu administration caused the Hema and Lendu to clash several times in 1969, 1971, 1981 and1992 over land.

However; these clashes were regulated by Congolese authorities either through coercion or negotiation (Anseeuw & Alden, 2010). The end of the Mobutu regime led to the disappear-ance of central-local authorities who were violence regulators.

The war between the Hema and Lendu sparked in 1999 when several Hema were allegedly bribing local authorities into modifying land ownership registers into their favour in the area of Njugu district of Ituri (Pfefferle, 2013). They managed to use these false papers to evict the Lendu out of their lands. The Lendu decided to retaliate, and because there were no strong lo-cal authorities to settle this dispute, it grew into a conflict between the two communities. The tension erupted and resulted in violent clashes spreading to the whole Djungu sub-district and later to other parts of the territory of Irumu at the beginning of the year 2000 causing huge displacements (Pfefferle, 2013). Within the same period of land disputes between the two communities, the Ugandan army intervened and Gen. James Kazini the head of the Ugandan army decided to name Adele Lotsove Mugisa a “Muhema” the provisional governor of the

(23)

oriental province (Camm, 2012). This exacerbated the situation since the Lendu perceived the action as Ugandans military as not being impartial in the matter.

This later led to the formation of militia groups along ethnic lines. UPC which was the “Union des Patriotes Congolais” a Hema political party and Militia group led by Thomas Lubanga. FNI/FRPI which was a Lendu political party and militia group led by Floribert Njabu (HumanRightsWatch, 2003). The protagonists of this conflict, however, were supported by other external actors. The Uganda People's Defence Force supported the Hema militia group and the Lendu militia group were supported by the APC which then was the National Congo-lese army, the RCD-ML a rebel movement that was led by Wamba Dia Wamba (Pottier, 2010). The land dispute sparked into open warfare, and by the end of 1999, the death toll rose to 7000, and over 180,000 villagers both Hema and Lendu had been displaced (Pottier, 2003). Tit for tat mass slaughter which was ethnic in nature occurred in the territories occupied by these groups (Pottier, 2003). With evidence from the Human Rights Watch in 2002, Lendu militia carried four massacres in different Hema territories such as; in Komanda, Buklwa, Nizi and Logo sparing no Hema (Human Rights Watch, 2003). Similarly, the Hema militia at-tacked Lendu people and killed those that had connections with them. Capturing of territories was witnessed between the two groups during this conflict. In 2002, the Lendu

militia conquered Mogbwalu which was the gold mine in the region and the same year the Lendu and Hema fought over Mabanga a small village rich in gold (Anseeuw & Alden, 2010). Although Komanda was not rich in resources, it is the capital of Eastern Province, and it was a commercial crossroad connecting different towns to the market especially to North Kivu. Additionally, in 2003, the goal from each two militia groups was to control Bunia the capital of Ituri (Anseeuw & Alden, 2010). The conflict reduced in the year 2003 after the UN peace-keepers struggled to bring security in the region. However, in 2005, the FNI formed a new al-liance with chef Kahwa’s PUSIC, attacked the Hema and gained territory from them and dis-placed over 80,000 people (Pottier, 2010). The conflict between the two groups has waxed and waned since its eruption in 1999 until of recent there is still inter-ethnic distrust, and high-intensity violence is taking place between the ethnic two ethnic groups with the last one happening in the year 2018 in Djungu (Blakeley, 2014).

(24)

8. Analysis/Discussion

8.1. Colonialism

During colonialism in Congo which was between 1908 to 1960 before DR. Congo gained her independence, the Belgians in the Ituri created division between the Hema and Lendu (Long, 2011, p. 4). According to Pottier, the Belgian colonizers referred to the Hema as a superior race Handsome with curly hair and a race close to that of the European. Basically, a Hema could be mistaken to be a dark Egyptian while the Lendu were referred to be warriors, un-tameable and barbaric race. As a result, the Hema had to be territorially separated from the Lendu (Pottier, 2010). It is seen that during this period, the Belgians re-constructing new meaning to these ethnic identities and making both the Hema and Lendu become ethnically conscious.

Using biological and physical traits to categorise or classify these groups, the Belgians were actualising on a primordial way of perceiving ethnicity at the same time constructing identities with a new meaning. Cornell and Douglas (2007) termed this as “constructed pri-mordiality”; this is when groups ethnicity is constructed with some primordial mooring to it. By using the primordial ways of reconstructing or constructing identity, the Belgians were creating polarity and strong ethnic boundaries between Hema and Lendu groups because the attributes used for creating these boundaries are immutable. Although the Hema and Lendu ethnicity existed in the pre-colonial period, there was some sort of fluidity in their ethnicity. The northern Hema “Gegere” intermarriage with the Lendu to the extent of speaking the Lendu language (Pottier, 2010).

However, Cornel states that, identity construction does not only involve marking bounda-ries but also the assertion and assignment of meaning, such meaning could be “we” vs “they”, “good” vs “evil” or “superior” vs “inferior” (Cornell & Douglas, 2007) , creating some sort of “othering” in group interactions. Although this was for administrative purposes to the Belgian coloniser, the social cleavages imposed on the Lendu and Hema had negative consequences. One could argue that colonial intrusion is a root cause of tensions between the Hema and the Lendu. The colonial period transformed the quality of interaction between the Hema and the

(25)

Lendu that once coexisted. The Hema and Lendu were territorially separated based on their biological traits and physical appearance (Camm, 2012). The Belgians constructed a social structure where these two groups lacked cross-cultural contact with each other. Horowitz (1985) states that lack of contact between groups could to some extent exacerbate cultural dif-ferences as the groups do not get time to share certain values or even establish common ground. This was the case on the Hema and the Lendu during colonialism.

Moreover, the Belgians favoured the Hema more than the Lendu. The Hema were given privileged positions in education, economy and politics during the colonial period (Pfefferle, 2013). They were also given fertile land than the Lendu (Pottier, 2010). Pottier (2010) state that, Hema’s lack of resistance to colonial rule was the reason to why they were favoured more and separated from the Lendu who were more resistant. The Belgians constructed some sort of a malign image of the Lendu, and all the positive stereotypes and privileges were re-warded to the Hema (Pottier, 2010). Horowitz terms this as “group worth”, when a third party rewards a group’s identity with a positive meaning relative to other groups. Rewarding group worth to certain groups and not others, creates prejudice thus resulting in group resentment (Horowitz, 1985, p. 165). For example, a Hema was seen telling Human Rights Watch re-searchers that, “the Lendu are a negative force and hostile to peace that they should be elimi-nated” (Human Rights Watch, 2003). The primordial ethnic categorisation and differences were internalised and reified by these groups. Basically, it is seen that they adopted the stereo-types and images of the “other” that the Belgian colonisers presented to them.

Consequently, by scrutinizing the colonial period, it is seen that the root cause of this con-flict is richly explained by the constructivist theory than primordialism. First and foremost, the fact that tensions between the Hema and Lendu started right after colonialism and not be-fore discredits the arguments of ethnic difference as the root cause of the conflict. Some would argue that division between the Hema and Lendu stems back to the pre-colonial period. However, this could raise questions of why did the conflict erupt at the time it did and not in the pre-colonial times? The colonialists strengthened the boundaries between these two groups creating a polarity. Moreover, primordialists argue that ethnic conflict is natural and inevitable among ethnic groups due to ethnic hatred. According to Mueller, conflicts caused by ethnic hatred result in “all against all “and “neighbours against neighbours” (Mueller,

(26)

2002, p. 42). This was not the case in this conflict as it was just a small fraction of Hema and Lendu fighting against each other (Human Rights Watch, 2003). One could argue that Hema and Lendu are not fighting because they are ethnically different from each other, but because their identity or ethnicity and historical relations were being interfered and manipulated by colonisers who created a polarity between the two groups that once mingled. If the Belgian coloniser did not invade Ituri, maybe Hema and Lendu would not have strong ethnic bounda-ries between themselves.

8.2. Mobutu, Bakajika Law “Post-colonial Period”

President Mobutu enacted the Bakajika law right during the post-colonial period when he came in power in 1962. This was the law where all the Land was to be owned by the state, properties, where to be confiscated from the whites in order to boost development and eco-nomic independence and land, could be privatised (Pottier, 2003). This was not the traditional way of land allocation that existed before colonialization and independence whereby

land was a property of a lineage descent group (Camm, 2012). The land chiefs exercise au-thority over land and cultivators had full rights over land, and there was shifting cultivation among them.

However, during Mobutu administration, the Bakajika law favoured the Hema more than the Lendu. The fact that the Hema had the education, and close relationship with authorities like the minister of agriculture Zbo Kalogi a Hema who was appointed by President Mobutu. This gave the Hema an upper hand during the establishment of this law (Camm, 2012 and Dan, 2011, p. 59). It was seen the Lendu were economically and socially excluded right from colonialism and post-colonialism. Knudsen et al a assert that in modern society , the state is the unsurpassed instrument of power, those that control the state have control in the distribu-tion of resources and public goods which means that they have the ability to set policies which create group security or lead to violence (RØrbæk & Knudsen, 2017, p. 643). In the case of the Bakajika law, there was no security to the Lendu group especially when the state was on its infant stages of independence. Although there was a change of regime, the structure that was created by the Colonialists was left untouched especially when it came to group fa-vouritism and distribution of resources. The Belgians created ethnically homogeneous elites

(27)

who in this case were the Hema. There was a tendency of African states to re-confirm the pre-existing elites in the post-colonial period (Paglia, 2007, p. 23). Favouritism towards the Hema and marginalisation of the Lendu prevailed even after colonialism. Knudsen and RØrbæk ar-gue that exclusion in states has traces to historical division of power (RØrbæk & Knudsen, 2017, p.643). This was the case as the Mobutu regime which perpetuated exclusion by using the pre-existing power structures.

Additionally, a Hema anthropologist Lobho Lwa Djugu Djugu stressed that the Lendu were ignorant of the land legislation and that they needed education (Pottier, 2010, p. 26). Nevertheless, it is important to note that, the lack of education among the Lendu was not due to their choice but because the colonial system and later the Mobutu Regime marginalised them from consuming public goods and services. The Mobutu regime might not have intended to exclude the Lendu when enacting the Bakajika law reason being that it was diffi-cult to re-structure the power structures that already existed before independence. Paglia ar-gues that the former colonies retained a western system of political organisation which was alien and could not easily adapt to most colonial realities. The system was inadequate to ad-dress the multi-ethnic reality of African states (Paglia, 2007, p. 21). This could be the case with the Bakajika law that intentionally or unintentionally marginalised and oppressed the Lendu.

One could argue that to some extent, there was targeted deprivation whereby the Lendu were being marginalised for who they are i.e. uneducated and some sort of inferior race. And the negative representation of the Lendu is an effect of colonialism though it adopted during the Mobutu regime. Besides, Horowitz (1985, p.201) uses the term “group legitimacy”. To be legitimate is to be identified with the territory. This was not the case for the Lendu who were losing their ancestral lands to the Hema who benefited more from the Bakajika land law. It was seen that the Hema were gaining more group legitimacy. He further states that property ownership is the foundation of group legitimacy. By acquiring ownership on a property, one has the right to exclude others. “If the property is really mine then the claim by another is nothing more than theft” (Horowitz, 1985, p. 202). The ownership of land by the majority Hema in Ituri was leading to the exclusion of the Lendu and gradually making the Lendu the strangers of the soil.

(28)

Moreover, It was seen during the period of tension between the groups Hema leaders re-ferring to Hema as the “originaires” and the Lendu being the “non-originaires” (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004, p. 12), meaning that the Hema are the original owners of the territory of Ituri and Lendu are the outsiders. According to Horowitz, acculturation and closer relation-ships with colonisers could lead to pretension to fill their shoes (Horowitz, 1985). One could argue that the Hema were fighting to maintain the privileged positions that were given to them by the colonial masters and since the colonialists left, they felt that they should fill their shoes.

Consequently, the system that was adopted by both the Colonialists and Mobutu admin-istration created social, economic and political inequalities among the Hema and the Lendu. Inequalities in the society is linked to mass violence and aggression, these inequalities could be land or income which generates discontent among those who go without which if handled poorly would result in war (Regan & Norton, 2005). The Lendu who once had their own Land became tenants on Hema farms (Camm, 2012, p. 9). In relation to the Hema and Lendu case, right after the Bakajika land Law was enacted, the two groups clashed several times 1969, 1971, 1981 and 1992 over land. Thanks to the Congolese authorities during the Mobutu ad-ministration that regulated these clashes through negotiation and coercion (Anseeuw & Alden, 2010). During this period, it is seen that grievances started to manifest from the Lendu who were discontented and felt were being treated unfairly. The Hema were benefiting at the ex-pense of the Lendu.

Moreover, this created Hema farming elites whose names were well known for example, Savvo, Ugwaro, Lotsove and Singa family (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004). The Lendu were relatively deprived. Freeman (2005) claims that people feel deprived of something they had but subsequently lost it or when another gain relative to them. He further states that one is likely to resort to aggression when one looks at his neighbour and remembers his poverty or remember when he was wealthy (Freeman, 2005). One could argue that this was the case with the Lendu when they looked at the Hema progressing both economically and politically at their expense.

(29)

The conflict over land became more violent in 1999 when a group of Hema used false doc-uments to illegally drive the Lendu away from their ancestral land thus forcing the Lendu group to retaliate (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004, p. 7). Collier et al assert that conflict oc-curs when grievances are sufficiently acute that people want to risk their lives by engaging in violence (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004, p. 564). Moreover, groups start to revolt when they lose hope in attaining their societal values (Saleh, 2013, p. 165). It is seen that the Lendu had been marginalised and unfairly treated and they could no longer bear the misery. A Lendu leader was recorded saying that “the formation of an ethnic militia was a reaction to against their his-torical marginalisation and the Hema dominance” (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004, p. 26). When groups perceive themselves to be selective targets, they use discrimination as a cause for solidarity (Wimmer, et al., 2004, p. 143). One could argue that the exclusion of the Lendu created solidarity among them since they were some were a targeted group. The fact that the Lendu carried a reprisal in a large group indicates the level of solidarity they had.

According to Integration Regional Information Networks, the Lendu attacks on Hema was not a sudden eruption but rather one that was planned. The Lendu chiefs started to warn the Hema one month before the attack (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004, p. 7). It was seen that the Lendu were fighting for their “Need” which in this case is justice and equality and their attacks towards the Hema was due to growing grievances. The attack can be perceived as a relatively deprived group “Lendu” fighting against a relatively privileged group “Hema”. This points towards grievances since the Lendu were fighting for their societal value, justice, inclu-sion and equality.

Based on the above discussions, one will argue that, the rise of ethnic question and ethnic polarisation is more of a function of ethnic favouritism by the colonialists and lack of good governance by the Mobutu Regime. Colonialism sowed a seed of tension by favouring the Hema relative to the Lendu and Mobutu regime nurtured the tree of ethnic tensions by enact-ing the Bakajika land law, a policy that was exploitative and discriminatory. It was a

law that was insufficient and not suitable for a multi-ethnic society. It was seen that ethnicity in the post-colonial period became a means to an end as the Hema elites manipulated the Ba-kajika land in order to monopolise power and wealth at the exclusion of the Lendu. As a re-sult, inequality prevailed between the two groups since colonialism. The relationship between

(30)

inequality and rebellion is a close one. Inequality causes frustration and frustration lead ag-gression (Hoeffler, 2011, p. 280). This could explain the reasons to why tensions have erupted between the two groups.

8.3. External and Local Forces Dynamics 1999-2003

Ituri has large amounts of mineral deposits, such as gold, diamond and coltan (Pfefferle, 2013). Based on Collier’s economic explanation of ethnic conflict. From greed point of view, the presence of lootable primary resources is a driving factor for wars. One could argue that this conflict is due to greed among the actors involved. UPDF, which is the Ugandan national army invaded Ituri and sided with the Hema who are believed to have origins from Uganda (Pottier, 2003). According to Vlassenroot and Raeymakers (2004), their intervention was claimed to be political. However, it had hidden agendas behind it. Why did the UPDF side with the Hema? One could argue that the Hema had power or control over Ituri at that time and siding with them would give the UPDF access to resources such as gold and diamond. Several reports from UN showed that individual army officers such as General James Kazini and Salim Saleh of the UPDF involved in mineral trafficking from Ituri to Uganda (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004, p. 16). By supplying ammunition to the Hema, the UPDF was creating an environment of con-flict in order to simplify their illegal extraction of these resources. It is seen that insecurity in Ituri became the source of enrichment. The actions of The UPDF points towards greed and instrumentalism theory as there was manipulation of ethnicity by Ugandan forces to fulfil their “hidden agendas” which in most cases was seen to be economical. Moreover, Uganda which has no gold and diamond mines became the leading exporter of gold and diamonds in the region (Pfefferle, 2013). This raises the question of where were those minerals coming from? Salim Saleh and James Kazini opened a trading post for commercialisation of trading companies that illegally trafficked minerals to Uganda (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004, p. 20).

However, it is important to note that the ethnic grievances that existed among the Hema and the Lendu played a crucial role in justifying the intervention of Uganda. And the fact that UPDF took sides, it exacerbated the situation by fuelling this conflict. This indicates the relation be-tween grievances and greed. Grievances provide the motive and greed are the opportunities (Karl & Stefan, 2009). Without the grievances between the Hema and the Lendu may be the

(31)

involvements of Uganda in Ituri would not have been in the narrative of this conflict or maybe the conflict would not have been as violent as it was.

The presence of diaspora or external forces to fund the rebellion determines the likelihood of civil wars (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004). UPDF supplying ammunition to the Hema group not only benefited the UPDF but also played a huge role in reducing the opportunity costs of fi-nancing or funding the Hema militia group “UPC”. Moreover, this played a huge role on for the Hema group in consolidating their local power. A UN report attested that the involvement of UPDF in Ituri provided the Hema with power to seize land from Balendu who had no support (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004, p. 21). The control of land in Ituri means control over its resources. Land could be perceived as causing conflict not only from a grievance point of view but also greed. Grievances could be seen when relative deprived Lendu are fighting the relative privileged Hema while Greed could be seen when the relative privileged Hema were fighting to protect their privileges which in most cases were economical.

However, not only did the Hema get funded for their rebellion but also the Lendu got funding from various external forces such as from the Congolese national army “APC” and rebel groups from Rwanda (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004). From greed point of view, the incentives of rebellion are determined by the prospects of victory and the reward that comes with it (Karl & Stefan, 2009). The fact that both groups got funding for their rebellion especially ammunition, lowed their opportunity costs of launching a rebellion and increased their perceived benefits. When one has a gun, one has ability to gain materially and have power to attack and counterat-tack.

Additionally, there were other elements of greed in this conflict. Both Hema and Lendu militia groups consisted of young males and most who were unemployed (Camm, 2012). The unemployment rate has been very high at 51.1% for the past decade. Not only does DR. Congo face a high level of unemployment but also a decline in the literacy level (Qadir & Khan, 2015, p. 78). Moreover, Ituri was economically isolated during this period which means that there was high level of poverty (Dan, 2011, p. 59). These variables conform to the greed argument which is unemployment reduces the opportunity cost of rebellions. One who is poor can enrich himself by carrying a gun or by joining a rebellion (Collier & Hoeffler,

(32)

2004). Rebellion could be a source of employment to the young uneducated and unemployed. Moreover, looting during conflict explains the correlation between poverty and conflict. With the example of the Hema and Lendu conflict, there were high levels of pillaging or looting in the villages and towns that faced attacks from the two groups (Human Rights Watch, 2003).

However, local observers claim that the rich lost a lot of properties. They claimed that poor people from villages especially the Lendu looted rich peoples houses in the City of Bunia (Human Rights Watch, 2003). Not only did the Lendu carry out looting but Hema militia groups captured mines with the help of Ugandan forces and looted resources such as gold and diamond. Lohbo states that local wealth centred on cattle market and the sale of gold and all these avenues were Lendu miss out (Pottier, 2003, p. 3). The fact that Lendu were

agriculturalists and not Pastoralists like the Hema, most of them were poor since their

economic activity was not income generating. There was cattle plundering whereby the Lendu looted cattle from Hema farms and sold them to get money (Human Rights Watch, 2003). There is a high probability of one joining a rebellion if it is a way of acquiring wealth (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004).

Besides, the high degree of ethno-linguistic fractionalisation simplifies ethnic group mobilisation. Collier asserts that social cohesion is a source of rebel military opportunity. Where there is a clear distinction between two ethnic groups, there is easy coordination thus reducing opportunity costs for rebel group formation (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004). Coordination in terms of recruiting and allocating resources to ethnic members. In relation to the Hema and Lendu groups, there was polarity between the two groups since the colonial period (Pottier, 2010). Moreover, both groups formed political parties along ethnic lines. The UPC for Hema and FNI for the Lendu (Camm, 2012).This indicates the strong boundaries they had both politically and socially. And, one could argue that it was easy to mobilise and recruit ethnic members into joining the rebellions which could have been costly when there is no social cohesion and clear divisions between them. The ethno-division between the hema and Lendu points towards Collier et al greed model. Collier et state that rebel coordination would be very difficult in societies which the entire population is from the same group (Freeman, 2005). Easy coordination plays a huge role in cost and benefits analysis before launching a rebellion as it simplifies mobilisation.

(33)

Moreover, Ethnic leaders took advantage of ethnic divisions and polarity to mobilise members by carrying out propaganda towards the opposing groups with aims of fulfilling their political and economic agenda. With the example of Thomas Lubanga the leader of UPC saying that the “Hema should eliminate the Lendu so that there is no ethnic conflict once and for all”. Other Hema leaders went to radio stations such as Radiocandip calling the Lendu the outsiders who do not belong to Ituri (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004, p. 12). Ethnicity was used as an instrument for propaganda and mobilisation to achieve economic and political goals by militia leaders. Relying on the existing bonds, Hema leaders such as the Adele Lot-sove and Thomas Lubanga used the UPC Hema militia group to illegally take control of re-sources and consolidate political power (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004). Collier terms this as “rent” whereby natural resources become the source of income during conflicts. (Collier, 2004). During this period the Gegere Hema elites like Savo and other Gegere families became increasingly successful by selling minerals abroad (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004). More-over, their military control over the Mongwalu mines yielded necessary funds to finance the rebellion and extend their monopoly in the market (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004). In re-lation to achieving political goals, Thomas Lubanga a Hema militia leader used this conflict to negotiate his political agenda by demanding for Ituri to be recognised as a separate province (Vlassenroot & Raeymakers, 2004).

By applying the above-chosen theories to the Hema and Lendu conflict. the primary causes of this conflict are; colonialism, Land, inequality, poor government policy, greed from militia groups and external forces. Moreover, one factor on its own cannot sufficiently explain this conflict which means that only one theory is not substantial enough. Therefore, using only one theory to explain this conflict will be misleading. Firstly, Constructivism explains the co-lonialism and their interference in the relation of the Hema and Lendu groups. Secondly, Grievances explain the marginalisation of the Lendu both during colonialism and post/colo-nial period. Thirdly, greed explains the economic motives such as looting minerals and prop-erties which are basically the perceived benefits for initiating and for joining a militia group. This is always determined by the behaviours of militia groups or individuals, like UPDF, UPC and FNI looting minerals and fighting to take control of resource vibrant villages. Instrumen-talism explains the manipulation of ethnicity by militia leaders like Thomas Lubanga and

The Complexity of Ethnic Conflict - Hema and Lendu Case study