What do you think?
Rate this book
Watching the Wind: Conflict Resolution During South Africa's Transition to Democracy
A compelling, inspiring account of peacemaking in action, WATCHING THE WIND takes us to the frontlines of South Africa's struggle to manage the tempestuous transition from apartheid to democracy. When Mandela, de Klerk, and other political leaders launched the 1991 National Peace Accord in a far-reaching effort to staunch political bloodshed and promote consultation and cooperation between bitter adversaries, Susan Collin Marks was one of thousands of South Africans who committed themselves to making the peace process work where it mattered most—at the local level. Over the next three years, Marks and other leaders of the conflict resolution movement adopted and adapted a vast array of tools and they mediated, facilitated, and counseled; they created forums for open discussion and trained community leaders; they fostered community policing; and they anticipated crises and stood between demonstrators and security forces. And, as Marks explains, "something extraordinary happened." The international community had expected a bloodbath, but what it saw instead was a near-miraculous process of negotiation and accommodation. With passion and eloquence, the author captures the drama, the personalities, and the heroism of this grassroots peace process.
256 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2000
2 people are currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 7, 2012
In describing the pragmatic and practical approach of South African peace workers, Marks refers to complex questions relating to behavior change, conflict resolution, and the success of the South African Peace Accord. One of the key questions that Marks’ addresses is how to foster behavior change. In Marks view, South Africa’s problems were best solved by providing a win-win situation for both sides. Conflict resolution literature supports the contention that strategic dilemmas, such as information gaps and lack of credible commitment between groups are often the essence of intractable problems. Fundamentally, one of the biggest obstacles to conflict resolution in South Africa was overcoming fear, anger and grievance expressed by the community leaders.
The community leaders say they cannot learn conflict resolution because they have no water, no sewage, abundant unemployment and social evil. They do not want to talk to the councilors or the government or the police. Another side of the story will make no difference to their problems. These are the people who have abused them. These are the people in powerful positions. The powerful must yield.
Underneath the words, an unspoken fear is also holding them back. “If they go for joint problem solving, it looks as though they are becoming too soft, as if they are giving up their power, giving in. People find that scary because for so long all we had was our anger. All we had were our grievances (121).
As Marks indicates, facilitating dialogue between the parties, allowing them to find common ground and build trust, and break down their perceptions of each other, and talk through their grievances, shapes behavior. Trainings, forums, meetings, and other action promulgated by peace committees simultaneously sought to reduce the information gaps between Afrikaners and blacks, or taxi and bus drivers, or the government and ANC, as well as built their mutual credibility. By demonstrating that both sides were willing to come to the table and negotiate, both sides could credibly commit to the solutions, or terms of the agreement.
Another key insight Marks posited was the focus on the Peace Accords and the transition to democracy from apartheid as an evolution, not a revolution. Framing the issue so belies the internal and external pressure on South Africa to adapt to changing sociopolitical context. Indeed, one of the most interesting things about this period was that all parties to the conflict were willing to sit down and negotiate, an enigma among African conflicts. While South Africa experienced violent conflict, the National Party government maintained the key institutions and infrastructure necessary for peace keeping to be effective, that is, by and large, basic needs were still provided during the transitional period.
This is a stark difference between South Africa and the situation of many modern African states embroiled in conflict; I question if peace committees, mediation or something akin would be as effective in modern African conflicts, such as Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, or Mali. As Marks admits, “the Peace Accord didn’t replace rule of law; it added to it. It was an alternative form for resolving political and community conflicts that would have fallen through the ever-widening cracks in existing legislation” (9). Thus, while this worked extremely well in South Africa, its broader applicability is dubious in places where rule of law is non-existent, or violence more widespread.
Marks certainly effectively shows why peace workers and peace committees functioned in South Africa. In the first place, nearly all of the peace workers were locals, as opposed to foreigners, with the obvious exception of American Amy Biehl, who died while serving as a peace worker. Nonetheless, each peace worker had a long-term, personal stake in implementing the Peace Accord, as opposed to international humanitarian intervention. Thus, every day Marks and her colleagues were challenged by their task, in her words: “this work demands that we are willing every day to do it better” (110).
This draws up an interesting tension between the perception of peace workers by communities and their own views. South Africans were “often critical of the mediator role because they [saw] it as value free or evading values” (114). Conversely, as Marks notes, maintaining neutrality as a peace worker is very difficult, especially when mediating between people of your own country, and when the effects will impact your own life.
Another reason that peace committees were successful in South Africa is that in every case, peace worker were able to convince conflicting parties that commitment to a solution through dialogue was necessary. For example, in the Transport Forum between bus companies and taxi drivers, which arose out of violent conflict, embodied each of the main themes referred to by Marks. While the forum itself failed to resolve the dispute, Marks argues that it was persuasive, in that it tried to solve a mutual problem, which is the first step toward actually doing so. Also, although the violence was not stopped, it is unknown how it could have escalated without their intervention. Lastly, and most importantly from a conflict resolution standpoint, in a civil, non-violent arena the stakeholders learned how their adversaries felt.
Rarely, in any conflict, have two opposing sides seemed to be mutually willing to come together to discuss the issues. Nonetheless, Marks takes a hardline approach: “I suggest that there really is not any choice. A negotiating forum including all the stakeholders will have to be formed. This is not just because the funds depend on joint decision-making, but also because anyone left out of the process is likely to sabotage it. It is what happens. Inclusivity is rule number one. Tolerance follows close behind” (153). Time and time again through the work of the peace committees, all the stakeholders convened, bringing the democratic process to fruition.
A last factor contributing to the success of the peace committees was the South African cultural custom of Ubuntu. This saying, which means essentially “People are people through other people” in various South African languages, represents a basic respect for human nature, sharing, empathy, tolerance, the common good, and acts of kindness (183). This cultural custom underpinned many South African’s ability to achieve common ground, forgive, and reach compromise. This Ubuntu ethic also permitted multiethnic and multiracial “consultation, compromise, cooperation, camaraderie conscientiousness and the biggest C of all, compassion” (183). Prior to reading this book this custom was unbeknownst to me, but it certainly is apparent in helping the peace committees to achieve their objectives.
The community leaders say they cannot learn conflict resolution because they have no water, no sewage, abundant unemployment and social evil. They do not want to talk to the councilors or the government or the police. Another side of the story will make no difference to their problems. These are the people who have abused them. These are the people in powerful positions. The powerful must yield.
Underneath the words, an unspoken fear is also holding them back. “If they go for joint problem solving, it looks as though they are becoming too soft, as if they are giving up their power, giving in. People find that scary because for so long all we had was our anger. All we had were our grievances (121).
As Marks indicates, facilitating dialogue between the parties, allowing them to find common ground and build trust, and break down their perceptions of each other, and talk through their grievances, shapes behavior. Trainings, forums, meetings, and other action promulgated by peace committees simultaneously sought to reduce the information gaps between Afrikaners and blacks, or taxi and bus drivers, or the government and ANC, as well as built their mutual credibility. By demonstrating that both sides were willing to come to the table and negotiate, both sides could credibly commit to the solutions, or terms of the agreement.
Another key insight Marks posited was the focus on the Peace Accords and the transition to democracy from apartheid as an evolution, not a revolution. Framing the issue so belies the internal and external pressure on South Africa to adapt to changing sociopolitical context. Indeed, one of the most interesting things about this period was that all parties to the conflict were willing to sit down and negotiate, an enigma among African conflicts. While South Africa experienced violent conflict, the National Party government maintained the key institutions and infrastructure necessary for peace keeping to be effective, that is, by and large, basic needs were still provided during the transitional period.
This is a stark difference between South Africa and the situation of many modern African states embroiled in conflict; I question if peace committees, mediation or something akin would be as effective in modern African conflicts, such as Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, or Mali. As Marks admits, “the Peace Accord didn’t replace rule of law; it added to it. It was an alternative form for resolving political and community conflicts that would have fallen through the ever-widening cracks in existing legislation” (9). Thus, while this worked extremely well in South Africa, its broader applicability is dubious in places where rule of law is non-existent, or violence more widespread.
Marks certainly effectively shows why peace workers and peace committees functioned in South Africa. In the first place, nearly all of the peace workers were locals, as opposed to foreigners, with the obvious exception of American Amy Biehl, who died while serving as a peace worker. Nonetheless, each peace worker had a long-term, personal stake in implementing the Peace Accord, as opposed to international humanitarian intervention. Thus, every day Marks and her colleagues were challenged by their task, in her words: “this work demands that we are willing every day to do it better” (110).
This draws up an interesting tension between the perception of peace workers by communities and their own views. South Africans were “often critical of the mediator role because they [saw] it as value free or evading values” (114). Conversely, as Marks notes, maintaining neutrality as a peace worker is very difficult, especially when mediating between people of your own country, and when the effects will impact your own life.
Another reason that peace committees were successful in South Africa is that in every case, peace worker were able to convince conflicting parties that commitment to a solution through dialogue was necessary. For example, in the Transport Forum between bus companies and taxi drivers, which arose out of violent conflict, embodied each of the main themes referred to by Marks. While the forum itself failed to resolve the dispute, Marks argues that it was persuasive, in that it tried to solve a mutual problem, which is the first step toward actually doing so. Also, although the violence was not stopped, it is unknown how it could have escalated without their intervention. Lastly, and most importantly from a conflict resolution standpoint, in a civil, non-violent arena the stakeholders learned how their adversaries felt.
Rarely, in any conflict, have two opposing sides seemed to be mutually willing to come together to discuss the issues. Nonetheless, Marks takes a hardline approach: “I suggest that there really is not any choice. A negotiating forum including all the stakeholders will have to be formed. This is not just because the funds depend on joint decision-making, but also because anyone left out of the process is likely to sabotage it. It is what happens. Inclusivity is rule number one. Tolerance follows close behind” (153). Time and time again through the work of the peace committees, all the stakeholders convened, bringing the democratic process to fruition.
A last factor contributing to the success of the peace committees was the South African cultural custom of Ubuntu. This saying, which means essentially “People are people through other people” in various South African languages, represents a basic respect for human nature, sharing, empathy, tolerance, the common good, and acts of kindness (183). This cultural custom underpinned many South African’s ability to achieve common ground, forgive, and reach compromise. This Ubuntu ethic also permitted multiethnic and multiracial “consultation, compromise, cooperation, camaraderie conscientiousness and the biggest C of all, compassion” (183). Prior to reading this book this custom was unbeknownst to me, but it certainly is apparent in helping the peace committees to achieve their objectives.
July 31, 2007
Read snippets again in 2007 summer, and found it to be a hopeful version of The Road to Hell, by an aid worker in Congo. This one is by a peace worker in South Africa during the early-to mid-90s transition, and covers a lot of background, personal anecdotes, and thoughtful reflections. Not as entertaining as some others, but uplifting and encouraging for conflict workers.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews