7.2 Case study: religion's role in the liberian conflict  (Page 4/4)

Although the abuse of the Poro tradition is troubling in its own right, more problematic is the idea that this abuse marks the beginning of an intermingling of Liberian national government and the local politics of small, rural communities. Ellis argues, as does this paper, that this is one of the causes of the conflict. He claims that “the institutions and political culture of the Liberian republic and those of various rural secret societies were assimilated by one another”. Ibid, p. 265 In other words, the central government of Liberia penetrated the interior of the nation and of human sacrifice, while men from the rural societies edged their way into central government. Each institution, therefore, was eroded from within. They were weakened to the point of no return such that the only possible culmination of the situation was conflict. Levitt 222 That is, the people of Liberia were left with an acute political and economical frustration –which arose from this new and strange mixture of the institutions of traditional religions and central government- that produced a context in which a conflict could only occur.

This of course led to the formation of two separate policy prescriptions. There were those who advocated a return to tradition on the grounds that these rituals produced stability, and there are those who argued for a complete abandonment of tradition as they attribute the use and abuse of religious tradition to the cause of the conflict. There was therefore an ideological conflict that was waged in the undertones of the physical conflict. In this way, the conflict was contextualized in religion, as some argued for a return to traditional religion, while others –mainly Christians- argued that the conflict was caused by the impurity of traditional religion and therefore called for a complete divorce from traditional religion. This produced significant tension in the country as the primarily Christian Americo-Liberians attempted to exert dominance over the indigenous and primarily ‘traditional’ people. Furthermore, a large majority of the central government was originally Christian and therefore there was a great deal of Christian language used in the conflict. This is seen especially with Charles Taylor who likened himself to Jesus Christ on several occasions. Ibid, p. 237 It is believed that he did so not only to try to gain the support of the international community as he showed a commitment to a markedly more western religion and tradition, but also so that he was able to portray himself as powerful and holy in front of Liberia’s population.

It is important to note that Ellis’s analysis of the role of religion in the conflict is somewhat contested. Catherine Elkins reviewed Ellis’s book and believes that he presents a somewhat unconvincing argument because he shows very little tangible evidence that religious beliefs affected political behavior in any significant way. Elkins 157-159 This is a valid concern; however, it seems that any appearance of religion in a violent and highly politicized issue will affect the outcome of the event in some way or form. As stated at the beginning of this section of the paper, religion and politics are very closely linked. They are both deeply held beliefs that touch people profoundly. And as Heather Gregg argued in her panel discussion on religious violence at Harvard University, one may claim that there is always a political and religious dimension to any conflict. Gregg If this holds true as it should, then clearly the traditional religious beliefs of the rural Liberian peoples would have affected their political behavior. Therefore, this paper holds to the argument that the abuse of the traditional religious rituals for the procurement of power was one of the causes of the Liberian conflict.

Aside from these appearances of religion in the conflict, religion seems to have played a rather small role in the war. Clearly, there were other factors that contributed to the onset of the conflict. The tail end of the war is especially removed from the religious causes explained above. As LURD and MODEL forces attempted to oust Taylor from his office in the 1999-2003 era of fighting, we see other more external causes. There was a great deal of tension around Liberia and its leadership. Levitt 214 Aside from neighboring countries contempt of Taylor’s crimes against humanity, they also blame his support of rebel groups in Sierra Leone, Guinea, and the Ivory Coast for much hardship and strife, even civil war. Surely when an entire country hinges on the wishes and desires of a single entity, when there is no accountability, there is great potential for abuse of power. This was the case in Liberia. There has been a history of dictators who have misused the country and its political, cultural, and economical opportunities. This has affected, primarily, the economical sector of the nation as its growth in this nation is often stagnated or even backwards. The lack of economic development is proportional to the lack of peace and security in Liberia. Doe and Taylor, specifically, also created very harsh regimes that were chaotic, often ethnically based, and repressive. Out of this abrasive environment stemmed ruthless guerilla leaders yearning to start fresh. Interestingly, the harshness of Doe’s regime helped mold and unify the guerillas lead by Taylor, who ultimately contributed to the downfall of Doe. Similarly, Taylor’s repressive regime created external hostilities that lead to his own fall from power. Although these regimes still had some focus on ethnic and religious differences that contributed to the tension and pressure in the nation, the overthrow of Taylor was truly a result of poor structure and governance within the country. Ibid, p. 244 These issues were not affected by religion a great deal, it seems. In fact, it should be reiterated that this conflict was very much removed from the religious aspects seen in earlier Liberian conflicts.

Liberia is an abnormality and an archetype: its political history is unique in Africa, yet its contemporary record is typical of African states. The nation does not have a true past of colonial rule but the government has still suffered the same destruction as many other ruling parties of nations in Africa. Liberia shares in its region’s unstable atmosphere and tendency to gravitate towards bloody conflict. The causes of this environment, however, seem to vary slightly from nation to nation. Liberia has its corrupt and near-sighted government to thank for the vast majority of the conflict that the country has faced in the past thirty years. A devastatingly poor economy and a schism between the country and its neighbors also contributed to the escalation of violence in the nation. And while these causes are very valid and hold great importance, we can not discount the role of religion -however small- in the conflict. As the tensions between indigenous, traditional and the ‘imported’ Christian religions mounted, there was even greater pressure between the rural communities and the Americo-Liberians. Moreover, the assimilation of rural tradition and central government lead the country further down the path towards violent conflict. Ultimately however, it seemed to be the corrupt and disingenuous nature of the leaders of the nation that seemed to cause people to resort to violent means to bring about political change. Indeed, the leaders that lived by the force of a gun would eventually have their futures determined by it. And even with the removal of said leaders, the instability in Liberia persists. We must now find better ways to combat against this deadly volatility.