From http://www.observer.gm

Opinion
Intolerance: a recipe for conflicts and sufferings
By Ebou Gaye
Apr 17, 2004, 20:20


Intolerance can be defined as inability or lack of willingness or readiness
to accept ideas, ideologies or ways of behaviour of others, or refusal to
co-operate, interact or deal with people or members of a group one
conceives of as different from oneself or different from the members of
one’s group.

Experience has taught us that intolerance engenders conflicts and is most
dangerous where it is connected with religious, racial / tribal / ethnic
and political sentiments, each of which can influence the others. What
obtains in northern Nigeria is a glaring example of religious intolerance.
There, Muslims and Christians are always at daggers drawn, killing each
other and destroying churches, mosques and other valuable properties. This
is not in the interest of either of the contending parties, as both suffer
casualties and material losses besides having their daily businesses
hampered or interrupted, which would not have been the case if they co-
habited in peace.

Religious intolerance can be interpreted as ignorance of the teachings of
the Muslim and Christian scriptures or blatantly, flagrant disregard for
such teachings. Allah the Almighty has stated in the Glorious Qu’ran that
there is no compulsion in religion. According to the Qu’ran, those who call
people to God should do it with wisdom and fair exhortation, not with
violence. The Bible enjoins us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.
This injunction concurs with the saying of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that he
who believes in Allah and the last day would not harm his neighbour. Hence,
the venerable Prophet (SAW) signed peace pacts with Christians and Jews in
Medina and lived with them in perfect peace.

Thus, people of different faiths who live together can enjoy veritable,
durable peace if they understood and followed the teachings of religion.

The Rwandan genocide involving the Hutu and the Tutsi tribes, in which an
estimated number of 800,000 people were massacred in 100 days, serves as a
pertinent example of racial / tribal / ethnic intolerance. Added to this
deplorable holocaust is the displacement of a large number of people who
suffered miserably, coupled with a very great loss of properties. The
clashes between the Hutus and the Tutsis in neighbouring Burundi and the
Hemas and the Lendus in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), former
Zaire, also exemplify racial / tribal / ethnic intolerance.

Again, it can rightly be stated that having knowledge of the teachings of
religion and practicing such teachings could help prevent or avoid a
tragedy of this nature. The Holy Qu'ran reads in this regard: "Oh you who
believe, We have created you from a single pair of male and female and made
you into nations and tribes so that you may know each other. Verily, the
most honoured among you is the one who fears God the most. God is
Knowledgeable and well Experienced."

Hence, no one can rightly claim superiority over others on the basis of
race, tribe or ethnicity, and such a claim can be interpreted as
challenging God’s wisdom and intelligence. Logically and scientifically
speaking, the claim is unjustifiable, for human beings are made of the same
materials and share the seven characteristics of living organisms, which
makes it folly to hate others based on race, tribe or ethnicity.

Examples of political intolerance abound in Africa where politicians on the
opposite sides of the political divide are always locked in rancorous
squabbles, with the members of each side taking the members of the other
side as monsters who deserve death and chastisement in hellfire.
It is here in Africa that politicians call for the isolation of their
democratically elected opponents or labour to undermine them to the extent
of inflicting sufferings on the innocent masses without any sense of
remorse. It is in Africa that parliamentarians or national assembly members
are obliged to dance to the tune of their bigoted political leaders and are
thus used as tools or puppets to defend the interest of the latter to the
detriment of the poor masses. It is here that violence is used as a means
to gain or retain power regardless of the sufferings of the masses in whose
interest politicians claim to act. This behaviour is sheer immaturity,
irresponsibility, treachery and intolerance, as it constitutes a gross
violation of the constitutions of the countries concerned.

Given the insincerity, hypocrisy, selfishness, greed and self-
aggrandisement characterising African politics, political intolerance
impacts heavily, and negatively for that matter, on religious
fundamentalism and tribalism. In Africa, perfidious, power-hungry and
bloodthirsty politicians have the nasty habit of fanning the flames of
religious and tribal sentiments for political gains.

The Ivorian crisis, which has claimed so many lives and displaced a
colossal number of people, can be cited as an example in this respect. In
Ivory Coast, discriminatory laws have been passed with the sole aim of
barring popular candidates from contesting in elections as a way of
guaranteeing victory for less popular candidates. Chief among these is the
heatedly disputed ivoireté law according to which some Ivorians are more
Ivorian or more bona fide than others who are considered to be second-class
or unreal citizens and hence have less rights than the members of the
former category. This silly act by crooked, errant politicians has split
the country into two main halves: the northern half dominated by Muslims
and currently controlled by the New Forces rebel group, and the southern
half dominated by Christians and controlled by the government. Another
remarkable fact is that a very large number of the inhabitants of the
northern half are from the Dioula tribe whereas the southern part is
occupied by other tribes, especially the Betés tribe, to which the current
president, Laurean Gbagbo belongs. But I hasten to note here that I am in
no way suggesting that it is Gbagbo who introduced the controversial laws,
though it is alleged that his tribesmen are engaged in a campaign of ethnic
cleansing against his opponents, sponsored by his government. The laws were
put in place before he became president but he is very reluctant to have
them repealed as agreed in France where he met with the rebels to discuss
their problem so as to iron out their differences.

Hence, the Ivorian crisis can, to a very large extent, be blamed on the
acts of politicians, particularly ex-President Mbédié who introduced most
of the bad laws to eliminate Alassanne Ouattara, slain ex- head of state
General Robert Guëi who tried to steal victory from Gbagbo, and Gbagbo
himself. The rebels are blameworthy as well.

Likewise, politicians have a big share of the blame in the Rwandan
genocide, as evidenced by the conviction of former politicians and the
confessions of ex-prime minister Jean Kambanda at the Rwandan war crimes
tribunal.

The same thing can be said about the crisis in Burundi, where Nelson
Mandela’s idea of rotating presidency and having in place a president from
one of the two tribes and a vice-president from the other tribe, is being
implemented to resolve the problem but without attaining the desired degree
of success. The politicians of these two countries can be said to be tarred
with the same brush as their counterparts in the DRC where the president,
Joseph Kabila is assisted by four vice-presidents chosen from different
rebel factions and different ethnic groups with the view of resolving the
crisis which still fails to subside as substantiated by the recent attacks
on the capital, Kinshasa. It is worthy to note here that DRC is a misnomer
for Zaire, judging by the behaviour of her politicians.

The civil wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea Bissau had some elements
of ethnic and political intolerance blended together in that many people
fought to help leaders from their ethnic groups mount or stay in power,
which made the situation very grave and calamitous. An astronomical number
of people were killed in the catastrophe, with many maimed.

The war involving Islamic groups in Algeria and the rebellion involving the
Lord Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda can be viewed as springing from
religious and political bigotry. In the former case, the Islamists resorted
to venting their spleen on people after the cancellation of the results of
elections which were widely believed to be won by them, and were hence
confronted by government forces. This created great terror and led to many
deaths and destruction of properties. In the latter case, the leader of the
LRA, Joseph Cone is engaged in abducting, killing and mutilating people,
especially children, claiming to have the intention of overthrowing the
Ugandan government and rule his country by the Ten Commandments of the Holy
Bible, which is a lame fudge. Superfluous to say, the resulting
confrontations between the LRA and government forces also prove to be
catastrophic.

The conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis can be analysed as
having religious, racial and political dimensions and being influenced by
both internal and external factors, thereby making it extremely complex and
difficult to resolve. Arabs, Hebrews, Muslims and Jews in and outside
Palestine and Israel, irrespective of whether they are politicians or not,
may be held responsible for this long-lasting, bloody conflict. Everything
boils down to intolerance, for support for and opposition to either side of
the conflict is normally based on religious, racial and political reasons
or sentiments.

From the foregoing analysis, it can be concluded that no country or region
on earth is immune to conflicts in the absence of tolerance. War-torn Ivory
Coast, which used to be a safe haven and attracted a huge number of
immigrants during the time of the late President Felix Houphet Boigny, is a
clear testimony to this. What has befallen Ivory Coast can happen in any
country where people change attitude from ‘tolerance’ to ‘intolerance’ as
the Ivorians have done. This statement is substantiated by the Qu'ranic
verse: "God would not change the situation of a people unless they change
their situation". In other words, God changes the situation of a nation
only when they change their attitude or their behaviour. So, The citizens
of a country can expect positive changes in their lives if they change
attitude from bad to good. By the same token, they should expect negative
changes in their lives if they change their behaviour from good to bad.

Hence, it is abundantly clear that intolerance does not pay. It breeds
rancour and discord, which germinates into conflicts, which, in turn, yield
sufferings. Therefore, it is wise for those countries renowned for
tolerance to try to safeguard or maintain such a virtue if they want to
avoid conflicts and live in peace, as prevention is better than cure.
Countries that are marked by intolerance and conflicts should try to change
attitude for the better if they want to extricate themselves from their
troubles. To enjoy global peace, people all over the world should learn to
exercise tolerance and restraint.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~