Last night I watched a documentary on the Wolani of western New Guinea. Although New Guinea has a government, the political economies of people like the Wolani are essentially stateless. Government does not enforce agreements, resolve disputes, or even punish violence.
A clan chief was murdered by his wife's lover--a member of a competing clan. The documentary followed the reconciliation/negotiation process of the two groups.
Contra what I regard as popular perception about violence and warfare in such environments, the inter-clan conflict resolution process was remarkably peaceful, orderly, and deliberate. When the chief was killed, the clan to which he belonged did not deny the wrong doing. Nor did the victimized clan respond rashly with by attacking the wrongful clan.
Instead, the two groups met over a number of days and civilly hashed out the terms of compensation for the murder. Long-established, informal institutions of inter-clan conflict resolution were in place and followed. The negotiation process was broadly democratic and took place in literally an open field in which all could be heard. Clan elders led the process.
Some obstacles were of course confronted (on their source, see below). The victimized clan demanded compensation in cowrie shells. The wrongful clan wanted to pay in money. For a few days the clans could not reach agreement. The victimized clan threatened war and both sides began preparing for its eventuality in the coming days. Ultimately, however, a compromise was struck in which payment would be made in half shells and half money. Violence was averted and peaceable relations recommenced.
Interestingly, the New Guinea government recently mandated the prohibition of payment between clans in cowrie shells in an effort to "modernize" the population. A local agent of the government insisted that inter-clan compensation in this case be made in money, even though both clans preferred to use shells. It was his insistence that almost led the two clans to violently clash. The clans avoided war by violating the state’s legal prohibition.
This microcosm of statelessness in Africa delivers some of the most basic and important lessons of political economy:
1. The power of informal institutions in converting situations of potential conflict into situations of cooperation.
2. The inability of state-made institutions that conflict with informal institutions to bring about their desired results.
3. The damage that can be inflicted (in this case, nearly war) when government imposes institutions at odds with the private practices of individuals.
Comments