What tribal societies can tell us about justice and liberty

[jmm99]

As to Barsoom (ain't no second "r" in it), I can be half-assed intelligent about it, having spent the weekend reading a book on myths in American pulp fiction and films - where Barsoom gets a few pages.

Since you attended and excelled at That Place on the Hudson, you probably were more acquainted with Edgar Rice Burroughs' other creation, Tarzan - and when you escaped from the jungle, with whatever bar was nearest the gate.

Given Lagrange's attraction to exotic places, Barsoom may have an entirely different meaning than the one I am positing.

My last question was how does the field practitioner (whatever is being practiced) keep from being conned, flamboozled, etc., when a transient in Barsoom.

Regards

Mike

[marct]

Hi Mike (et alii),

a couple of questions: (1) a link or at least a title for what Wilf posted (he posts a lot ); and (2) what do you mean by the “traditional societies myth” ?

On 1, I smurfed a bit and couldn't find it either.

I'm not sure what, exactly, MA means by the "traditional societies myth" but, if I had to guess, I would assume that it refer to the "invention" of primitive society that Adam Kuper talks about. There are certainly variants of it that myth that have been popularized extensively in the West, especially of the Shamanic and Eco"friendly" varieties.

Cheers,

Marc

[marct]

My last question was how does the field practitioner (whatever is being practiced) keep from being conned, flamboozled, etc., when a transient in Barsoom.

Well, as a "classical" anthropologist, i would fall back on tried and true methods - find a Dejah Thoris .

[MikeF]

My last question was how does the field practitioner (whatever is being practiced) keep from being conned, flamboozled, etc., when a transient in Barsoom.

Regards

Mike

And that my dearest friend, is the deepest of questions, a crazy game of poker if you will. I'm going to attempt to explore it soon. As I have no definitive answers as there are none, I will attempt to provide guidance for those that wish to enter into the game .

How do you maneuver and shake in a competing environment when the truth is all so elusive and others have their own desires?

Who's up for game 3? I so enjoy these games .

[Kiwigrunt]

How do you maneuver and shake in a competing environment when the truth is all so elusive and others have their own desires?

That'll work it's way to my quote-list.

[MikeF]

That'll work it's way to my quote-list.

and that gives me encouragement as I have to relive it as I write.

Cheers,

Mike

[Dayuhan]

How do you maneuver and shake in a competing environment when the truth is all so elusive and others have their own desires?

If you've accepted that truth is elusive and others have their own desires you've already taken a huge step in the right direction. Too many of us arrive in Barsoom (or wherever) with the assumption that truth is self-evident, What We Want is so clearly virtuous that everyone else must certainly want it too, and anyone who tells us what we want to hear "gets it" and should be trusted. This is not a combination that favors the attainment of objectives.

There are certainly variants of it that myth that have been popularized extensively in the West, especially of the Shamanic and Eco"friendly" varieties.

Not so long ago we had an addled Teuton wandering around these parts looking for shamans and getting terribly frustrated that nobody knew what the word meant. Just before his disgruntled departure he was heard to pronounce that the religious intermediaries of the local tribes weren't "real shamans" because they don't use hallucinogens. Amazing that the whole Carlos Castaneda thing still holds up. I guess it will as long as folks want to claim that they're getting stoned in pursuit of a higher purpose, which is to say forever.

[MikeF]

If you've accepted that truth is elusive and others have their own desires you've already taken a huge step in the right direction. Too many of us arrive in Barsoom (or wherever) with the assumption that truth is self-evident, What We Want is so clearly virtuous that everyone else must certainly want it too, and anyone who tells us what we want to hear "gets it" and should be trusted. This is not a combination that favors the attainment of objectives.

That needs to be repeated again and again...

Too many of us arrive in Barsoom (or wherever) with the assumption that truth is self-evident, What We Want is so clearly virtuous that everyone else must certainly want it too, and anyone who tells us what we want to hear "gets it" and should be trusted. This is not a combination that favors the attainment of objectives

we start with all things are self-evident...

[Ken White]

barroom...

[MikeF]

If you've accepted that truth is elusive and others have their own desires you've already taken a huge step in the right direction. Too many of us arrive in Barsoom (or wherever) with the assumption that truth is self-evident, What We Want is so clearly virtuous that everyone else must certainly want it too, and anyone who tells us what we want to hear "gets it" and should be trusted. This is not a combination that favors the attainment of objectives.



Not so long ago we had an addled Teuton wandering around these parts looking for shamans and getting terribly frustrated that nobody knew what the word meant. Just before his disgruntled departure he was heard to pronounce that the religious intermediaries of the local tribes weren't "real shamans" because they don't use hallucinogens. Amazing that the whole Carlos Castaneda thing still holds up. I guess it will as long as folks want to claim that they're getting stoned in pursuit of a higher purpose, which is to say forever.

As Dale Carnegie reminds us,

When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.

[Steve Blair]

As Dale Carnegie reminds us,

When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.

Excellent point, Mike. At times I fear we study science and math too much, and ignore the human dimension of every endeavor. Must be my inner history geek coming out again.....

[M-A Lagrange]

While the discussion goes on, I wil try to respond to some ofthe questions my last post raised while I read the rest.

To respond to JMM first question: Wilf’s post I am referring to is on the JDP 3-40 from British Army posted in November 2009, pages 4-29 or 130 on my pdf version.

Secondly, the “traditional societies myth”
Being less a scholar than Marc and mainly a practitioner, I did not refer to the ‘bon sauvage’ (Rousseau) or Adam Kuper (Have to dig that one out cause this rings bell in my mind but could not point out what) but to the myth/assumption that traditional societies are the solution in stabilization ops for justice.
The doc I am referring to (JDT 3-40) states, as all of them, that in post conflict context, to restore/build peace, external forces/powers have to rely on traditional societies, especially for justice implementation at very low/grass root level. This based on the fact that traditional authorities are a form of power which is accepted and respected by all and therefore represents an alternative to modern justice (under construction at that point of time in the given context).
The UK document points out the fact that traditional chiefs had an active role in fuelling the conflict in Sierra Leone by having a partial and discriminative implementation of justice during the conflict. Therefore traditional justice as modern justice replacement/coping mechanism in immediate post conflict operation has been a failure. That because population did not trust traditional authorities anymore.
In addition, I did witness similar failure of traditional societies in Liberia. In Liberia, tradition wants that wars is a social/power elevator. So all exfighters (young men and women) coming back to their villages were considering they should be given social respect and authority according to tradition. But due to the exactions done during the war, communities refused to comply with tradition and refused to reintegrate the youth. But due to their involvement during the war and the fear from them inside communities, justice (modern or traditional) was not implemented.
This just as example to show that traditional societies are not frozen and do change according to communities history.
The myth I am fighting against is that idea that traditional societies are the solution because they are ‘traditional’ meaning untouched and pure compare to the modern societies which bring conflicts. Traditional societies, especially concerning justice, are facing the same problems than “modern societies”. Justice and its implementation are subject to local and personal interests. Traditional laws and judicial mechanisms are as complex as modern ones. It is not because a mechanism is “traditional” that it is the same as the one identifies in a “dreamed golden age” of each and every societies we are dealing with/observing.

Justice implementation stays a power tool what ever a society is modern or traditional and stays an evolving complex legal tool and not Justice. The spirit of the law does apply to traditional societies but the policy baseline (democratic, autocratic regime…) might not be the same while the roots (preserving group interests and by extend individuals in power interests) stay the same. (I am not sure I am very clear here).

Now, to come to the question of how to make the difference in the field… Good question. This requires knowledge of the context (Historical, anthropological/ethnographic, political… in UN language it is called a holistic approach), presence in the field (nothing will replace direct proxy contacts) and a good part of luck/nose/stomach/guts feeling.
I do not have any magic formula on this. My personal approach is to play/be the red team as much as I can against main international opinions. And to keep in mind that local population is looking for the same thing than me: an easy life in a nice and cool social and economical environment (well on paper in my personal case). Plus a good doze of political paranoia.
In practice, I never trust what local politician and authorities are telling me; doubt of what the men are telling me and rely a lot on what women are telling me. A good example is a survey I conducted in Bas Congo (DRC) among Angolan refugees in 2007. While men and local chief were telling me that nothing was in place they were abandoned and received nothing from no one… My colleague (a woman) who conducted the same assessment than me but focused only on women came out with a totally different picture: people received aid, land, educational trainings… But most of it was not working because of internal political problems inside the community. (Which I had identified also though focus groups with men but on different issues).
From that point, we were able to rebuild all the history of the community in the past 10 years and match international organization, local authorities, men and women statements. And then come with a comprehensive picture of the actual situation.
Entropy or emotional connection with the community you work on is needed also. You have to be able to read behind the lines in the answers people are giving. To continue with my example, the ones in real needs were individuals who were so much psychologically affected that they said they had no needs, everything were fine. While the one who were well integrated were the ones who said they were missing everything.
Unfortunately for the ones in need, they did not feet in the agency capacities evaluation format so they received very few support while the other, because they were well integrated and less affected, received a lot of support. But there you touch the limits of the exercise. Knowing the truth helps but is not what agencies are looking for; they do look for capacities to implement their projects: the "solutions search problems to solve" approach.

The main issue is the unexpressed needs.
The relation between observer and communities are always false in the sense that communities are assuming that you come with an agenda. So they give you purposely the answers they think will comply with your expectations.
There has been some famous anthropological work on this, mainly based on cannibalism practices. (Marc, I am sorry but I count on you to come with theoretical reference on that one. I have completely forgotten the book and anthropologist names on this).
A great example of this is the CARE assessment done in North Kivu in 2007 among IDPs (CARE DRC; Internal displacement in North Kivu-Hosting, camps and coping mechanisms (CARE DRC, 27 April 2008).).
According to CARE, everything was fine. But, if you read carefully the CARE report, there are 5 lines from an interview with NRC members. The NRC team members' description of the situation is the complete opposite: sexual abuse, trade sex/aid for hosting, employment discrimination,…
CARE observation is correct but NRC testimony was closer to reality (not truth). Truth was in between: yes host population did feel it was an honor to help; yes displaced population felt they were a weight for hosting population and yes hosting populations were harassing IDPs and international NGO and UN agencies were blind to it.
The unexpressed need was the host population need for aid and access denial to it from relief societies. So, as they could not access aid directly, host population took it by force from IDPs.

And finally, yes, I do refer to Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom. I am a big fan… (Call me a geek if you want; no problem with that. But I am no nerd.)
ERB advocacy for US involvement in world war in his moon cycle is one of the less known but one of the most interesting contributions of popular pulp culture to US politic. On this I tried to start a threat on the relation between Science Fiction Culture and military few time ago.

[jmm99]

this:

from M-A Lagrange
The myth I am fighting against is that idea that traditional societies are the solution because they are ‘traditional’ meaning untouched and pure compared to the modern societies which bring conflicts.

All criminal and civil justice systems have three very basic components: (1) Substance; (2) Procedure; and (3) Personnel. From what you say, the breakdown in SL and Liberia was primarily in the personnel component. Of course, when law enforcement and judicial personnel become corrupted, the substantive law (in its application) becomes corrupted and procedural process becomes corrupted as well.

I suspect that the choice is often between systems that do not provide security (as we in the "West" view it), and that the choice goes to the system that relatively gives the best form of insecurity.

Regards

Mike

PS: I forego discussion of Geek, Nerd and How to Tell the Difference; except to self-describe myself in terms of the mutt in I'm Dreaming of a Geek Christmas. The Monty Python Killer Rabbit is definitely a cool dude.

[jmm99]

A short report from MoD, The Role of the Justice Sector in Security Sector Reform (Ministry of Defence 2008), 19 pp., was linked by David some time ago (IIRC). In any event, it is worth reading.

First as to the drawbacks of traditional systems, pp. 4-5:

15. Current UNDP guidance says that ‘It is important to emphasise at the outset that traditional justice systems should only be recognised and supported when they are consistent with the rule of law and respect for the human rights of all groups in society”. Unfortunately, they never are. All traditional justice systems tend to suffer from one or more of the following:

Male dominated

• Most rural societies in the developing world orbit around male authority figures and tend to exclude women and children and discriminate against young adults of either gender;

Ethnic/tribal/religious exclusion

• Traditional structures can often exclude those who are not from the relevant tribe, village or religion or can deliver sentences that are nonsensical to the victim or accused (e.g. a Christian forum forgiving an accused when the victim wants retribution/reparation).

Violate human rights

• Sentences can include execution or violent punishment or forced marriages and other results which seem inconsistent with the European interpretation of human rights.

Unpredictable

• Judgments and sentences can vary wildly one day to the next, let alone from one district to the next. Laws are rarely codified and written down (even if the practitioners can read them)

No appeal process

• Either there is no right of appeal, or it is not widely known about, or making an appeal is likely to jeopardise an accused’s wider interests because they and their family will be penalised for undermining an elder’s authority.

The first, third and fifth "drawbacks" reflect current "Western" constructs, which would be immaterial if the goal is not to convert the sauvage (whether bon or mal).

As to the upside of traditional justice, p.5:

16. Despite what are often seen as flaws, it is often estimated that around 90% of people living in societies with a plural legal system access justice via traditional mechanisms. This is because most systems have one or all of the following advantages:

Accessibility

• The system is usually in the area where the victim lives, uses the same language he/she speaks and does not require the use of expensive solicitors and barristers.

Culturally relevant

• Those applying judgment to the case have similar values/religion/beliefs as those before them and base sentences in ways that make sense to all concerned.

• It is quick

Engaging

• It involves the family/ clan/ tribe/ village. Which ensure that any decision is enforced. By extension, it need not involve the police force, often feared and a further source of expense in bribes.

Conciliatory

• It takes the need of the entire community into account and often focuses on reconciliation as anyone found guilty will almost always continue to live in the community. Sentences often include fines or other reparative mechanisms rather than retributive violence or exclusion from the community.

Flexibility

• Rules and procedures are not fixed and can adapt to the specifics of the case at hand.

The report goes on to consider these various pluses and minuses in more depth; as well as looking more closely at the justice sectors in Sierra Leone, South Africa, Rwanda and Afghanistan.

As to SL (pp. 9-10):

34. Ever since its formal establishment as a British colony in the Nineteenth century, Sierra Leone has operated with a two-tier legal system: traditional or customary justice based on local chiefs and an English common-law based court system. The formal status of the traditional element has varied over time but has always remained the main conduit for justice for the vast majority of the population. This is a pattern common to most African ex-colonial states. In structural terms, and in descending order, there is a Supreme Court, a Court of Appeal, a High Court, Magistrate Courts and Local Courts (also known as Chief’s courts). The Local Courts apply “customary” justice in their area and there is a right of appeal to a Magistrate (sometimes heard in a Magistrate’s court, sometimes in what is called a District Appeal Court, when the Magistrate is assisted by two experts in customary law).
......
39. In 2003, the progress made in encouraging police officers to make arrests was being undermined by the fact that, there were only around 12 magistrates in the country (most based in Freetown) and all openly corrupt. If the police arrested someone (e.g., for stealing), in the unlikely event that the case actually made its way to the courts, the magistrate was simply bribed to release the accused. As a result, ordinary Sierra Leoneans saw little point in using the official state channels of justice and remained reliant on their traditional justice mechanisms (delivered by village elders or by witch doctors) as a way of seeking redress.

40. The traditional justice system is based upon a hierarchy of chiefs: village chiefs, town chiefs, sector chiefs and, at the top, a paramount chief, each of whom was responsible for administering justice in their specific area. This structure had been recognised formally by the colonial authorities in 1937, when the chiefs were allowed to preside over court cases affecting people in their area . Following independence, this power was repealed by the 1963 Local Court Act, which limited the chiefs’ powers to minor civil cases and created local courts led by court chairmen (appointed by the Government) and assisted by a panel of elders and others. Despite these provisions, the chiefs continued to be the first point of call for most citizens seeking justice.

41. Today, the picture is even more complex. The conflict destroyed much legal infrastructure in rural communities and violence was also directed at chiefs seen to be favouring the “wrong” side. Knowledge of the (unwritten) customary laws became weak (even by those supposed to be applying them) and many chiefs invented new laws. As a result, judgments can be wildly different from one case to the next. With little knowledge of the laws that are supposed to apply to them (state and traditional) and a low literacy rate, hindering clarification, people have turned to alternative mechanisms to help mediate in disputes: family headmen, faith groups, secret societies, youth associations etc. A study for the UK-supported Justice Sector Development Programme counted 16 different justice mechanisms of some sort in Sierra Leone.

All of this proves out M-A's points.

Regards

Mike

[marct]

First, the document can be found here (URL weirdness prevented a clean link, sorry ).

Second, yes, the myth is the same one; it shows up in both bon and mal variants, and is quite widespread. It has a whole slew of dangerous ramifications but, for our purposes, probably the most dangerous is the assumption that "traditional" means "unchanging", coupled with a degenerationist view of Western society. I'm sure Levi-Strauss would just say that it was the bianry opposition of the older developmental paradigm .

Third, Barsoom is a totally cool place and, if we are talking about ERB's fantasy related to war and politics, let's not forget wither the Venus series, which was tied pretty heavily to the lead up to WW II, and his last work Beyond the Farthest Star.

[jmm99]

Link to RCDS 2008 reports and link to The Role of the Justice Sector in Security Sector Reform, a Seaford House Paper for 2008.

Cheers

Mike

[Bob's World]

I suspect all societies are a lot more "tribal" than some of the more "modern" ones would care to admit. Particularly when the more "primative" ones are actually much better at being tribal than the advanced ones are. To think such thoughts upsets our sense of order and priority. After all, how can one be both superior to and inferior to another at the same time??

Oh, and I must confess,in my middle school years I consumed everything Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote. Moved on to Louis Lamour in High School. I'm sure a shrink would have something pithy to empart given that insight.

[M-A Lagrange]

You will find below part of a report and I found very much interesting on the question of tribal justice. To protect the people, I changed the names and locations. But still, what this reports shows, is that traditional justice is sometime not that helpful to solve problems and protect the people.
For everyone to understand, the Monyomiji are traditional youth groups who are in charge to defend the village. But unaddressed issues from the past, political miss management and decades of war have completely altered the very core spirit of Monyomiji.
It also shows the limits of traditional justice which is, most of the time, limited to a village (even in the same tribal/ethnic group area).
I hope this case study will help everyone to approach the issues raised in this threat problematic on a very practical way.
I found this report representative as it shows the limits of tribal justice, limits of modern justiceimplementation and limits and challenges of external actors in such problematic.


0n 23rd April 2010 CAD met with the Commissioner of G. The aim was to gain information on the recently reported killing incident in X. He reported that a boy (student) was killed at 0800hrs on 19th April 2010 by an unidentified gun man. It was thought to be in relation to a previous cattle raiding incidence. It was reported that following the death of this boy, the X Monyomiji mobilized and tracked the footprints of the assailant the village of Y. The X Monyomiji were allegedly ambushed by the Y Monjimji. A fire fight erupted and claimed two (02) lives from both sides, as well the injury of one X youth. The Commissioner reported that on 21 April 10, he traveled to both villages and attempted to defuse the situation. The X accused the Y for the recent killings and the Y accused the X of harassing their women. In Y village, the Commissioner gave a drive to a group of Y people who were reportedly stranded. They wanted to go to G after the end of voting process. However, while talking to some chiefs in X, local youths surrounded the vehicle with the Y passengers and started harassing them. This vehicle was guarded by the Commissioner’s police. The youth were acting aggressively but the Commissioner said that he was not directly targeted. A young male Y passenger was so frightened that he jumped out of the vehicle and ran back to Y. Upon reaching G, it was discovered that the boy was missing. The Commissioner then sent the police to Y. They confirmed that the boy was located with his family, alive and well. The Commissioner said that the situation in X is currently tense (as confirmed by the X Chief during a phone call), but fighting has ceased. Communication with Y village has not been monitored since the incident occurred. Y villagers are said to be very nervous and are fearful of a revenging attack. When asked about a special court previously established to settle long standing disputes between communities, The Commissioner indicated several problems with the process:
1) The reluctance of the people to help Police apprehend the culprits (main problem);
2) The lack of facility;
3) The fact that the Paramount Chief is based in G; and
4) Inadequate follow-up on the part of the authorities.
Police presence is sparse in X (few in number). The Commissioner vowed to send 15 Policemen in each of the two dispute locations as soon as logistics permits. It is intended for them to patrol the U, O and G roads, as well as Y and X roads. It is hoped that these patrols will act as deterrence against any potential tribal attacks. The Commissioner also stated that the tribal clashes between the two villages have violated the peace agreement reached last year. Nevertheless, this agreement still exists. The conflict is based on two major mutual grievances (stolen cattle not returned and murderers left unpunished). It is alleged that the Monyomiji are negatively influencing the problem by supporting the conflict instead of trying to help settle it. They wield a great deal of influence in the area, including the traditional authorities. The Commissioner requested UN to support a conference (under the auspices of the BLABLA Community Association) that would not only bring together representatives from Y and X, but also all other villages in X payam. Politicians should also be invited. CAD suggested that after the elections the time would be appropriate to facilitate such a gathering in order to strengthen commitment to the resolutions adopted in previous peace talks.

[marct]

Interesting report, MA. A couple of points, in no particular order, that I'd like to note.

First off, "tribal justice" certainly isn't a single thing; it can vary dramatically from group to group. The habit of thinking of tribal justice as a singular entity, however, is all part and parcel of that myth we were chatting about earlier.

Second point. Most, but not all, tribal justice systems are also tide in with some sort of feud system where the incentive to resolve an issue is balanced against the threat of ongoing raids. The cattle raids mentioned in this report sound like a fairly typical example of the type. The key point I wanted to bring out is that the threat of violence is from an equal group, not one that is (supposedly) superior.

Third point. Most tribal justice systems focus on the social good (of the tribe) rather than the individual good. While we can see resonances of this in the Common Law system coming from Britain, the emphasis is quite different.

Fourth point. Most tribal justice systems do not have written, codified "laws" per se; they operate on custom and breaches of custom that are viewed as endangering the group. Many of the "modern" legal codes actually derive out of attempts to overthrow custom by centralizing both threat of force and the right to define what is and is not a breach of "law". (As a side note, Mike and I chatted about this in reference to the Hittite legal code a while back).

Fifth point. Tribal justice systems are "evolved" rather than "designed". They tend to be both more flexible than legal codes and, at the same time, much more restrictive. They are more flexible in that they tend to look at both actions and effects, and their operations "make sense" of the actions in a larger narrative structure that is (generally) accepted by all parties. This means that they can handle "new" actions and situations sometimes much more easily than legal codes. They are also much more restrictive in some cases, especially where actions and effects are related to social roles.

Sixth point. Most tribal justice systems have some form of redress mechanism that allows for a social conflict to be halted and its continuation placed under a ban (threat of unified force). These mechanisms, however, are extremely variable as to when they kick in, who can perform them, etc.

Seventh point. Any time tribal groups are under massive social strain, all of the mechanisms change. As an evolved rather than designed system, these systems rely on some degree of homeostasis and, when that is disturbed, they are disturbed. One of the really smart things the Brits did with their system of indirect rule was to carve out areas of tribal justice systems that they could artificially hold in stasis and, thereby, manipulate the environmental variables.

Just some thoughts on an early Sunday morning with not enough coffee...

Cheers,

Marc

[jmm99]

re: the Lagrangian Paradise.

I gather this "district" has a number of villes (based on "roads discussion"; G is the main ville and district center with Commissioner and Paramount Chief; X, Y, O & U are subsidiary). Are all these ville folks from the same population group (e.g., common dialect, customs, etc.) ? What (if anything) differentiates folks in one ville from another ville (e.g., separate extended families or totem clans) ?

Based on this:

0n 23rd April 2010 CAD met with the Commissioner of G. The aim was to gain information on the recently reported killing incident in X. He reported that a boy (student) was killed at 0800hrs on 19th April 2010 by an unidentified gun man. It was thought to be in relation to a previous cattle raiding incidence. It was reported that following the death of this boy, the X Monyomiji mobilized and tracked the footprints of the assailant the village of Y. The X Monyomiji were allegedly ambushed by the Y Monjimji. A fire fight erupted and claimed two (02) lives from both sides, as well the injury of one X youth. The Commissioner reported that on 21 April 10, he traveled to both villages and attempted to defuse the situation. The X accused the Y for the recent killings and the Y accused the X of harassing their women.

the X & Y Monyomiji have down such "M" stuff as force projection, tracking and meeting force with force - as well as some "I" stuff (conflicting claims re: narrated causes, with some underlying "E" stuff, a fair inference).

Despite the "sensitive" situation vis a vis X and Y folks, the Commissioner seems to have free passage in both villages. Why is that so ? Can the same be said for the Paramount Chief (also residing at G) ?

What X and Y seem to lack is an "international" dispute resolution mechanism - "D" (on an inter-ville basis) is apparently lacking in their vocabulary; although it seems that the Commissioner and Paramount Chief have been involved in this unsuccessful attempt at "D":

When asked about a special court previously established to settle long standing disputes between communities, The Commissioner indicated several problems with the process:

1) The reluctance of the people to help Police apprehend the culprits (main problem);
2) The lack of facility;
3) The fact that the Paramount Chief is based in G; and
4) Inadequate follow-up on the part of the authorities.

Police presence is sparse in X (few in number). The Commissioner vowed to send 15 Policemen in each of the two dispute locations as soon as logistics permits.

Have these villes ever had a tribunal to settle inter-ville differences ? If so, when, what did it look like and why did it end ? More generally, how have these inter-ville armed conflicts ended in the past ? Or have they just settled down for a time until it's time for a new generation to "go to the mattresses" ?

As an alternative to a Weberian Paradise, is the Monyomiji system also suited to the local inter-ville relationships (so long as the conflict remains low intensity) by providing for "redistribution of wealth" (cattle raiding), allowing young men to prove and improve their status, get married and sire a flock of warrior kids, etc., etc. ?

Oh, and what's a CAD ?

Regards

Mike