Understanding Duress in Prolonged Conflicts: The Case of Casamance

Living in an area that has been a victim of a prolonged and violent conflict has a great impact on the people who originate from these areas or who are still living there. Enduring such hardships for years or perhaps even generations can have a significant impact on the lives, ways of thinking and even the local societies, which might incorporate the hardships that they endure into daily life. This essay will explore how such conflicts might have significant impacts on society “in duress” as explained in de Bruijn & Both (2018). These concepts are applied to the conflict in the Casamance region of Senegal, which has been in a state of conflict since 1982 although it can be argued that the origins of the conflict started under French colonialism starting in the 19th century (Fall, 2010).

Background to the Casamance Conflict:

The Casamance region is a semi-enclave of Senegal located between Guinea-Bissau and The Gambia. Due to this geographical isolation in the country with the Gambia cutting the region from the rest of Senegal by a length of approximately 300 kilometres and 50 kilometres in width and the fact that the land in Casamance mostly consists of forests, rivers and swamps whereas the more northern parts of Senegal are part of the Sahel, there are few points in common between Casamance and the rest of the country. This divide also shows itself in terms of cultural factors, with the North being predominantly Muslim and populated by the Wolofs whereas the South is predominantly Christian and Animist and populated by the Diola (Theobald, 2015). 

Resistance has always been present in the modern history of Casamance, with the Casamance people fighting against French colonialism and never acknowledging France as their coloniser. France also administered Casamance as a separate entity from Senegal between 1854 and 1939, only adding the region to Senegal in the years leading up to their independence in 1960 (Fall, 2010). These divides and resistance of the Casamance people eventually led to the creation of the MFDC (Movement of Democratic Forces of Casamance/Mouvement des Forces Démocratiques de Casamance) in 1947 as a pacifist regional party aiming to gain regional independence (Ngom & Sene, 2021). The MFDC eventually merged into Seghor’s BDS party in 1952 but was re-created by Abbé Diamacoune in 1982, leading a peaceful protest march against the government in which men and women of different ethnicities and religions participated. The Senegalese government reacted aggressively to the protest and mostly aimed their violence at the local Diola people. The following year, the MFDC started to carry out guerilla attacks against government forces and the conflict turned into a low-scale civil war in 1990 (Theobald, 2015). The war between government forces and the MFDC has occurred in cycles of violence, with periods of high-intensity violence being followed by periods with few incidents of violence between the groups but also aimed at the local population. As of 2021, the MFDC is a splintered organisation composed of several smaller armed groups due to differences in opinion between commanders but also because of peace talks between the Senegalese government and certain commanders of the MFDC (Ngom & Sene, 2021). 

Enduring hardship in conflict

When looking at the background of the conflict, it can be seen that the people living in the Casamance region have been suffering the effects of the conflict for multiple generations. At the time of writing, the conflict has been ongoing for 41 years, making it West Africa’s longest-running civil conflict (Evans, 2004). Due to the prolonged nature of the conflict and its cyclical violence, many people who originated from the region had no other choice but to flee to neighbouring regions or countries like The Gambia and Guinea-Bissau. These people mostly come from rural areas and depend on agriculture and livestock for their livelihoods. Although the exact numbers of refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) are unknown, various estimates have been made. According to estimates made at the beginning of the 21st century, during some of the highest levels of violence in the region, there were between 10,000 and 30,000 refugees divided among Guinea-Bissau and The Gambia in the year 2000 according to the UNHCR, whereas there were an estimated 40,000 to 64,000 refugees in the two countries as of 2004 according to the World Food Bank. Furthermore, between 14,000 and 38,000 IDPs who fled more rural areas were living in larger cities such as Zinguinchor in Casamance as of 2001 (Evans, 2007). Many of the people who have been affected by the conflict, including those who have been displaced by it, have been severely impacted by the violence that they have experienced. People who have experienced such hardships because of regional violence are often reluctant to talk about their experiences, out of fear of persecution, political divides or because of the traumatic events that they have witnessed have become a taboo topic within their society (Evans, 2021). Many of the hardships endured by these people are related to housing or economic factors like taking care of their crops and livestock or the issues with finding new ways to provide for their families once they are displaced (Evans, 2007). A significant number of internally displaced people attempt to return to their original homes, even just during the day while retreating to the safety of an urban environment at night, in an attempt to conserve their crops and livestock. However, these journeys are often hindered by MFDC forces who use violence to keep the original inhabitants off their lands and out of their houses (Evans, 2007). In a way, living with this violence becomes a type of normalcy for the people affected by the conflict, who base their existence, and by extent survival, around the conflict. This type of existence can be compared to the existence of other people affected by conflicts in West Africa, for example in Chad, which has experienced a long period of civil wars and ecological issues between 1965 and 1990 (de Bruijn & Both, 2018). 

De Bruijn & Both (2018) approach how the people affected by the hardships endured in Chad normalise and internalise them through the analytical lens of duress, a concept that can also be applied to the hardships endured by the people of Casamance. The concept of duress refers to actions used to coerce someone into doing something against their will through threats, violence or constraint among other things (de Bruijn & Both, 2018). The concept of duress includes three dimensions, all of which apply to the case of the Casamance as well. These dimensions are durée, normalisation and constrained agency.

When looking at the durée of duress, de Bruijn & Both (2018) argue that many of the current conflicts on the African continent have connections to or originate from the colonial legacy and the hardships that occurred under colonial rule, with for example the “pacification” of regions or people who opposed colonisation. In the case of the Casamance region, this reflected in the resistance to Portuguese and French colonial rule and the subsequent forced union between the Casamance region with the other regions of Senegal, causing major ethnic and geographical divides in the country. This forced union has left a major societal impact on the identity of the people living in the region, who often see the Wolofs and other ethnic groups in the North of the country as hierarchical and more similar to the people of Sudan whereas the Casamançais identify more with the people of Guinea-Bissau. This also led people originating from Casamance to fill in “lower” roles in Senegalese society, often working as farmers or providing services for the people originating from the North of the country (Lambert, 1998).

The second dimension of duress, the normalisation of hardship, can be defined according to de Bruijn & Both (2018) as the internalisation of chronic hardships to the extent that these hardships become part of everyday life and where the continuity of hardships determines the actions of a person in life. These chronic conditions of hardship can be, among others, everyday violence, oppression, the threat of war but also the memories of past violence (de Bruijn & Both, 2018). All of these examples of chronic conditions of hardship can also be applied to the people of Casamance, who, again, have been a victim of cycles of violence and oppression by both government forces and MFDC rebels for over forty years. Another interesting example within this conflict of how normalized these hardships are within Casamance society is the resurgence of violence in 2009 after 4 years of ceasefire. Clark (2011) names two factors for the resurgence of violence during that year. The first was the limited amount of resources that the MFDC had, which does not necessarily fall in line with this argument but the second factor according to Clark (2011) was what she called “ceasefire fatigue”. Clark (2011) argues that MFDC rebels got restless due to continued military presence in the region without them being allowed to fight. It can therefore be argued that the cycles of violence are so normalised with certain parties involved that it in a way becomes impossible to lay down arms, which in turn has significant negative effects on the general population in the region.

The third and final dimension of duress as described by de Bruijn & Both (2018) is constrained agency. Even though it is argued that agency is always already constrained by the factors of daily life, agency is especially constrained under factors of enduring hardship. De Bruijn & Both (2018) argue that this constrained agency can manifest itself in decisions such as joining a militia out of self-preservation, self-censorship, exile, or allying with an organisation to keep their families safe. Yet again, this notion of constrained agency also applies to the people in Casamance, who, as mentioned before, are generally considered to be of a lower class than people from other areas of Senegal. This helped create membership for the MFDC, especially in its early days, as many young, educated men could not find a job and felt like they were being stigmatized by the rest of Senegalese society, having no other choice but to join the MFDC (Clark, 2011). Besides this being an example of constrained agency, this can also be seen as an example of durée, as this is an issue that can be traced back to the colonial era. An additional example of this constrained agency is the self-imposed censorship regarding the conflict because the topic is taboo for many people who have experienced it. This is because many of the MFDC members hide among normal IDPs and refugees, therefore people are risking their safety if they share their thoughts (Evans, 2021).

When looking at the Casamance conflict, it can be argued that it is a good example of how de Bruijn & Both (2018) understand the notion of duress. The conflict itself took its official form in 1982 but it can be argued that ethnic and geographic tensions between Casamance and the other regions of Senegal started during Portuguese and French colonisation, when the region was forced to become a country with other regions which did not share the same ethnicities, beliefs, cultures, values or even landscape. This caused longstanding tensions between the two groups, affirming the durée dimension of a society in duress. Secondly, due to the length of the conflict, the hardships related to it have also been normalised in a way by Casamançais society due to recurring waves of violence and an apparent inability to embrace periods of non-violence for some of the actors involved. Finally, constrained agency in the Casamance region forces people to join armed groups, often for their own survival due to the social stigma given to them by the rest of Senegal. Due to this, the agency of people living in the region is even further constrained due to the taboo surrounding the conflict and the fear of sharing their thoughts with someone involved in the fight against the government.

Bibliography:

• Clark, K. M. (2011). Ripe or rotting: Civil society in the Casamance conflict. African Conflict and Peacebuilding Review, 1(2), 153-172.
• De Bruijn, M. and Both, J., 2018. Introduction: understanding experiences and decisions in situations of enduring hardship in Africa. Conflict and Society, 4(1), pp.186-198.
• Evans, M. (2007). ‘The suffering is too great’: urban internally displaced persons in the Casamance conflict, Senegal. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(1), 60-85.
• Evans, M. (2004). Senegal: Mouvement des forces démocratiques de la Casamance (MFDC). Royal Institute of International Affairs.
• Evans, M. (2021). Displacement in Casamance, Senegal: lessons (hopefully) learned, 2000–2019. Canadian Journal of African Studies/Revue canadienne des études africaines, 55(3), 635-654.
• Fall, A. (2010). Understanding The Casamance Conflict: A Background [online]. KAIPTC Monograph no. 7. Accra: Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre.
• Lambert, M. C. (1998). Violence and the war of words: Ethnicity v. nationalism in the Casamance. Africa, 68(4), 585-602.
• Ngom, A., & Sene, I. (2021). The Casamance Conflict and its Displaced Persons : An Overview. HAL (Le Centre Pour La Communication Scientifique Directe). https://doi.org/10.30845/ijhss.v11n8p3
• Theobald, A. L. (2015). Successful or Failed Rebellion? The Casamance Conflict from a Framing Perspective. Civil Wars, 17(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2015.1070452