One could also define ‘Palaver’ as a common search through the word to maintain the integrity of the community, that is, to promote life through a reconciliation that creates peace. It is an effort by all
to ensure peace.

It is an active search through dialogue, through the word to establish a peace based on justice and benevolence, a harmonious peace. That harmony and peace are the true aims of ‘Palaver’ can also be seen from how conflicts are resolved. At the end of ‘Palaver’ one always tries to save the guilty party and not to exalt the winner too much. What matters is reconciliation and that harmony, and communion are re-established. Such a process is demanding and requires certain conditions for its realization. First of all, we need wise leaders (able to discern between good and evil), competent (in eloquence and knowledge of history) and experts in the traditions of the Ancestors.

‘Palaver’ as an instrument of reconciliation. File swm

The fundamental experience that lies at the root of the ‘Palaver’ as an instrument of reconciliation is that of communion. Communion requires taking into consideration all members of the community as speaking subjects. Communion is true only when the community promotes and guarantees the freedom of each of its members and when each member is aware of being free only in the relationship with the community. The reference to the community is fundamental for the freedom of the individual itself. Personal experience always contains a community dimension. On the other hand, every experience is about the word and therefore given communication and the community. It is within the community that the word manifests its transparency and creative capacity for life. This is why the place of the word and of verification of every experience is the community, that is, the context of the relationship with otherness.
The ‘Palaver’ is therefore a dynamic process whose dynamism is based on the ability of individuals to carry forward new experiences that enrich the community, that promote life and communion. In this perspective, the ultimate criterion of reference is not the individual, but the individual as related to the community. It is this relationship that establishes the individual as a subject.

The ‘Palaver’ requires greater objectivity and great sincerity. 123rf

Precisely because it intends to re-establish communion, the ‘Palaver’ requires the presence of all interested parties and the community as a whole, because without the agreement of each one and of all, social harmony cannot be achieved. From each one, transparency in communication, the predisposition not to spoil communication, the willingness to say frankly what motivates his actions and his expectations are expected.
The ‘Palaver’ requires greater objectivity and great sincerity. These are achieved de facto through the presence of all. When someone is not sincere, those who know him are present and can protest. As Abdon Atangana, Professor at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa, rightly says, “What is striking in the ‘Palaver’, as well as in every sincere dialogue between Africans, is the freedom and frankness in the discussion, in the way in which each frees themselves from any false courtesy, telling each other the truth to their faces”. The sincerity of the entire community is at stake here.
These conditions presuppose freedom of speech, that is, to speak and to be listened to. Everyone is responsible for social harmony. If it is true that the concept of community (relationship) is fundamental to understanding the person in Africa, it is also true that this concept is closely linked to the tribe or clan. How can one think of it beyond the tribe in the context of the construction of the nation-state and a fraternal world? This remains the challenge: how to think of plurality and community, the State as a community of communities that live harmoniously and in peace among themselves in search of the promotion of the Common Good?

“We all share the same humanity”.

At the basis of every community is the relationship, the ability to relate to the different or better “relationality”. It presupposes dispositions such as those of friendship, of altruism, without being reduced to them. Relationality does not depend on the sympathy or good feelings that one can have towards someone else. It is founded in the sense of responsibility for one’s own actions, in the sense of our obligation towards those who depend on us and of the loyalty that we must have towards those who commit themselves to others. It demands respect for one’s traditions and those of other cultures; the recognition of the fact that we all share the same humanity.
It is in this context that the principle of a democracy based on the principle of the majority must be rethought because in such a democracy minorities will always be afraid of being crushed by the majority groups. Everyone must participate. In this context, the ‘Palaver’ is a good principle. (Open Photo: 123rf)
(J.M.)