Lena Slachmuijlder, Director, Studio Ijambo, Burundi

Media as a tool for dialogue and reconciliation: The experience of Search for Common Ground in the Great Lakes region

The use of radio during the Rwandan genocide in 1994 in mobilising the population to participate in violence was a striking example of the power of radio to serve destructive political interests by manipulating hearts and minds. It also sparked a reflection by many international and local actors as to how to harness this power of radio towards more positive aims, notably the promotion of peace and reconciliation.

This was precisely the motivation that led Search for Common Ground to establish Studio Ijambo in 1995 in Bujumbura, Burundi. The aim of Studio Ijambo is to produce radio programmes which promote dialogue, peace and reconciliation. Rumours, misperceptions, fears and suspicions very often provoke or prolong a violent conflict. Journalists working in a highly polarised and partisan context are pressured to take sides in the conflict, further aggravating divisions. Search for Common Ground’s media interventions aim to provide credible and balanced information, presented in a format which is relevant for the population. Our programmes examine all sides of the conflict, and highlight the points that can unite, rather than divide Burundians. The Studio Ijambo slogan –Dialogue is the future– captures the essence of who we are and what we do.

How do we develop these initiatives?

The approach in developing these media interventions is multipronged. It involves:

targeting the issues and themes where there is the most need for objective, balanced and credible information (peace process, negotiations, cease-fire, transitional issues, justice, governance, role of armed groups, etc..)
highlighting positive examples of tolerance, collaboration, conflict resolution and reconciliation, by seeking out real life stories of people and local groups who are working for positive change and transforming conflicts, and by modeling these behaviours in radio formats such as serial drama;
promoting the participation of a wide diversity of viewpoints and perspectives, from politicians to rebel leaders to women’s groups, children and ordinary citizens, with the aim of seeking common ground on all possible levels;
tackling these objectives with a multi-ethnic team of media professionals, whose unity and teamwork symbolises the sense of tolerance and understanding that the radio programmes seek to promote, and whose diversity enhances the credibility and trustworthiness of the radio programmes;
establishing relationships with the widest possible array of broadcasters, including the government-operated media, in order to ensure the effective transmission of the programmes produced by Studio Ijambo.

What have we learned from our experience?

Radio is by far the most effective ways of communicating and facilitating dialogue in the countries in conflict in the Great Lakes region, due to the profound and pervasive oral tradition and relatively weak culture of print media;
Radio programmes using formats such as serial drama and short sketches, are accessible and attractive to a much larger audience than talk-oriented magazine programmes;
Programmes involving and directed at decision-makers have an important impact, despite having a smaller number of total listeners as compared to radio drama;
The inclusive and participative Studio Ijambo production approach has been contagious, and has impacted positively on both state and private media programming related to peace, negotiations and reconciliation;
Adopting the approach of «intended outcome programming» in which we seek to combat dangerous attitudes and promote behaviour change, is an important guiding strategy in the creation and development of programming;
Radio programmes can be the first step in a dialogue and peacebuilding process between adversaries who refuse to be in contact with each other; the ‘invisible room’ of a radio programme, in which adversaries converse, is often the predecessor to face-to-face contacts by the adversaries following the radio programme;
Radio programmes can change the way people feel about relations with other communities and prospects for peace in the future, challenging stereotypes and clichés, particularly regarding restoring the trust broken because of the war and conflict;
The diversity of participants and viewpoints in our radio programmes, and diversity in our team of producers, gives us credibility;
Training and working with professional journalists is important, but not sufficient in order to use media as a tool for dialogue and reconciliation. Training and orientation regarding the use of media for peacebuilding is also required to encourage journalists to go beyond ‘observing and reporting’;
Other forms and channels of communication, such as theatre, poetry, dance and music, can be important complementary strategies to pursue with the radio programmes. These channels of communication reach out to individuals and communities who are less attracted to talk radio or discussion programmes;

Have we had an impact?

Measuring the impact of media interventions entails an examination of the changes on the target groups’ attitudes, perceptions and behaviour. This is not an easily quantifiable indicator; however, Common Ground has consistently evaluated its work using a combination of quantitative and qualitative tools. These evaluations have shown the overwhelming popularity of the Studio Ijambo programmes; for example, approximately 90 per cent of Burundians listen regularly to the bi-weekly reconciliation radio drama series.

Studio Ijambo has earned itself a reputation for credible, unbiased reporting. According to an independent evaluation conducted at the end of 2001, 95 per cent of respondents answered positively to the question “Do Studio Ijambo programmes tell the truth?” In the same evaluation 89 per cent of respondents said that Studio Ijambo programmes contribute to the promotion of dialogue, 86 per cent said the programmes contributed to reconciliation and 91 per cent said they contribute to the return of peace in Burundi.

The evaluation also points to Common Ground’s role in establishing and reinforcing the discourse of peace. The evaluators heard from respondents that Common Ground’s work had taught people in Burundi the language of negotiation and possible co-existence despite differences. According to one respondent in the evaluation:

«The majority was silent for a long time, and extremists were loudest. Now that has changed. Balance has shifted to positive voices. The presence of NGOs is helping.”

Based on similar substantial feedback from a diverse cross section of Burundians, the evaluation team summarised this dimension of Common Ground’s work as follows: «SFCG influenced the vocabulary of the Burundian society by adding to it meaningful terms such as “negotiation,” “coexistence,” and “dialogue.”» The evaluation team continued : «This evaluation team is confident to state that SFCG made its mark on the Burundian society. This mark was reflected in increased ability among the public to express themselves on various political, social, ethnic and health-related issues, and increased awareness and application of conflict resolution and reconciliation methods.»

Evaluations of Common Ground’s work have consistently highlighted the importance of opening dialogue between opposing groups and divided communities. The below quotes elaborate this point:

“When people fight they do not stop to understand each other’s needs. They are busy shooting at each other. Studio Ijambo helps them hear each other’s needs and issues; this facilitates negotiations, and puts an end to the fight.”

«Many Burundians did not know the conditions in refugee camps. When you do not know these conditions, you do not realize how much they need to come back to their homes. SFCG’s work made the link between the refugee camps and the rest of the society, which touched many people, including me personally.”

The role of the media in holding authorities accountable to the population is another positive impact of Common Ground’s media interventions. An illustrative example occured in January 2003 in a predominantly Hutu suburb of Bujumbura. A soldier was robbed of his rifle. In response a batallion of military launched a killing and pillaging raid on the community in broad daylight, leaving 10 dead and scores of homes robbed of all their possessions. The media immediately began broadcasting stories of the event, including testimonies of the witnesses to the military attack. The response by the military was to publicly apologise for the incident, arrest two soldiers, and for the first time in Burundian history, actually return the household possessions that had been robbed by the military to the rightful owners.

The choice of radio as the most powerful and pertinent tool within the cultural context cannot be underestimated. The following quote from the evaluation notes:

“I see their goals as promoting peace through the media. This is more important than what people form outside Burundi understand, because we are an oral culture for whom the radio is much more important than another instrument. In such a culture people gather around the radio as a common daily occurrence, with the banana beer, to comment on what the radio is saying. This is an important process for us.”

What are the risks that we face?

Security risks faced by journalists (harassment and threats by official and unofficial groups and individuals; arbitrary arrests and detentions;)
Breakdown of relations of trust and cooperation with the radio stations which broadcast our programmes, including the increase in censorship and other blockages.
Alienation or loss of trust by one party in the conflict, through radio programming which is perceived as blaming or siding with one side of the conflict;
A lack of common purpose, trust and unity within the team of journalists (or other communicators, eg actors), due to their being part of the conflict by nature of being citizens of the country in conflict, and members of the ethnic groups concerned;
Partisan coverage of the conflict by journalists vulnerable to pressure, corruption or undue influence by one party in the conflict;
Partisan coverage of the conflict due to journalists who are unable or unwilling to overcome their own prejudices and stereotypes regarding the conflict;
Discouragement and demoralisation of the production team, faced with an often uncertain, and often not clearly positive, perspective for the future;

The above risks are present to varying degrees at various moments depending on the nature of the ongoing crisis. There are periods when the ethnic dimension of the conflict becomes predominant, such as when people of one ethnic group are targeted in an attack. At other moments the conflicting interpretations of Burundian history (often along ethnic lines) can be a cause of tension and mistrust within the team of journalists, each of whom have experienced profound loss and suffering on a personal level. At other times the injustices committed by all of the antagonists spark a solidarity within the media and a sense of common purpose by all journalists of all ethnicities and backgrounds.

Relations with various military and government authorities are often fluid and unpredictable. Direct threats against journalists is a real threat; however it is often the anonymous or ‘rogue element’ threats that instill more fear and hesitation amongst the journalists.

These risks are managed by efforts to implement Common Ground’s principles at a managementand organisational level. Promoting dialogue and communication, addressing ‘taboo’ subjects, and creating a climate of mutual trust and respect between all members of the various projects is an important goal of Common Ground’s work. Maintaining morale and a sense of motivation within the team is a constant challenge, even with a dynamic and experienced team. Sustaining this climate of interpersonal harmony fuels the sense of understanding and purpose of Common Ground’s goals and makes each member of the team more effective in seeking to achieve Common Ground’s larger objectives.

Partnerships: with whom and how?

Common Ground has involved donors and the UN system in supporting its work by being able to show, through consistent independent evaluations, the positive impact of its communications work. Common Ground has also demonstrated the synergistic effect of its communications strategies with the initiatives of civil society, women’s associations, youth groups, cultural groups to rebuild damaged relationships.

Donors have recognised the need to equip initiatives such as Studio Ijambo with the necessary human and material resources in order to produce large quantities of professional, quality radio programmes over an extended period of time. Donors have also understood the need to use resources to ensure that these quality programmes are broadcast on a diversity of state and private radio stations, which despite being in need of the programmes, often require payment for broadcast. Despite this being the inverse of the producer-broadcaster relationship in the developed countries, donors have understood the need to sustain these types of relationships with broadcasters in countries in conflict in the region.

Some of our production collaborations have included:

Programmes around traditional conflict resolution mechanism (bashingantahe) with UNDP’s project aimed at rehabilitating this mechanism;
Programmes around human rights in collaboration with the primary civil society human rights organisation;
Programmes around vulnerable youths, produced in collaboration with a NGO responding to this target group;
Programmes around the transitional constitution and elections in collaboration with an international civic education NGO;

Through collaboration with other projects of Search for Common Ground notably the Women’s Peace Centre and the Youth Project, the journalists are able to enrich their network of information and contacts with local associations and individuals working for positive change.

Collaboration with local radio stations and journalist associations is critical to the success of Search’s work in the Great Lakes. Studio Ijambo continues to broadcast its programmes on three independent radio stations in Burundi as well as the state broadcaster. In neighbouring Tanzania, Studio Ijambo programmes are broadcast on an independent radio station which covers most of the Burundian refugee camps. In Eastern Congo, Studio Ijambo programmes are broadcast on an independent radio station in Bukavu. In early 2002, Studio Ijambo also began broadcasting five programmes per week through the internet. The launch of the independent Radio Isanganiro in November 2002, supported by Search for Common Ground, saw the first ever webstreaming of a Burundian radio station, aimed specifically at targeting the large and influential Burundian diaspora.

In the DRC, Search has established close links with church, local civil society and NGO networks which serve as a distribution channel for recorded radio programmes, reaching far beyond the very limited radio coverage network. Collaboration with the United Nations Radio Okapi has also provided an essential channel for the distribution of Search for Common Ground radio programmes to a nationwide audience in DRC.

Collaboration with local partners also includes collaboration with other communicators, notably actors and musicians, who are often more effective conveyors of the peace and reconciliation message than journalists. Touring theatre troupes, using a participative approach, can be a more effective way to promote dialogue and share information, specifically when a conflict is geographically localised. Our collaboration with these groups includes considerable capacity building in order to enable them to continue with their own independent peacebuilding and reconciliation initiatives.

Conclusion

By touching people’s hearts and minds, media has the power to shape the way that people think and behave. It is a double-edged sword, with its potential to destroy or construct, depending on who uses it and how. The potential for media to play a role in conflict resolution and reconciliation is enormous. The experience of Common Ground in the Great Lakes provides many lessons:

Radio programmes which present diverse views and credible, balanced information can play an important role in combating rumours and creating trust between different stakeholders.
Radio programmes have been a first step in facilitating dialogue between antagonists unwilling to move from their position.
This dialogue has the effect of debunking stereotypes and clichés of the ‘other’ that feed mistrust and if not addressed, risk to fuel future conflicts.
Creating and sustaining a channel of communication and expression allows all sides of the conflict to express themselves, difusing built up tensions, and combating the perception of exclusion that so often foments the more rigid taking of positions by the antagonists.
Addressing sensitive issues such as ethnic identity, gender relations and HIV/AIDS status through radio programmes has broken through ‘taboos’ and promoted the values of peaceful coexistence, dialogue and negotiation in the country.

A common ground approach encourages people to examine the conflict, analyse their interests, imagine alternatives and engage themselves in relationships of trust for the future.
Common Ground media has elevated the standards, increased the accountability and contributed to improved practices of the media in Burundi.

In many countries, the word ‘dialogue’ is taken for granted. In the conflict-ridden Great Lakes, the absence of dialogue is a breeding ground for rumours and misinformation. Without accurate, balanced information, rumours become the reality on which people decide to act, the breeding ground for stereotypes to take root and develop a dangerous momentum.The majority of Africans in the Great Lakes aspire for harmony, peace and reconciliation; Common Ground programmes keep this vision alive and help make it our reality.