Technology can be a critical tool for conflict resolution, peace-making and reconciliation

To paraphrase Karl Marx, the history of the world is the history of conflicts and revolutions. At the height of the French Revolution, when the idea of “liberty, equality and fraternity” was replaced by the guillotine and the blood of the innocents was flowing through France, the philosopher Jacques Mallet du Pan remarked that “like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”

It has been my observation that revolutions are often accompanied by violence unless they are led by great leaders. Whether it is the reign of terror in France after the French Revolution, where approximately 17,000 people were executed or the aftermath of the Russian Revolution where between 50,000 and 200,000 people were executed or in China where in August 1966 approximately 1,772 were killed, revolutions lead to more violence after the revolution. Often the justification is to combat counter-revolution.

Here, I am excluding genocides in the Second World War, Rwanda and Cambodia because the horrors were so immense that they require special attention.

Why do revolutions lead to violence in their aftermath? It is because they attract certain types of personalities who are not suited to kindness, and very often, they do not know how to govern after the revolution. What then is to be done to combat such a flow of history and avoid deaths?

After our revolution in South Africa, we enacted engagement, peace and reconciliation to prevent post-revolution violence. Whether we were successful in this regard is a raging debate, but suffice to say, despite many imperfections that are too numerous to mention here, South Africa after 1994 fared better than most revolutions.

Intriguingly, debate persists over whether violence and a push for more demands should have been prioritised at the time. Some ask whether this would have led to a more equitable and equal future. I do not think this is the case. I think the violence would have consumed us as a nation and peace would have passed us by as a missed opportunity.

In 2015, the poet Warsan Shire wrote, “I held an atlas in my lap, ran my fingers across the whole world and whispered, where does it hurt? It answered everywhere, everywhere, everywhere.”

War has long defined our history.

The Global Conflict Tracker presents a grim picture of our current state of affairs. From civil war in South Sudan, the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, warring factions within Syria and the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, to serve as just a cursory overview, we are a world defined by instability and conflict.

In South Africa, the unrest that unfolded in mid-2021 demonstrated the impact of a state battered by years of State Capture, high unemployment and increasing inequality. The Washington Post referred to the conflict that ensued as a warning to the world: this is what happens when the gross disparities that shape a society boil over.

The psychologist William James once advised that war is so widespread because of its positive psychological effects. As he argued, war produces a sense of unity in the face of a shared threat. Others argue that wars are fought in the name of economic benefit. But this is a narrative we need to subvert. Science, engagement, peace and reconciliation should underpin our sense of unity. As James asserts, humans need to find “the moral equivalent of war” as a means of fulfilment. We seem to be faced with a juncture allowing us to do just this.