Home Blog Page 3

When Faith Becomes a Bridge: How Interfaith Dialogue Builds Peace in Northern Ghana

By
Abubakari Najimu and Marvin Senanu Akyea
-
0
Group of men in traditional clothing engaged in Muslim prayer outdoors.

How has interfaith dialogue build peace in Northern Ghana? How can interfaith dialogue bridge divides and dispell stereotypes? How can youth be involved in interfaith dialogue?

A Tapestry of Faith

In the bustling city of Tamale, the economic hub of Northern Ghana, the call to prayer from mosques blends with the songs of church choirs, reflecting a region where Muslims, Christians, and followers of traditional beliefs live side by side. While Northern Ghana is often associated with chieftaincy disputes, land conflicts, and political tensions, another story is unfolding, one of cooperation, dialogue, and peacebuilding across religious divides.

This climate of peaceful coexistence did not emerge by chance. It has been nurtured through sustained interfaith dialogue, community engagement, and collaborative efforts among religious leaders, civil society organizations, and state institutions. Northern Ghana’s experience demonstrates how religious diversity can become a powerful asset for peace rather than a source of conflict.

What Is Interfaith Dialogue?

Interfaith dialogue refers to structured and continuous engagement among people of different religious traditions aimed at promoting mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation. Instead of debating theological differences, participants focus on shared values such as peace, justice, compassion, and human dignity.

The Ghana Conference of Religions for Peace (GCRP), an active member of the global United Religions Initiative, works to promote mutual respect and cooperation among Ghana’s religious communities. Through dialogue platforms, educational activities, and community initiatives, religious leaders have become important partners in strengthening social cohesion and preventing conflict.

Evidence of Impact

Research increasingly confirms the effectiveness of interfaith dialogue in Northern Ghana. A study by Pealore, Titigah, and Duorinaah (2025), involving 381 respondents across Northern Ghana, found that 96 percent reported very high levels of peaceful coexistence among religious groups due to interfaith dialogue initiatives. The study further revealed that 91 percent believed interfaith engagement had contributed to reducing religious tensions, while 99 percent agreed that such initiatives generated sustainable peace outcomes.

Similarly, a study by Ishaq, Shamhuna, Kassim, and Sandow (2025) found that dialogue mechanisms become even more effective when linked to traditional authorities, district assemblies, and community governance structures. Their study introduced the concept of “structured hybridity,” which combines grassroots dialogue with formal institutions to strengthen social cohesion and conflict prevention.

Beyond Ghana, similar approaches have contributed to peacebuilding efforts in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, and Indonesia. Northern Ghana, therefore, offers valuable lessons for other multi-religious societies seeking sustainable pathways to peace.

Why Dialogue Works

Several factors help explain why interfaith dialogue has been effective in Northern Ghana.

One factor is that in many communities, faith leaders are not only spiritual guides but also mediators, educators, and community mobilizers. Their influence often extends beyond the reach of formal institutions.

Another factor is regular interaction. Interfaith forums, community meetings, and joint activities create opportunities for people from different religious backgrounds to engage directly with one another. This aligns with Allport’s Contact Hypothesis, which suggests that sustained interaction reduces prejudice and strengthens cooperation between groups.

A third reason is the focus on common challenges. Rather than debating religious differences, interfaith initiatives increasingly address practical issues such as youth unemployment, poverty, access to water, education, and community development. By working together on shared concerns, communities build trust and strengthen social bonds.

Development as a Tool for Peace

In Northern Ghana, development initiatives often serve as platforms for interfaith cooperation. Faith-based and community organizations support projects that benefit entire communities regardless of religious affiliation.

For example, World Vision Ghana’s water infrastructure projects have improved access to clean drinking water for schools and communities while promoting cooperation among diverse groups. Such interventions help address everyday needs while creating opportunities for collaboration and mutual trust.

The National Peace Council and other stakeholders have also supported community-based initiatives that encourage dialogue and cooperation across religious and ethnic lines. By serving shared community interests rather than specific religious groups, these projects demonstrate how development can reinforce peaceful coexistence.

The Role of Young People

Young people play a crucial role in sustaining interfaith peacebuilding efforts. Across Northern Ghana, youth-focused programmes encourage dialogue, leadership development, civic engagement, and peaceful coexistence.

Through schools, religious institutions, and community organizations, young people are learning to work together across religious boundaries. These relationships help reduce stereotypes and build a generation that values cooperation over division.

In May 2025, youth representatives from political parties, traditional authorities, and civil society organizations in Tamale adopted the Tamale Declaration, reaffirming their commitment to peacebuilding, dialogue, and social cohesion. The declaration illustrates how young people can move beyond being beneficiaries of peace initiatives to becoming leaders of them.

Building Strong Institutions

The sustainability of interfaith peacebuilding depends on strong institutions. Ghana’s peace architecture, including the National Peace Council, traditional authorities, faith-based organizations, and development partners, has helped create an enabling environment for dialogue and cooperation.

In the early months of 2026, the United Nations in Ghana hosted its first interfaith Iftar during Ramadan, bringing together representatives from major religious bodies and diplomatic missions. The event symbolized the growing recognition that faith communities are essential partners in promoting peace and development.

Research shows that when grassroots dialogue is supported by credible institutions, its impact expands significantly. Strong partnerships between religious leaders, traditional authorities, government agencies, and civil society organizations help ensure that peacebuilding efforts remain effective and sustainable.

Looking Ahead

Challenges remain, including youth unemployment, economic inequality, and politicized land disputes that can threaten social cohesion. Interfaith dialogue alone cannot solve every problem. However, the evidence from Northern Ghana demonstrates that it remains one of the most effective community-based approaches for preventing conflict and strengthening peaceful coexistence.

Northern Ghana demonstrates that religious diversity need not be a source of division. When supported by trusted institutions, informed by evidence, and connected to inclusive development, interfaith dialogue can transform diversity into one of society’s greatest assets for peace, resilience, and shared prosperity.

When supported by credible institutions, informed by research, and linked to inclusive development initiatives, interfaith dialogue can transform religious diversity from a potential source of tension into a powerful force for peace, development, and national unity.

Keywords: Ghana, Northern Ghana, interfaith, interfaith dialogue, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, youth, stereotypes, unity, social justice

Achieving Sustainable Peace in a South African Village Requires Understanding Subsets of Drivers of Violence

By
Dizline Mfanozelwe Shozi
-
0
Traditional Mseleku clearnsing ceremony in the village, photo via author Crispin Hemson.

How has violence impacted the South African village of Njobakazi? What are the different subsets of drivers of violence in Njobakazi? How can violence in Njobokazi be combatted?

Three decades after the peak of communal conflict in South Africa’s Njobokazi village, violence continues to plague the village to this day. Achieving sustainable peace in Njobkazi requires understanding that there are different subsets of drivers of violence there. 

My research on the village, published in 2023, reveals that drivers of violence there can be categorised into three types, which, are: root causes; enablers; and triggers. One major root cause of the conflict is warrior culture and strong masculinities (ubunsizwa), along with conquest mentality, one of the enablers was the ready availability of guns and dangerous weapons, and one of the triggers was traditional ceremonies. 

In Njobokazi, the warrior culture mentality affects men such that they develop a culture of revenge, which was evident and engulfed the community. The conquest mentality entailed that those who have been defeated must leave the area. Groups who were defeated were driven out of the village altogether (Shozi, 2023: 154).

The carrying of unlicensed firearms and other dangerous weapons, even in the absence of war, is one of the enablers of violence. If violence is triggered during the traditional ceremony or event, it is easy for gun owners to shoot and kill someone (Shozi, 2023: 161). As violence intensified from 1985 to 1992, more guns entered the Njobokazi area, and brutal attacks and killings had devastating effects on the community. Political violence was the most devastating part of the Njobokazi conflict because more guns were brought to the community by various political parties who were involved in the conflict.

Traditional ceremonies serve as one of the triggers of violence because people attend these functions in large numbers, sometimes including people who are enemies. It is important to note that communities might be foes for years while living side by side, but traditional ceremonies might then spark and trigger physical violence. The study found that the Shubuza traditional ceremony triggered violence that spiraled and triggered a series of violent attacks in the area from 1982 to 1997  (Shozi, 2023: 167).  

When drivers of violence were not addressed at Njobokazi, violence broke out and had a devastating impact on the community. Sadly, I contended that the most devastating aspect of the Njobokazi violent conflict was that so many people lost their lives, and some ended up being disabled. 

The study utilized an action research approach which assisted me to work with communities to come up with various intervention programs to address drivers of violence. During the study, drivers of violence were addressed with workshops to study the impact of the violence. Community workshops were run that developed ways of building peace.

We drew on well known peace initiatives which are the Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP), and the Institute for the Healing of Memories to address drivers of violence. The AVP is an international initiative that holds workshops in which participants consider the underlying causes of violence and tension, and practical ways to deal with it. People have used the initiative in places ranging from schools and youth groups to prisons. The Institute for the Healing of Memories, based in South Africa, aims to heal psychological scars from apartheid and other forms of violence and oppression. 

Furthermore, a major cleansing ceremony that drew on traditional rituals and animal sacrifice was also performed to cleanse the area, war lords, and warriors. Cleansing ceremonies in South Africa are often performed in order to restore order achieve forgiveness amid personal disputes. In Njobokazi, families perform cleansing ceremonies through the Shembe traditional church every year in January and July.

The impacts of these interventions were as follows: the resilient restoration of prayer in communities; tolerance; recognition of traditional leaders as peacebuilders; the community working as a collective to deal with trauma; and a sense of respect for human life and people being amenable to healing.  

In an effort to tackle these issues and attain sustainable peace, these interventions did not only address one type of driver of violence, but addressed all drivers of violence comprehensively. Failing to address these drivers of violence could lead to a resurgence of violence.  

Caroline Monnier (2024) reminds us that there is no sustainable peace without addressing the drivers of violence. Furthermore, Monnier (2024) argues that “despite growing polarization, there is a universal agreement on the urgent need to address the root causes of violence, whatever the type.”

Keywords: South Africa, Njobokazi village, violence, drivers, root causes, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, guns, gun control

This Week in Peace #134: July 3

By
Tara Abhasakun
-
0
Bukavu, eastern DRC.

This week, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) aims to hold Rwanda accountable for war. Humanitarian workers killed in South Sudan. NGOs call for international action in Sudan’s el-Obeid. 

DRC Aims to Hold Rwanda Accountable for War

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) aims to hold Rwanda accountable for the war in DRC’s eastern region. On June 26, the DRC filed a case against Rwanda at the International Criminal Court (ICJ).

DRC accuses Rwanda of breaking multiple treaties and supporting armed groups on its territory. DRC justice minister Guillaume Andali said DRC is seeking accountability for alleged breaches of conventions on genocide prevention, racial discrimination, women’s rights, and torture. 

In a statement, the ICJ said the application that the DRC filed concerns “abuses attributable to Rwanda over a period extending from 1996 to the present day.” The abuses, it says, “have primarily targeted Hutus present on Zairian, and subsequently Congolese, territory following the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994” in Rwanda.

In 2024, the UN Security Council found that Rwanda was backing the M23 rebel group in eastern DRC, however, Rwanda continues to deny this. Control over minerals in the DRC is at the heart of much of the conflict. 

Humanitarian Workers Killed in South Sudan

On June 29, five humanitarian workers were killed in South Sudan in an ambush while riding in a convoy in Duk county. UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said in a news conference, “We join our resident and humanitarian coordinator Ramanathan Balakrishnan in strongly condemning the attack.”

Dujarric called for a “prompt investigation” into the attack, stressing that it violated international law. 

South Sudan’s conflict between the military, loyal to president Salva Kiir, and insurgents believed to be allied with the suspended vice-president Riek Machar, has caused mass death and destruction for civilians. The country has roughly 330,000 refugees and asylum-seekers (mainly from Sudan), and 2 million internally displaced persons due to conflict. 

NGOs Call for International Action in Sudan’s El-Obeid

On June 26, 38 NGOs called for international action in Sudan’s city of el-Obeid. The NGOs released a letter urging the UN Human Rights Council to take “bold steps towards atrocity prevention and accountability” in the city. 

The letter demands that the council convene an urgent debate, send a fact-finding mission, strengthen accountability for all violations committed in Sudan, and end the impunity of perpetrators and their supporters and enablers. The letter added that el-Obeid has faced 18 months of “siege-like conditions” and is “at risk of an imminent ground offensive by the … RSF and their allied forces.”

Since the letter was released, the RSF has hit el-Obeid with drone attacks, damaging schools and a site housing internally displaced persons (IDPs). 

Sudan’s warring leaders of both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF are delaying peace for suffering civilians in el-Obeid. Both parties are fighting for absolute victory, and experts disagree on which side is more responsible for civilian suffering in the city.

While Sudanese academic Fathi Abu Ammar told Al Jazeera that the SAF is primarily responsible for the prolonged suffering by obstructing peace initiatives and refusing to establish safe corridors for civilians to leave. He also accused the SAF of using civilians as ‘human shields,’ and said the RSF was fighting to address real grievances. However, Sudanese journalist and political analyst Yousef Abdel Mannan rejected these claims, saying the RSF had committed widespread atrocities, including recent attacks on a girls’ school and a hospital. He added that people were not being held hostage by the army, but preferred to remain in their homes rather than be displaced by paramilitaries.

Keywords: peace, conflict, conflict resolution, DRC, Congo, South Sudan, Sudan, el-Obeid, Rwanda

Breaking Down Walls, Uniting Communities in Northern Ireland

By
Seamus Corr and Tara Abhasakun
-
0
Aerial shot of Black Mountain Shared Space.

What are peace walls in Northern Ireland? Why were peace walls originally erected during the Troubles? Why are communities in Northern Ireland breaking down peace walls today?

Although armed conflict has ended in Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic communities in the country remain divided in many ways today.

From 1968 to 1998, Northern Ireland was marked by a period of armed conflict known as the Troubles. The conflict was between Protestant unionists, who wished for the country to remain part of the UK, and Catholic nationalists, who wanted it to be part of the Republic of Ireland. The violence of The Troubles devastated Northern Ireland, killing some 3,600 people and injuring over 30,000.

During the Troubles, authorities erected what are known as ‘peace walls’ in order to separate Protestant and Catholic communities from one another to prevent conflict. 

Today, nearly 100 peace walls remain in the country, mainly in Belfast. In 2012, the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) launched its Peace Barriers Programme (formerly Peace Walls), which aims to bring communities living near peace walls to the point where they feel comfortable in talking about the softening of or complete removal of them.

Seamus Corr, project manager at Black Mountain Shared Space (BMSS) in Belfast, spoke to Peace News Network (PNN) about IFI’s work with communities and its struggles to help them feel comfortable without the walls.

Seamus Corr, project manager of the Black Mountain Shared Space Project (BMSSP) in West Belfast.

Can you first tell me what inspired this project?

This project grew from the reality of life along one of Belfast’s most sensitive interface areas — where the Nationalist Upper Springfield community meets the Protestant neighbourhoods of Springmartin and Highfield. For many years, this boundary has been a place where tensions could flare quickly, often leaving residents feeling vulnerable and unsure of what might happen next.

The project was born from a shared determination to reduce risk, strengthen relationships, and create a safer, more confident environment for everyone who lives along the interface.

Interface Communities, or Protestant and Catholic communities that border each other, still face sectarian gang violence, as well as parading and cultural celebrations. Can you describe these issues, and how they relate to bringing down the walls?

In Belfast’s interface communities, the legacy of division remains visible. Despite significant progress, these areas still experience periods of tension. Sectarian gang activity, intimidation, and disputes surrounding cultural traditions can quickly unsettle residents, serving as a stark reminder of how easily old patterns resurface.

These incidents, whether sparked by parades or provocative displays, carry a heavy emotional weight. For families living near interface boundaries, they reinforce a generational sense of vulnerability, while young people, often influenced by inherited narratives, can be drawn into confrontations that escalate rapidly.

However, we have spent years developing robust, trusted mechanisms to manage these situations. Through close cooperation between community workers, residents, youth providers, and statutory partners, we have established a rapid-response network that has significantly reduced both the frequency and severity of incidents.

Can you walk me through the process of getting communities more comfortable with the complete removal of the walls, or at least with talking about it? What does the process look like? Maybe you can discuss some community activities.

Supporting communities to even talk about the removal of peace walls is a gradual, relationship‑driven process. It begins with people, trust, and the space to speak honestly about their experiences. 

From the outset, community workers spend time on the ground listening to residents and showing them that their concerns and wellbeing are a priority. When people feel heard and supported , they are more open to exploring sensitive topics including wall removal.

We want residents to feel connected to this process so its important that there are regular updates, support and shared information. When there is clear communication, confidence grows and then that allows us to introduce conversations about the future of Peace Walls in their area.

Transformation of Navarra Park, an interface in North Belfast turned into a playpark and shared space.

We also include all age groups to build confidence in a range of inclusive workshops, cross-community events, programs, and even social events to help people meet one another. 

Communities are more willing to engage when everyone’s voice matters. These activities also help to create positive memories and relationships.

These discussions are emotional, challenging, and deeply personal but they are also transformative. Walls begin to feel less like protection and more like a reminder of pain that communities are slowly learning to move beyond.

The Peace Barriers Programme aim was to bring communities living near peace walls to the point where they feel comfortable in talking about the softening of or complete removal of them. How many communities have you worked with, and in how many of these communities have the walls been broken down?

I have worked closely with ten interface communities across North and West Belfast. Each area has its own history, its own challenges, and its own pace of progress and work has always been shaped around the needs and readiness of local people.

Through long‑term engagement, relationship building, and consistent communication, six of these communities have now reached the point where Peace Walls have been softened, reduced, or fully removed. In each case, this has only happened after residents felt confident, informed, and genuinely involved in the process.

The peace gate on Flax Street in Belfast now connects communities separated by a fixed barrier for the past 40 years.

Can you point to any instances of improved relations between communities following the breakdown of walls? In communities where the walls are still up, can you point to instances where your activities improved relations between communities?

There is clear evidence that when peace barriers are removed and communities are properly supported, relationships improve in visible, tangible ways. Our work at Black Mountain Shared Space (BMSS) is a testament to this transformation.

Since the removal of the peace barrier at Ballygomartin Road and Springfield Heights, the area has moved from a symbolic dividing line to a thriving shared hub. Following an £8 million investment in the former Finlay’s site, our new shared building opened in June 2024. Since then, over 25,000 people have participated in programs and events. Crucially, both communities now use this space equally, with no sense of ownership or exclusion. It has become a beacon of hope, where families walk through the same doors and young people mix naturally—a reality that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

Even where physical walls remain, our engagement work, spanning dialogue programmes, youth initiatives, shared training, and cross-community events, has driven significant progress. We now have:

  • Better communication between residents on both sides of the interface.
  • Reduced tensions during traditional flashpoints.
  • Increased collaboration on local issues.
  • Greater understanding of one another’s histories, fears, and aspirations.
The transformation of a harsh Peace Wall on North Queen Street in Belfast has improved residents lives. They now have gardens and can access their house via the front door.

What’s the biggest challenge of this project? Have any communities given you a lot of pushback?

A major challenge is ensuring the long-term sustainability of our work. Reaching this point has required years of dedicated trust-building, but the next phase is equally critical. For residents who have lived beside Peace Walls for decades, consistent support is essential to maintain their engagement with the prospect of change.

While we have encountered pushback, it typically stems from uncertainty rather than opposition. Having lived with these walls for generations, many view them as symbols of safety and control so its natural for change to feel unsettling.

Attitudes shift when people feel included. We have seen individuals once strongly opposed to barrier removal now actively participating in Black Mountain Shared Space programs. Their involvement is a powerful indicator that fears soften when people experience the tangible benefits of a shared environment for themselves.

Keywords: Northern Ireland, Ireland, Belfast, Peace Walls, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, breaking down walls

Coming Home from Al-Shabaab: What Determines Whether Communities Forgive in Somalia 

By
Blair Welsh and Prabin Khadka
-
0
A Somali woman walking down a road

Can communities forgive former al-Shabaab members in Somalia? How is reintegration different for women than men? What is the Somali government doing to reintegrate and rehabilitate former al-Shabaab members?

When she was 20, a young woman known as Khadija was recruited into al-Shabaab and eventually put in charge of dozens of other women in the group. Years later, she escaped by selling her gun outside the camp and using the money to get home. The reception she received from her own family was cold, and she has struggled ever since to find work and rebuild her life. Her story, recorded by researchers at the Institute for Security Studies, is far from unique. Although Khadija is from Kenya, her story is similar to those of many Somalis who joined al-Shabaab. Somalia’s long-running conflict with al-Shabaab has pushed thousands of people, including children, into the group’s ranks. Many later try to leave. What happens to them next often depends less on formal government policy than on whether their communities are willing to accept them back.

A new study offers some of the clearest evidence yet on what shapes that willingness, at a time when the conflict in Somalia is still active.

A program built for women and children

Since 2012, Somalia’s Defector Rehabilitation Programme (DRP) has offered people leaving al-Shabaab a path back into civilian life, including dedicated centers for women and children. An estimated 3,000 people—including roughly 600 women—have participated in the program. According to the International Peace Institute, many more try to return to their communities informally, without government support.

Researchers Dr. Blair Welsh of the University of Western Ontario and Dr. Prabin Khadka, of the University of Essex, set out to understand whether ordinary citizens are actually willing to accept these defectors back into their neighborhoods. The researchers reached 880 people across 81 communities in seven cities, including Baidoa, Kismayo, and Jowhaar. Respondents were asked, in different versions of the same scenario, whether they thought their community should accept a former al-Shabaab member home, with the defector’s age and gender varied at random. The study is published in International Studies Quarterly and a shorter summary appears as a May 2026 policy brief with the Governance and Local Development Institute.

What ordinary citizens told researchers

The headline finding cuts against a common assumption. Many observers might expect communities to be harsher toward women who joined a violent group, since doing so breaks with the gendered expectations placed on them. Instead, the opposite was found. Female defectors were somewhat more likely to be accepted than male ones, and children were more likely to be accepted than adults.

Overall, 76 percent of respondents said they were willing to welcome defectors into their community, and 68 percent said they were willing to forgive former members for their time with al-Shabaab. But that openness was far from uniform. In Jowhaar, 95 percent of respondents supported acceptance. In Baidoa, where exposure to al-Shabaab violence has been higher, the figure dropped to 58 percent. People whose immediate family had been killed by al-Shabaab were measurably less willing to accept defectors, a reminder that reconciliation has to compete with real grief and fear.

Two other factors mattered a great deal to the people surveyed. Defectors who had served in non-fighting roles, such as cooking or logistics, or who had been forcibly recruited rather than joining voluntarily, were significantly more likely to be welcomed. Among women, those who had been married to al-Shabaab fighters, whether by choice or by force, were much more likely to be accepted, by 53 to 59 percentage points, compared to unmarried women. The researchers suggest this reflects existing social roles available to women as wives and mothers, which communities can recognize and accept even when the woman’s broader history is more complicated.

Where it falls short

The study also points to real limits in the current system. Vocational training, which the researchers found to be an important factor in communities accepting female defectors, is currently only available in a small capacity. Financial support from government and non-government organizations for children completing the program, found to matter a great deal for their acceptance, is applied inconsistently across rehabilitation sites. Outreach in high-conflict areas like Baidoa, where acceptance is lowest, has not kept pace with need.

What this means for communities

The clearest practical lesson from the research is that acceptance is not simply a matter of time or willpower. Rather, it responds to specific, fixable conditions. Communities that already have some experience hosting defectors are substantially more open to accepting others, suggesting that structured introductions, through local elders or community meetings, could help build trust in areas with no prior exposure.

For families like Khadija’s, none of this guarantees an easier homecoming. But the findings suggest that how a community is prepared and what it is told about a defector’s background and circumstances can shape whether that homecoming succeeds. In a conflict that remains unresolved, the success of reintegration may depend as much on local acts of acceptance and trust-building as on policies crafted in the capital.

Keywords: Somalia, al-Shabaab, extremism, terrorism, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, reintegration

1234...192Page 3 of 192