Suchergebnisse

Cet article étudie la résistance aux prescriptions dominantes des politiques agricoles développées en Afrique dans le cadre de la nouvelle révolution verte promue depuis le début des années 2000. L'article part de l'étude de cas du Rwanda, un pays considéré comme le success-story de cette révolution verte en Afrique. Il étudie la manière dont la résistance s'y manifeste par rapport aux prescriptions de cette politique agricole. L'article montre que les actes de résistance y sont nombreux et de plus en plus documentés par la littérature dans le domaine du développement rural post-génocide au Rwanda. Cependant, il montre aussi une limite : cette littérature se concentre sur la dichotomie domination/émancipation ou encore pouvoir/résistance par rapport à la norme. Or, cette vision dichotomique entre le pouvoir et la résistance ignore comment, dans la performance même de la norme, la vie des corps – que la norme assujettit – a une agencéité qui peut permettre de subvertir cette norme. Finalement, le cas du Rwanda permettra de montrer qu'en plein conformisme, consciente ou inconsciente de la norme, la résistance est possible grâce à un pouvoir que la vie des corps a sur les normes qui les assujettissent.






Aymar Nyenyezi Bisoka, Assistant professor, Université de Mons, Belgique. Email: aymar.nyenyezi@gmail.com; aymar.nyenyezibisoka@umons.ac.be

Most national and international observers perceive recent political developments in Burundi (Nkurunziza's third term as head of state, constitutional reforms in 2018, presidential elections process in 2020) as a violation of the Arusha Peace Agreement signed in 2000, which was the cornerstone of the Burundian peace process. This article discusses the normative approach often adopted to evaluate the success or failure of the Arusha Agreement through an analysis of the variance between stipulations of the agreement and the reality on the ground. By mobilising intermedial interpretations of peace success, we proffer that the Arusha Agreement should be seen as a key moment in a dynamic process marked by power relations. Using a case of returnee land rights, we show that in actuality, the provisions of the Arusha Agreement were never fully implemented; revealing the real element that shaped the domain of returnee land in Burundi: power relations that express actors' interests.

Most national and international observers perceive recent political developments in Burundi (Nkurunziza's third term as head of state, constitutional reforms in 2018, presidential elections process in 2020) as a violation of the Arusha Peace Agreement signed in 2000, which was the cornerstone of the Burundian peace process. This article discusses the normative approach often adopted to evaluate the success or failure of the Arusha Agreement through an analysis of the variance between stipulations of the agreement and the reality on the ground. By mobilising intermedial interpretations of peace success, we proffer that the Arusha Agreement should be seen as a key moment in a dynamic process marked by power relations. Using a case of returnee land rights, we show that in actuality, the provisions of the Arusha Agreement were never fully implemented; revealing the real element that shaped the domain of returnee land in Burundi: power relations that express actors' interests.

Most national and international observers perceive recent political developments in Burundi (Nkurunziza's third term as head of state, constitutional reforms in 2018, presidential elections process in 2020) as a violation of the Arusha Peace Agreement signed in 2000, which was the cornerstone of the Burundian peace process. This article discusses the normative approach often adopted to evaluate the success or failure of the Arusha Agreement through an analysis of the variance between stipulations of the agreement and the reality on the ground. By mobilising intermedial interpretations of peace success, we proffer that the Arusha Agreement should be seen as a key moment in a dynamic process marked by power relations. Using a case of returnee land rights, we show that in actuality, the provisions of the Arusha Agreement were never fully implemented; revealing the real element that shaped the domain of returnee land in Burundi: power relations that express actors' interests.

In the Great Lakes region of Central Africa, land-use rights underwent profound changes following processes of colonization, commodification and conflict, leading to an increased individualization and privatization of tenure. Despite these evolutions, customary tenure continues to be described as a common-property system managed through a strong hierarchical and tribute-based land allocation mechanism. This central place of the commons in policy discourses either stems from a romantic, often Western, notion on communal land governance or from a neoliberal privatization discourse that frames communal land governance as chaotic and non-productive. In this article, we will use cases from Eastern DRC, Burundi and Rwanda to demonstrate how communal land governance has always existed in the region, but in modalities that do not correspond to the notions found in policy discourses. These cases demonstrate how the memory and the actual practice of communal land governance continues to play a role in contemporary land access negotiations. Through a process of institutional bricolage, the discourse of the, often imaginary, commons is used by different actors to legitimize the restructuring of land claims in their favour. Hence, the commons do not correspond to an idealized or normative situation, but they are rather a starting point to rethink land governance in a contextualized socio-historical perspective.