For more than three decades, African peace mediation rested on a framework that became familiar across the continent. Wars were to be stopped through ceasefires and security arrangements, followed by negotiations over power-sharing, wealth-sharing, transitional justice and, eventually, national dialogue. The approach helped resolve some of Africa’s most difficult conflicts and became the backbone of mediation efforts by the African Union, IGAD and other regional organisations.
But many of the architects of those peace processes now believe that model is no longer sufficient. Former Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok argues that the mediation templates that shaped Africa’s post-Cold War peace processes were products of a very different international order.”The current templates that have been guiding us in mediation were a product of a certain period,” Hamdok said.
“You can call it the liberal order, or under liberal principles, whatever, but they were incubated in this period. The interesting thing is that in Africa they were creatively applied over a period of time. And that time may have come to an end.”He explained that mediation gradually evolved into a well-established sequence of political interventions that practitioners came to regard almost as standard operating procedure.
“There is a conflict. We know what to do. We’re trained to do A, B, C, D. Stop the war, security arrangement. The African Union went even further and said ‘Silencing the Guns’ just to make sure nothing is left unturned. From security arrangements you move into wealth-sharing, power-sharing, and then if that’s not enough, given the intensity of the war, you include transitional justice as part of the template. And then, since inclusivity becomes a permanent challenge, you say national dialogue.”For decades, he said, those approaches served Africa well.”
All of these were templates that were creatively applied through this period. Now, this period may have come to an end because war has made them obsolete. That’s why we need to discuss the nature of wars that are taking place. Maybe there are certain templates that need to be rescued, but we have reached the end of the line.
“The argument goes beyond procedural reform. Hamdok believes the character of war itself has changed.Conflicts are increasingly fragmented, involve numerous armed actors, are sustained by war economies and attract growing regional and international involvement. In such an environment, mediation can no longer assume that two clearly defined parties are negotiating towards a common political settlement.
That transformation, he said, has also altered the nature of negotiation itself. “Transaction has always been there. We practiced it in Sudan. We were listening to transactional requests, and we were responding to them. But these transactions were taking place under the rubric of a politically defined outcome to the mediation. Because at that time, the whole purpose of mediation was a political outcome.”
The difference today, he argued, is that political strategy is increasingly giving way to transactional bargaining.”So as long as you had a mediator that kept that intact, transaction could take place under this hegemony. Now that’s not there anymore. So transaction is now having its own life. And it’s no more called mediation. It’s called deal-making.”
He concurs with concerns raised by Kenya’s Prime Cabinet Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs, Musalia Mudavadi, in the first part of this series, where he questioned whether mediators now approach peace talks “as business negotiators” rather than as builders of sustainable political settlements.
IGAD Executive Secretary Dr. Workneh Gebeyehu believes the pressures confronting mediation extend far beyond Africa. “We gather today at a moment of profound consequence, not only for our region, but for the very idea of peace mediation itself,” he said. This is not an ordinary moment. And this is not an ordinary gathering. We meet at a time when the foundations that once sustained mediation are under visible and growing strain. The world that made mediation possible, anchored in shared norms, functioning multilateralism, and a minimum level of trust among states, is fragmenting before our eyes.”
For Workneh, the challenge is not simply another cycle of international instability.
“We are not simply living through a period of crisis. We are living through a transformation. An era in which mediation is no longer insulated from geopolitics but shaped by it. An era of competing initiatives, fragmented authority and diminishing coherence. An era in which legitimacy is no longer assumed, but must be earned, patiently and politically.”
He warned that even the philosophy underpinning mediation is changing.
“The space for principled, consensus-based engagement is narrowing, while short-term deal-making is gaining ground. And yet, precisely because of this, mediation has never been more necessary.”
Sudan, he argued, has become the clearest illustration of the crisis.
“Three years into a devastating war, mediation has not stopped the carnage. Despite sustained efforts, including by multilateral institutions, we have neither halted the fighting nor secured a credible political process. This is failure. And it must be acknowledged.”
His warning extended beyond Sudan itself. “Sudan is fast becoming the epicentre of a deeper crisis. The erosion of mediation itself. If mediation cannot make a difference in Sudan, its credibility everywhere is at risk.”
Hamdok believes one reason African institutions remain indispensable is that they derive their legitimacy from collective political consent rather than from the interests of individual powers.
“All of these multilateral institutions were created willingly by member states because each member state reached its limits in exercising its sovereignty. Therefore, when they created these multilateral institutions, they were actually enhancing their sovereignty through collective means.” He argued that no external process can substitute for political legitimacy rooted in the people themselves.
“The people are the ultimate legitimacy. Multilateralism is a way to include them.”
The emerging debate among African mediators is therefore not simply about improving existing peace processes. It is about deciding whether the continent requires an entirely new mediation framework, one capable of responding to fragmented wars, competing geopolitical interests and conflicts that increasingly resist conventional negotiation.
That discussion now turns to an even more difficult question. If the old architecture is reaching its limits, what should replace it? Coming next: Part Three examines proposals for rebuilding African mediation, including the role of the African Union, IGAD and regional institutions in reclaiming leadership over the continent’s peace processes-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
