Jayne Docherty,
in her book Learning Lessons From Waco subtitles her careful analysis
of the futile negotiations between the U.S. government's police system
and the Branch Davidians "when the parties bring their gods to
the negotiation table." Docherty, who teaches in the Conflict Transformation
Program at Eastern Mennonite University, uses the actual transcripts
of the negotiations to analyze how they failed to resolve a clash of
world-views or even authentically consider the legitimacy of each other
during the time leading up to the final conflagration.
The Branch Davidians
were defending their passionate commitment to a millennial worldview,
a part of which was preparations for the "end times." These
preparations occupied the attention and loyalty of the adult members
of the enclave. Across the chasm, federal and regional law enforcement
officials quickly coalesced into a "Critical Incidence" team
that quickly had its protocols, strategies, values, and outcomes in
operation. Their worldview focused on disarming the enclave, arresting
those responsible for the deaths of the federal agents and disbanding
the entire compound. The day-to-day interchange between these two worldviews
extended for over 50 days, yet could not discover any common ground
sufficient to yield an agreement that would defuse the lethal zero-sum
outcome that was building.
These "lessons
from Waco" contain new directions for peacemakers considering how
to effectively engage the conflict raging between Israel and the Palestinians.
They also give an alternative historical experience to the "real
politic" habits of diplomacy.
A primary consideration
should be to understand historical clashes of world-views between theocratic
movements and secular states. The three monotheistic religions birthed
in the Mideast each have embedded in their DNA genetic impulses toward
theocracy. Obviously differing in how a theocracy should be constructed
and governed, nevertheless Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have,
from time to time, created or attempted to create an entire social structure
using their theologies and their moral codes. Yet none has been able
to sustain a theocracy for an extended period of time. It is not long
before the theocratic leaders begin to use the rationality and institutions
required for governance. To do so requires compromising the ideals of
their faith for the practical concessions demanded by day-to-day operations
and settling claims brought by diverse interests among the population.
The structures of governance grow in importance and in tension with
the "purity of faith" that originally fueled the theocracy.
Finally, even though the political leaders may give personal allegiance
to the faith, they decide and act based primarily on civil, political
considerations.
"Faithfulness"
is increasingly relegated to sacred spaces and actions, becoming a matter
of individual adherence and practice leaving only the prophetic critique
or moral outrage to give voice to the slippage from the founding ideals.
Is peace possible
right now in the Mideast, especially as the clash between the dominant
theocratic forces of Israel and the intense renewal forces of the Palestinians
continues to spiral through lethal intensifications? How will the demands
and needs of these forces be resolved?
We can contribute,
I believe, to the process toward peace by giving full recognition to
the forces at work:
I have no clear
idea how this conflict can be resolved. Approaching a peace accord from
the worldview of civil diplomacy and a strictly political framework
has not worked and will probably not in the future. As good as the Mitchell
proposals are, they simply do not take into account the clash of theocratic
worldviews and therefore will not diffuse the situation and will only
allow these worldviews to continue seething.
However, in learning
again "lessons from Waco" one option might contain the possibilities
for a mediated peace. The U.S. could either recruit a team of mediators
skilled in working with conflicts created by clashing worldviews or
support a UN initiative to do so. This would mean that the U.S. would
also need to remove itself from being a shadow "God Father"
who will reward the parties with approval and promises of aid. To be
successful, the mediation process cannot be merely a sub-text for the
U.S.'s attempt to maintain a protective hegemony among client states
for its national interests (which includes in no small measure the assured
supply of oil).
- Wallace
Ford
