【演讲人介绍】：

　　马姆达尼教授现任乌干达马凯雷雷大学社会研究中心主任和美国哥伦比亚大学政治学讲座教授，他在乌干达长大，1974年获得哈佛大学博士学位。博士毕业后，长期在非洲各国的大学里任教，在任职马凯雷雷大学之前，还曾在达累斯萨拉姆大学和约翰内斯堡大学任教授职。马姆达尼是国际知名在非洲研究专家和政治评论家，2008年英国《展望》杂志和美国《外交事务》杂志举行的全球100名公共知识分子评选中，他位列第9。马姆达尼教授的专业方向是非洲研究和国际政治、殖民主义和后殖民主义、知识生产的政治等。主要著作有：Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror（2009），Good Muslim, Bad Muslim （2004），When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and Genocide in Rwanda （2001），Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism（1996），Politics and Class Formation in Uganda（1976）等。

【时间】：2011年11月1日（星期二）下午2:00

【地点】：复旦大学新闻学院办公楼三楼会议室（国定路400号）

【评议人】：复旦国际关系与公共事务学院：苏长和教授

【语言】：英语、中文

【主办】：复旦大学当代马克思主义新闻与传播研究中心
　复旦大学思想史研究中心


　　在本讲座中，马姆达尼教授将先对一些问题提出自己的反思：怎么看极端暴力？它是一种犯罪还是一种政治？怎样界定大规模暴力——无论是个人性的还是群体性的——的责任？今天对于这些问题的回答，大多基于两个历史经验：大屠杀和种族隔离，而对这两者的共同法律定义是“反人类罪”。马姆达尼教授认为，1970年代后期高涨的人权运动的意识形态基础来自于大屠杀的教训，并称自己为后纽伦堡运动。今日之人权运动认为，纽伦堡的教训就是，法律正义是对大规模暴力的唯一政治上可行，道德上可接受的反应。纽伦堡因而成了今日国际刑事法庭的典范，被当作今日每一宗大规模暴力事件的解毒剂，人权活动者在呼吁国际人道干预的时候也常常诉之于纽伦堡。而马姆达尼教授认为，在这点上，1991年12月组成的南非民主大会（CODESA）相比却提供了更具启发性的经验，它区分了不同形式的正义：法律的、政治的和社会的，并把政治正义放在了更加优先的地位。因为政治正义可以影响大量人群，而刑事法律的正义只针对个人。法律正义的目的是惩治，而政治正义的目标则是政治改革。

　　讲座的第二部分对近些年发生在非洲（象牙海岸、肯尼亚和达尔富尔）的极端暴力事件进行具体分析，对这些事件中暴力的社会基础，比如象牙海岸原住民与移民的冲突，肯尼亚和达尔富尔地区对土地权的对抗性观点等，逐一进行探索。马姆达尼教授反问，对于这些在大致相同的语境下爆发的暴力事件，国际社会为什么会呼吁截然不同的解决方式？

　　演讲的最后部分，马姆达尼教授将对最近发生在利比亚的外来干涉作为内部反抗的补充的方式提出自己的反思。他认为，利比亚发生的事对非洲提出了两重挑战，一是，利比亚的经验表明了内部改革的迫切性，不要再把CODESA看作是特例，而要从中吸取教训。其二，利比亚经验也提示我们如何去拓展理解政治责任问题，不仅要将所谓的加害者，而且也要将执行者包含其中。如果没有一个敦促执行者承担政治责任的政治框架，一种全球法律的存在可能吗？

Political Violence and Political Order: Reforming the African State

Mahmood Mamdani

Professor and Director, Makerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Herbert Lehman Professor of Government, Columbia University, New York

Abstract of Talk, Fudan University, November 1, 2011, 2:00 PM

The first part of the lecture will reflect on a set of questions: How shall we think of extreme violence – as criminal or political? And how shall we define responsibility for mass violence – individual or group-based?

Today, the answers to these questions are anchored in two historical experiences, the Holocaust and Apartheid, each the aftermath of a ‘crime against humanity’. I will argue that the human rights movement that gathered steam in the late 1970s

anchored itself ideologically in the lessons of the Holocaust and presented itself as a

post‐Nuremberg movement. Today, the human rights movement claims that the lesson of Nuremberg is that criminal justice is the only politically viable and morally acceptable response to mass violence. Nuremberg is today the model for the International Criminal Court (ICC), held as the fitting anti‐dote to every incident of mass violence. Human rights activists today draw on lessons of Nuremberg when they call for humanitarian intervention to rescue victims of extreme violence.

I shall turn to CODESA, the negotiations that ended apartheid, for a radically new way of to think about justice. To begin with, CODESA distinguished between different forms of justice – criminal, political and social. It prioritized political justice, the reform of the political system, over the other two. Political justice affects groups whereas criminal justice targets individuals. The object of criminal justice is punishment, that of political justice is political reform.

The second part of the lecture will focus on specific cases of extreme violence in the African context – Ivory Coast, Kenya and Darfur. I will explore the social basis of violence in the public sphere in the case of the Ivory Coast (rights of indigenes vs immigrants), Kenya and Darfur (rival notions of who owns land). I will ask why the international community as defined in the present has called for contradictory solutions in response to roughly similar contexts.

The lecture will close with a reflection on the lessons of external intervention as supplementary to internal revolt in Libya. I will argue that Libya presents Africa with a two-fold challenge. One, the Libyan experience forefronts the urgency of internal reform, thereby calling on us to stop thinking of CODESA (Convention for a Democratic South Africa), the talks that facilitated the end of apartheid, as exceptional, and to start drawing lessons from it. Two, the Libyan experience calls on us to broaden our understanding of political accountability, to include not only alleged perpetrators but also enforcers. Can there be a global law without a political framework to hold its enforcers accountable?