Enhancing participatory conflict transformation in Sierra Leone: are 'traditional' authorities the best game in town?

African societies are fluid, flexible and ambiguous, encompassing multiple meanings and political responsibilities, strategically aligned between state officials and traditional authorities. Blurred boundaries between private and public, state and society, and endogenous and external forces entail heterogeneous technologies of power adopted by traditional authorities to integrate different functions. Hybridity and extraversion interweave with a wide spectrum of social engineering initiatives aimed at feeding into neoliberal projects. Ritualistic compliance with international standards appears underpinned by opportunism, whereby chieftaincies tend to constitute pivotal features of decentralisation policies and social order. Yet, local interests and loyalties seem to clash with normative underpinnings of democratic reforms and neoliberal hubris. Contemporary Sierra Leone arguably demonstrates that divisions originated in pre-colonial African 'states' crystallise in postcolonial statehood, within which logics of indirect rule are rebranded as decentralisation and chiefs are clients of the state while patrons of their own communities. Conflict management strategies encompass competencies mirroring evolving theoretical frameworks and justifying principles, whereby the ability of African chieftaincies to juggle ambiguity and contradictions bestows traditional authorities with potential for conflict transformation. Through the case study of Sierra Leone, this article attempts to explore controversial dialectics between roles of African traditional leaders and Lederach's approach to conflict transformation.