Paper short abstract:

The paper argues that 'negotiating law' and 'following the rules' are not opposite poles of a spectrum of rule-abiding or -rejecting. Based on the example of the ethnic group of the Oromo of Ethiopia, the 'channelling forces' of procedural rule-conformity will be examined.

Paper long abstract:

Procedural legalism and ritualization as a way of 'legalizing' decisions may hint at the importance of ethical precepts and the 'habitus of legal conduct', but also invite to the exploration of legal practice: What do actors do with, or about, rules? This paper argues that 'negotiating law' and 'following the rules' are not opposite poles of a spectrum of rule-abiding or -rejecting. Not only can negotiation be practiced 'despite', or within the limits set by, rules, it can also be done by means of applying them. Similarly, negotiating, or contesting the law can lead to new rules emerging, or existing ones being consolidated. Anthropology needs to theorise 'what to do' with rules, from the perspective of actors.

Based on the example of the ethnic group of the Oromo of Central Ethiopia, who, parallel to village and state courts, follow a 'traditional law' (seera) that is combined with elaborate mediation procedures, the 'channeling forces' of procedural rule-conformity shall be examined. A powerful legal ideology appears to be at work in these procedures that rests upon societal 'codes of conduct' and religious premises of sanctioning through higher forces. Following instances of homicide or other disputes, a virtual 'peacefare' is applied by Oromo elders, religious authorities and judges to get involved parties to agree to peace-making. This raises the question of how powerful the rules of procedure are in themselves, and what means individual actors possibly have to resist. Is the study of procedure, thus, a call 'back to the rules'?