Committee for Conflict Transformation Support

CCTS
Review 29

At a conference in April 2005, I got into conversation with a woman who had been active in the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and had continued to work at the grassroots, campaigning for social change. On discovering that I was director of a Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Studies she remarked with a smile – actually it was more of a smirk: ‘Oh – you are one of those reconciliation people are you?’  She was categorising me with those in post-apartheid South Africa who have prioritised the restoration of social peace above the pursuit of social justice. It also became apparent that she associated me with those idealists inspired by such prophets as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who hold out a utopian vision of a ‘rainbow kingdom’ informed by notions of forgiveness and injunctions that we should all love each other as members of a common human family. 
Beyond the banter she had struck a chord that resonated with some ideas that had been circulating around my mind for some time. I had begun to feel that too many people involved in conflict transformation and reconciliation work operated with an unrealistic image of ‘reconciliation’. However weakly their vision might be expressed, at its core was some kind of scenario where former enemies shook hands, embraced and lived a life of cooperative co-existence ever after. In so many cases with which I was familiar, such a vision, however beautiful, seemed unrealistic. Furthermore, to the extent that such a vision served as a guide to action, then it seemed to me that it could lead to inappropriate forms of intervention. Just to take one example – there is evidence from anecdotal and research sources that the people of Northern Ireland are ready for peace – an end to the killing and the violence, but they are not ready for ‘reconciliation’ which, for many, seems ‘utopian or idealistic ... demanding a process of coming together for which they were not ready.’(1)
So, I thought it was time I tried once again to crystallise my thoughts and observations about this elusive concept. Here are some of them.

• Reconciliation is an open-textured concept, in the sense that there cannot be an exhaustive specification of the conditions for its correct use, but at the same time most writers and practitioners who use the term generally include some reference to a core feature: the restoration of constructive relationships between those that have been divided.
• As a process through which fractured relationships can be repaired or healed, reconciliation can take place between different types of ‘actors’: individuals, groups, and larger collectivities such as nations or peoples. 
• Reconciliation initiatives can take place at any point during a destructive conflict, as people seek to establish bridges across the conflict lines, but ‘reconciliation work’ is more commonly encountered during the post-settlement phase when the space available for such activities becomes broader.
• Reconciliation can refer both to a process and to a goal. Recognising when that condition of reconciliation has been achieved is somewhat problematic, and must always be context specific.
• Hence, in envisaging the type of coexistence – the goal – of any particular reconciliation process, due consideration must be given to the types of relationships that existed before the fracture and, of course, to the way the fracture took place. Thus, if the former relationship was a simple trading or economic one, then reconciliation would involve the restoration of what was a quite narrowly instrumental relationship between the parties. The richer and more multi-faceted the relationship, the more problematic it becomes to identify those features of a post-fracture relationship that might merit the use of the term ‘reconciliation’.
• According to Antonia Chayes and Martha Minow, ‘Clumsy, premature attempts at reconciliation may do more harm than good.’ (2) Accordingly, ‘realistic reconciliation workers’ might find it useful to work towards one of three types or levels of co-existence.(3)

Surface coexistence of separate lives, where those that have been and remain divided continue to live apart from each other in a form of social apartheid, informed by the general ethos of ‘You leave us alone and we shall leave you alone’. In such circumstances interaction between the two is often by arrangement, with very little casual social interaction.

Shallow coexistence of parallel lives, where people live alongside each other by mutual preference and cross-community interaction tends to be quite role-specific (as in the exchange of various types of goods and services) with only a limited amount of casual social interaction, although the spaces and occasions for cross-community conviviality are generally recognised and respected.

Deep coexistence of community, where people from different identity groups and networks live with and amongst each other, and where everyday interaction is rich and multi-textured.

• Considering reconciliation as a process, whatever the depth or type of coexistence targeted as a goal, it is possible to distinguish at the analytical level between two dimensions or processes: becoming reconciled to the pain and loss of the past, and becoming reconciled with former enemies for the sake of future coexistence. For reconciliation with and between former enemies to take place, one or more of the parties has to become reconciled to past loss, and thereby be prepared to carry some of the cost of moving forward towards future coexistence alongside those from whom they have been divided.
• The deeper the levels of co-existence (reconciliation with) targeted as the goal of any reconciliation process, the greater the degree of reconciliation to past loss required of the parties to the process. As Michael Ignatieff has observed, ‘You can coexist with people without forgetting or forgiving their crimes against you.  Cold peace of many kinds does not require reconciliation of a personal kind.’(4)
• There are certain parallels and continuities between ‘dealing with the past’, in the sense of people becoming reconciled to past loss, and processes of interpersonal forgiveness. Both involve what can be called ‘memory work’.
• There are a number of factors that facilitate constructive memory work on the part of communities that have been divided.
• Truth: The capacity of a community to create a new collective memory that allows for the relinquishment of the desire for revenge will be enhanced to the degree that former enemies acknowledge the wrongs they have perpetrated in the past.
• Security: A necessary condition for people to become reconciled to loss is the experience of a break with the past in the form of an identifiable end to the wrongs perpetrated sufficient for them to enjoy a degree of personal and collective security.
• Justice: The capacity of people to relinquish the desire for revenge will be enhanced if they feel genuine efforts have been made to ‘make things right’ – either in terms of punishing the perpetrators or making reparations to the victims.
• Time: It should be obvious that the pursuit of the degrees of truth, security and justice necessary for dealing constructively with the past, whether at the interpersonal or the collective level, requires time.
• Culture: To the extent that a particular culture emphasises the importance of letting go of any desire for retribution, this will facilitate people’s capacity for becoming reconciled to loss.
• Turning to a consideration of processes and means for promoting reconciliation between those that have been divided, a distinction is often made between cultural approaches and those that focus upon structural/institutional change as a pre-requisite for deepening patterns of co-existence. Both are necessary. Economic development and institutional change in the political and other spheres, however worthwhile in themselves, cannot guarantee the repair of broken relationships. Indeed such changes can lead to new conflicts. Likewise, there is little evidence that ‘dialogue’ alone, particularly in the form of short term encounters for verbal and emotional exchanges aimed at bringing about attitudinal change, can promote deeper levels of coexistence.
• The most problematic dimension of any reconciliation process in the aftermath of collective violence and abuse is balancing the tension between the three values that most observers agree are pre-conditions for movement along the reconciliation axis: peace/security, truth and justice. Most state-directed efforts to deal with the legacy of past abuses are variants of three standard approaches, each of which prioritises one of the values: amnesties and official amnesia for the sake of peace, purges and prosecutions for the sake of justice, and truth commissions.
• Whatever variant or combination of these three approaches is pursued, the dominant concern of new regimes is to promote the necessary degree of social order to ensure regime security and legitimacy. This is the national reconciliation project. Unfortunately such state-driven projects can leave many victims of abuse feeling excluded.  One of the main challenges facing those involved in promoting reconciliation is how to move beyond the rhetoric and the theatre of national reconciliation projects in order to support civil society groups and organisations committed to promoting deeper forms of co-existence at grass-roots community levels in societies emerging out of violent conflict and division. Integral to this should be a sensitivity to the important role that can be played by individuals and groups who champion reconciliation and who have the moral and physical courage for prophetic acts of advocacy and witness at all levels of society.
• Another challenge facing those seeking to promote reconciliation is how to measure the effectiveness of their work?  How do you identify progress along the path towards deeper levels of co-existence? Beyond the specificity of each case, are there common dimensions that can be identified and measured?  

      Answers on a postcard please.

newsletter  |  ccts |  top