CCTS
Newsletter 9

Repairing the psychological and social fabric

Dealing with past; power, responsibility and what to do with them
The settling of scores is not only a private matter. It can be argued that where atrocities have been committed (beyond, that is, the 'acceptable' atrocities of which war is composed), those who should be held most responsible are those at the top of the line of command. Yet it is usually these very people who are needed to sign up for the peace, or at least to acquiesce in it - as was the case with Slobodan Milosevic (and Augusto Pinochet, who had waged a 'low intensity' war against his people). This is a very poisonous nettle to grasp, representing both a practical and a moral dilemma. It is often asserted that there can be no peace without justice, but it is equally true that there can be very little justice without peace, and that to some degree one is often bought at the price of the other.
The notion of 'restorative justice' (Kraybill, 1996; Rigby 2000) seems to offer some help here, with its emphasis on the need to repair lives and the relationships which make society workable. The idea of retribution seems to carry an energy which runs counter to peace; yet it is what many victims and their relatives long for. In some situations, as in Latin America or South Africa, it is relatively easy to distinguish between 'the people' and 'the oppressors', perpetrators and victims of crimes; but in others, so many have been in some way complicit with an oppressive system (as in East Germany), or even involved in mass violence (as in Rwanda), that to try to divide the guilty from the innocent would ultimately be to tear apart a whole society.
Although there is clearly no easy or comfortable answer to these questions, there do seem to be identifiable elements of what can help individuals and societies to move forward in spite of them.

Knowing and acknowledgement
Knowing as far as possible what has happened, for instance to dead or disappeared relatives, so that it does not feel as if the truth is being disguised, denied or withheld, and having what is known publicly acknowledged, is one such element. Accounts from South Africa and Chile illustrate how hard it is to accept that in return for 'truth', the perpetrators of crimes have been granted impunity.

Apology
Apology, if it is seen as a sign of genuine repentance and accompanied by some act of reparation or restitution, can play a part.

Reparation
Some kind of practical service or financial reparation may be required from those who have committed crimes to those who have been their victims.

Compensation
Financial compensation from government, in the form of pensions, for instance, as in Chile, may provide the means of support for victims, and is therefore important; but it is unlikely to feel like justice (see Roberta Bacic, 2000). (For governments to make the kind of payments that might begin to feel as if they measured up a little to the immensity of what people have suffered would be beyond the means of most governments, especially in countries suffering the after-effects of war.)

Punishment
The punishment of those identified as particularly responsible can act as a sign of public acknowledgement, at the national or international level, that certain behaviours are intolerable, and may assuage the feelings of those who have suffered most (though here I admit to personal unease about the selection of people to punish in situations where it is known to be inevitable that most who have committed crimes will remain unpunished).

Rituals
Rituals of cleansing or purification may have a part to play, too. In situations where there is no way of restoring what has been lost or destroyed, and a strong need to begin to restore community so that life can go on, symbolism may be the best and indeed the only means of making that possible. I remember hearing an account of an Inkatha and an ANC community coming together in a mass act of purification to seal a peace between them, since they agreed that many people on each side had been involved in previous killings, and that this was a matter for their whole communities, together. I also remember seeing on television a young man in Mozambique, who had murdered several people from his village, returning to it and performing certain rituals of purification and in return being accepted back as if nothing had happened. At the time this seemed scarcely credible; but is seems that people have the ability to devise ways of managing their relationship to events and to each other, and, having devised them, to make them work. It is not possible to separate the spiritual from the practical. At an international trainers' gathering once, I was struck by the words of a colleague from Chile, who said that reconciliation was the remaking of community, and that in her society community included the dead as well as the living. There could be no going forward without their being acknowledged and in some way restored to their rightful place in society.

Recovery from trauma
The social impact of the personal scarring occasioned by war is evidenced in many societies, including the United States where the crime rate among veterans of the Vietnam War is extraordinarily high. Although this may not be seen as the most urgent question to address - not necessary for getting from violence to politics - the long-term stability of social and political life will be affected by it. Western therapeutic methods, focussed on individuals, are unlikely to be either appropriate or feasible in more communitarian societies, or where large numbers are involved; but in, for instance, the countries of former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone, small organisations have been formed to work with traumatised communities to help them process the horrors that they have witnessed and suffered. I also remember a moving newspaper account of a Rwandan teacher who shared his own suffering with the children in his school, giving them the chance to talk about and depict what they had been through. To ensure that such processes provide a way of dealing with grief and trauma, rather than fuelling anger and hate, requires care, sensitivity and courage on the part of those who facilitate them - who have often themselves been traumatised.
Perhaps what is most helpful to most people, in returning to 'normal' life and relationships, is to get on with the business of it: reconstructing homes, planting crops, starting to trade again, re-opening schools. I am constantly astonished by the will of people to go on living their lives and coping with the impossible - even to find a measure of contentment - after the most terrible cataclysms.

(Re)integration of refugees/ displaced people
One category of people, often very large, who, like the dead, need to be restored to an acceptable place in post-war society, is that of refugees, whether they have been displaced within or between states. While they remain displaced and excluded from 'normal' life, not only is there no peace or justice for them, but they will remain a source of tension and pressure, both socially and politically. The ideal of 'return' may or may not be a realistic or desirable option, depending on the circumstances of their departure, the length of the war which drove them out, or the situation which pertains in the place they left; but there may be no real place for them either in the place to which they have fled.
They may (as in the case of Hutu refugees from Rwanda) also include in their number those who have been involved in atrocities at home. If any group which has been driven out is to be rehabilitated, it will be necessary for the crimes that have been committed by some of its members to be acknowledged and dealt with, so that it can be seen that a distinction can be made between the group as a whole and certain individuals within it. (Some Roma leaders have insisted on this point in relation to Kosovo/a.)
Although in both human and political terms the status and needs of refugees are of great significance, this is one of the most difficult aspects of implementation in any post-settlement context. After extreme violence, the fear and loathing surrounding the question of return are likely to be intense, and after any considerable time has elapsed, conflicts over property, which would be hard to handle in any situation, are potential dynamite. The wonder is that resettlement ever happens at all.
The reintegration of refugees requires provision at the top political level, at the level of local authorities, police etc. and at the level of neighbours and families. One illustration of what can be done by NGOs is the work of a small project in East Slavonia, called 'The Bench we Share', which facilitates first meetings between estranged neighbours and family members, and promotes community projects which involve members of different ethnic groups (those who left and those who stayed) who wish to work together to address common problems. This is slow, painstaking work, but seems to produce real results at a local level.

Community relations work
The kind of community relations work which is seen as important in violence ('conflict') prevention - promoting intergroup understanding and undertaking joint efforts to meet social needs - can play a role in repairing relationships after violent conflict. Facilitation from outside may be helpful initially, where relationships are very tense. I am interested in exploring the potential of community groups to play an additional, political role in supporting human rights and the politics of tolerance.

Role of education and the media
Public education is likely to be an area of contention after (and indeed before) civil war: who has the right to be head teacher or dean, whether schools will be for all ethnic and other groups, whether language arrangements will change, how history will be taught, and whether recent events will be taboo, or included in a particular way. It is easy for schools and universities to be battlegrounds. At the same time, establishing an inclusive and tolerant ethos in schools and other educational establishments, and drawing in parents, can help in the move away from patterns of hostility towards patterns of co-existence. The return to any tolerable ease in intergroup relationships, after widespread intergroup violence, is likely to be a long process.
The public rhetoric of politicians and of the media will do much to nurture or damage growing trust. NGOs (like Radio Contact in Pristina) that work through and with the public media can play a vital role in recreating intergroup communication and confidence. Outside support for such efforts, both moral and financial, can be important. Media work which challenges stereotypes and political hegemony can take a great deal of courage and commitment. It is important, however, that the will for these activities, and judgements about what is possible, come from inside the situation rather than from outside.

The maintenance of security
It is vital that the process of social recovery is as little as possible disrupted and set back by renewed outbreaks of violence. At the same time, the relaxation of social tension will reduce the likelihood of such outbreaks, or aid in their containment. To establish 'trouble-shooting' bodies and mechanisms at the local level could be an important contribution in this. (See Howard Clark, 1999)

Questions:
How is it possible to cope with the effects of compromises made in order to achieve an ending of violent hostilities? What are the meanings of 'justice', what is its relationship to peace, and is there a workable formula for balancing the two? Is repairing relationships a priority? Can it be accelerated by deliberate efforts, or is its achievement, when it happens, a function of time and of progress in other areas?

next  |  seminar report

newsletter  |  ccts