We notice that as we move from the left to the right on the spectrum, i.e., as the participation of all the parties in the search for solution increases, the likelihood of achieving a mutually satisfactory and durable solution also increases. We know that solutions imposed by force will only last until the vanquished is able to muster sufficient force to reverse the situation. Solutions imposed by adjudication and arbitration, unless somehow the loser gives up, can always be frustrated by the latter’s endless appeals or lack of cooperation in the implementation process. If, however, the parties are engaged earnestly in the search for the solutions and are able to find resolutions that could satisfy the needs and interests of all involved, there could be no better guarantee for the durability of the settlements. It would be in the interest of every one to see to it that they are fully enforced. This is what we believe problem-solving negotiations, mediation, and reconciliation can do.

What is noteworthy however is that as we move from the left to the right end of the spectrum, although the likelihood of effectiveness and durability of the solutions increases, our knowledge and understanding of the approaches to be utilized become sketchy, less developed and unsystematic. Our knowledge and methodology of conflict management approaches (the mechanisms on the left hand side of the spectrum) such as the use of force, adjudication, or arbitration are quite advanced. They are highly developed disciplines within institutions that command high respect and resources devoted to training and practice. Military and police science, jurisprudence and legal studies, as well as the entire military and police academies, law schools, ministries of defence and justice, police departments, courts, prison systems, are examples of these disciplines and institutions that advance the practice of these approaches. In contrast, conflict resolution approaches such as problem-solving negotiation and mediation are less developed and institutions and resources devoted to their training, advancement and practice are meager. Whatever is in place is voluntary and ad-hoc. Then, when we come to reconciliation, let alone establish procedures and institutions charged with the application of the concept, there is not even much understanding of what it means, especially, among social scientists. Religious people and theologians are a bit better equipped to discuss the concept. But even there, there is a great gap between articulation and translation of the ideas into practice.

Healing and Reconciliation

Despite the lack of knowledge about how to operationalize reconciliation, there is however no question about the tremendous need for it. In fact, it could be said that the need in today’s world is much greater than at any other time in the past.

One reason is that conflict management strategies are not adequate to deal with the kinds of contemporary conflicts raging in many parts of the world. Especially since the end of the Cold War, civil wars have replaced interstate wars as the most predominant large scale social conflicts. To a certain extent, in interstate conflicts strategies aimed merely at separating the conflicting parties might suffice. Even if the underlying issues of the conflict are not resolved, the separation could help avoid the recurrence of the conflict. Because states tend to isolate themselves from each other by their national boundaries, the task of separating them by peace-keeping forces is relatively easier.

However, in civil war situations the relationships between the protagonists is much more intimate and complex. In most cases, the parties share the same geographic area and even community, there might be strong economic interdependence between them, they usually have all sorts of social ties among each other including intermarriages. In these instances it is quite difficult to separate the protagonists since the boundaries between them are very difficult to draw. Even if it is possible to do it for a short while, it is not feasible to think of conflict management strategies such as separation as long term solutions. For that matter, even decisions imposed by adjudication or other such processes will not be solutions since the winning party cannot expect to enjoy its victory without facing the consequences of the loser’s wrath. Therefore, in civil war situations conflict management strategies are not adequate. One has to move towards conflict resolution and reconciliation processes where not only the underlying issues to the conflicts are resolved to everyone’s satisfaction but also the antagonistic attitudes and relationships between the adversaries are transformed from negative to positive.

Tuareg leaders on their way to the Mali Flame of Peace ceremony, 1996. Photo: Henny van der Graaf.

Moreover, even in interstate relations, we are increasingly realizing that the components of the modern international system are no more the 19th century autarchic states. The globe is shrinking and the fates of peoples of the world are becoming more and more inextricably intertwined. Thus, it would be increasingly difficult to expect unilateral approaches to handling conflicts such as imposition of solutions by force as viable approaches. In an interdependent and closely interconnected world even those that are supposedly weak can have their own way of subverting or undermining the imposed order. Therefore, those groups must somehow be enabled to participate in the search for solutions in their conflicts even with the more powerful actors. In fact, the democratic values that the current international order is trying to promote as a universal value in all societies of the world necessitates movement more and more towards integrative negotiation, mediation and reconciliation as the predominant ways of dealing with conflict instead of unilateral measures that entail the use of coercion.

What Does Reconciliation Entail?

Reconciliation as a conflict handling mechanism entails the following core elements:

a) Honest acknowledgment of the harm/injury each party has inflicted on the other;

b) Sincere regrets and remorse for the injury done:

c) Readiness to apologize for one’s role in inflicting the injury;

d) Readiness of the conflicting parties to ‘let go’ of the anger and bitterness caused by the conflict and the injury;

e) Commitment by the offender not to repeat the injury;

f) Sincere effort to redress past grievances that caused the conflict and compensate the damage caused to the extent possible;

g) Entering into a new mutually enriching relationship.

Reconciliation then refers to this new relationship that emerges as a consequence of these processes. What most people refer to as ‘healing’ is the mending of deep emotional wounds (generated by the conflict) that follow the reconciliation process.

A very important aspect of the process of reconciliation and one that distinguishes it from all the other conflict handling mechanisms is its methodology. In most of the conflict handling mechanisms such as adjudication, arbitration, and for that matter even negotiation and mediation the method used for establishing responsibility for the conflict or its consequences is adversarial. In these processes, the parties present their grievances and make a case for the adversary’s fault or responsibility, thereby demanding that it should be the latter that should make amends. Each party begins by defending its own behaviour and denying its own guilt or responsibility until the opponent proves it to his or her satisfaction or to the satisfaction of outside observers, be they judges or mediators. In such a process, one’s behaviour is always explained as a reaction to the behaviour of the adversary. The typical pattern of the interaction is: ‘I did this to you because you did such and such a thing to me!’ The aim is to get the adversary to change his or her future conduct by proving the person’s guilt. Of course, the expectation is that both parties will change each other in this way and will eventually transform their relationship from negative to positive.

On the other hand, the essence of reconciliation is the voluntary initiative of the conflict parties to acknowledge their responsibility and guilt. The interactions that transpire between the parties are not only meant to communicate one’s grievances against the actions of the adversary, but also to engage in self-reflection about one’s own role and behaviour in the dynamic of the conflict. In other words, in this kind of dialogue, as much as one attributes guilt and responsibility to the adversary for the damage generated by the conflict, one has to also be self-critical and acknowledge responsibility for his or her own role in the creation or perpetuation of the conflict and hurtful interaction. The aim of such interaction is that, in the final analysis, each of the parties acknowledges and accepts his or her responsibility and out of such recognition seeks ways to redress the injury that has been inflicted on the adversary, to refrain from further damage, and to construct new positive relationships.

It is true that in both reconciliation and other conflict resolution mechanisms the process of dialogue is expected to generate change and transformation. In reconciliation, however, the forces for change are primarily internal and voluntary; while in the other approaches they are external and to a certain extent coerced. In the situation where the source is external it is possible that it might be the adversary’s skill in marshaling and presenting its arguments; its strong will and intransigence; or its capacity to manipulate, exert pressure, or administer punishment that might intimidate the other party into accepting responsibility and settlement. Under such circumstances, therefore, it is questionable to what extent reluctant acceptance of guilt can serve as a force for significantly altering the future conduct and relationship between the adversaries.

This is not to imply that it is not possible to induce change in behaviour and relationships by forces outside the person, nor that every person changes his or her behaviour and relationships wilfully or voluntarily. The point here is that unless the need for change is internalized, the change is likely to be only temporary. The relationship would not have been significantly altered, and the conflict would not have found enduring solutions. It would emerge again as soon as circumstances change. More enduring transformation is likely to emerge when motivated by an internal need to change, especially when it emanates from self-reflection and criticism.

Reconciliation and Justice

Here it would be important to clarify the often misunderstood relationship between reconciliation and justice. Especially in horrendous conflict situations like Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Cambodia and others, many have argued that reconciliation is not appropriate because it is too soft on criminal conduct of offenders, and might even encourage it. They feel that justice (usually meaning the punishment of the offenders) precedes reconciliation. However, this argument presents a false dichotomy. An attempt at reconciliation without addressing the injustice in the situation is indeed a mockery and belittling the suffering of the victim. There cannot be reconciliation without justice. Justice and equity are at the core of reconciliation. The central question in reconciliation is not whether justice is done, but rather how one goes about doing it in ways that can also promote future harmonious and positive relationship between parties that have to live with each other whether they like it or not. Justice is a necessary but not sufficient condition for reconciliation. Reconciliation takes the concern for justice a step further and is preoccupied with how to rebuild a more livable, and psychologically healthy environment between former enemies where the vicious cycle of hate, deep suspicion, resentment, and revenge does not continue to fester.

For this reason, the methodology used to arrive at justice in the reconciliation process is different from that used to arrive at justice in the conventional (juridical) approach. The aim of the latter processes (particularly of the criminal justice process) is primarily to identify guilt and administer the punishment that the law requires with little attention to healing the bitterness and resentment that exist between the parties in the conflict. Identifying ways in which offenders are assisted to redress the material and emotional damage they have inflicted through self-reflection, acknowledgment of responsibility, remorse, and compensation would be an important step towards establishing an environment of reconciliation. The approach known as ‘restorative justice’ as opposed to ‘retributive justice’ brings us closer to the point where justice can be done but at the same time the possibilities for reconciliation are enhanced. ³

Applying this concept in some of the catastrophic situations like Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Cambodia or Chile, reconciliation does not mean that the offenders are just pardoned. It means creating a process and an environment where the offenders take the responsibility to acknowledge their offense and get motivated to change the situation and relationship in a positive and durable manner instead of keep denying their guilt until it is proven to them by the juridical process.

The important thing to note is that to the extent the offenders keep denying their guilt, even if their responsibility is proved juridically and they are punished, the internal change that needs to take place to change the relationship from destructive to constructive, from hate to cooperation and harmony may not happen. Particularly in group conflicts, the punishment of the offenders alone does not prevent them or their followers and (at times, even their descendants) from continuing to hate and desiring to retaliate against those that punished them or their forefathers. Reconciliation has a much better chance of stopping the cycle of violence and hatred that sometimes transcends generations than any other conflict handling mechanism. Although flawed in many ways, this is what the experiments with Truth and Reconciliation Commission in conflict-ravaged societies are trying to do. In a number of instances, these commissions have been able to go as far as obtaining voluntarily acknowledgment of guilt by offenders. But they have not gone far enough to get them to demonstrate sincere remorse, or take active steps to compensate and repair the relationship vis a vis their victims. ⁴

Notes

1 See Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes, for the distinction between the bargaining type (distributive) and problem-solving type (integrative) negotiation approaches.

2 Of course these categories are neither exhaustive nor water-tight. There are many more mechanisms that mix the various types and fall somewhere in between. One example is a mechanism that has come to be known as med/arb, where the process starts as mediation with the voluntary and full participation of the parties, but if that fails in resolving the problem, the solution is determined by a third party, an arbitrator. There are also other non-formal processes such as advocacy by interest groups, political mobilization at the grass-roots level in order to put pressure on leaders, etc. that can be placed at various points on the spectrum. ‘Advocacy’ operates in the adjudication framework although the body to whom the appeal is done might be the courts of national or international pubic opinion instead of the regular courts of law. ‘Political mobilization’ could be seen as a tactic in the negotiation process in which the adversaries are marshaling their forces to improve their bargaining leverage or capacity to be heard and be taken seriously.

3 See Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses, (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press), 1990

4 For a critique of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and more detailed elaboration of concepts, approaches, and methodologies, and examples see Hizkias Assefa, Process of Expanding and Deepening Engagement, Reconciliation Methodology in Large Scale Social Conflicts (forthcoming).

*Hizkias Assefa is Professor of Conflict Studies, Conflict Transformation Programme, at Eastern Mennonite University, USA, and a Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, USA. He is the founder and co-ordinator of the African Peacebuilding and Reconciliation Network in Nairobi, Kenya. He works as a mediator and facilitator in civil war situations in many parts of Africa from his base in Nairobi. He is the author of several books, including Peace and Reconciliation as a Paradigm: A Philosophy of Peace and Its Implications on Conflict, Governance and Economic Growth in Africa (Majestic Press, 1993), and Process of Expanding and Deepening Engagement: Methodology for Reconciliation Work in Large Scale Social Conflicts (forthcoming).

next  

Feedback please to j.verhoeven@euconflict.org