Reconciliation: Definitions and Interpretations
As the violence of a period of protracted internal conflict or repression subsides and signs of
the authority’s new commitment to peace emerge — often through a peace accord between former
political enemies — the country recognizes its aching need for healing. Healing within itself and
across lines of tension is necessary in order to live side by side in peace, confidence, and mutual
trust and to march forward together as contributing members of a cooperative society. This need
they feel and call for is that of reconciliation. It can be a personally, morally, or politically
motivated desire depending on the position of a person or group to the conflict and peace
process. Given the potentially explosive issues and sensitivities that mine the road to trust,
reconciliation implies immense challenges and lofty, yet necessary, ideals. Even the meaning
and interpretation of this elusive concept — reconciliation — is debated within academic circles of
outsiders and between members of these very societies and government institutions that are
trying to understand the best way to seek it.
2By some interpretations, reconciliation is seen as a goal within itself, an end, a state of
mutual trust and peaceful coexistence. Marc Forget illustrates this interpretation when he
explains, “Reconciliation can be viewed as one pole on a continuum that has hostility as its other
pole.” 1 In the essay, “Truth Commissions, Transitional Justice, and Civil Society,” David A.
Crocker cites at least three meanings of reconciliation, classifying them into “thinner” and
“thicker” interpretations. 2 “Thinner” signifies a more realistic interpretation of reconciliation,
while “thicker” is more idealist. At the base level, a “thinner” reconciliation can mean “simple
coexistence” — the opposing sides agree to follow the law instead of killing each other. 3 This
first definition seems to be a compromise of mutual concessions — the concession of giving up
violence. The two warring ideological and political poles of both El Salvador and Guatemala
first needed to adhere to this mutual renouncement of violence to initiate the peace process.
However, one cannot expect to further the healing and rebuilding process significantly by only
achieving this minimal version of reconciliation. Societies need to aim for more advanced
criteria whenever possible.
Moving a step up from this minimal conception of reconciliation, Crocker sets out a second
interpretation of reconciliation: former enemies must live together nonviolently and respect each
other as fellow citizens, even though they may continue to disagree.
4
Mark Osiel identifies this
level of reconciliation with the term ‘liberal social solidarity.
f/5
In this form of reconciliation, the
different sides are able to engage in peaceful dialogue, sharing and listening to each other’s
views patiently and earnestly. They uncover common concerns and then work collectively
towards a compromise on public policy matters.
According to Crocker, the deepest and most advanced form of reconciliation is an ideal to
which countries with real, collective intentions for building democratic institutions, participatory
3civil society, legitimate governance, and lasting peace aspire. This “thicker” form of
reconciliation can be either a “shared comprehensive vision, mutual healing and restoration, or
mutual forgiveness.” 6 Crocker names these three possibilities for signaling such ideal
reconciliation, as it may appear in different forms depending on the circumstances of the conflict,
actors, and cultures involved. A shared comprehensive vision — consensus on the past and future
— may be possible when complete mutual forgiveness is not. While a shared, comprehensive
vision demonstrates a positive, empowering mindset, its boundaries are ambiguous. With so
many varying actors and opposing interests, it is difficult to know when to declare that society
has reached a point such as “mutual healing and restoration.”
More than a goal, reconciliation is also a process, a means by which society can build trust
and seek to live together peacefully and cooperatively. In his essay, “Changing Forms of
Coexistence,” Louis Kreisberg defines reconciliation as the process of developing a mutual,
conciliatory accommodation between formerly antagonistic groups.
7
Marc Forget speaks of
reconciliation as a process of transformation, “a difficult but tremendously powerful process that
has the ability to transform individuals, communities, and whole societies. “8 In order to achieve
reconciliation after devastating, divisive civil conflict, there needs to be gradual, long-term
healing towards mutual agreement of facts of the past, tolerance for one another across previous
lines of tension, and mutual commitment to pursue justice and prevent escalation of violence in
the future. David Crocker lists many possible measures that aim to deal with the past actively:
trials and punishment, truth commissions, international criminal tribunals, social shaming and
lustration, public apology to victims, memorials, reburial of victims, compensation and
reparations for the families of the victims, historical writing, and amnesty. 9 National
governments, parties to the former conflict, civil society, individual leaders, and the international