Reconciliation: Definitions and Interpretations 2
community are all viable actors in the post-conflict period. They explore, initiate, and drive
different programs or actions that hope to facilitate reconciliation.
The broad concept of reconciliation may also be distinguished by two different spheres in
which it operates: the macro-level and the micro-leve1. 10 Macro-level reconciliation is often
synonymous with “national” or “political” reconciliation between groups of people, parties,
institutions, or nations, while micro-reconciliation refers to individual, local relationships il
between, for example, victim and perpetrator. A distinction is important because the experience
of and the methods used for these two categories of reconciliation can differ significantly. The
extent to which people can feel reconciled and the extent to which reconciliation may be possible
at these two different levels often vary. One criminal trial that successfully punishes a certain
perpetrator may advance individual reconciliation for the family of the one direct victim, but it
may not advance a sense of national reconciliation very far until isolated convictions become a
national movement against impunity. Similarly, memorials erected in memory of the victims or
official, public apologies coming from the responsible authorities can be important moves for
national reconciliation that help people (re)build trust among each other and with their
governmental institutions. However, any single victim of a human rights violation may argue
that such steps, although helpful for national reconciliation, still do not assist his/her struggle to
feel reconciled with his/her own perpetrator. For many victims, micro-level reconciliation may
plainly be psychologically impossible. 12 More hope may exist for national reconciliation in the
long term, provided that the country continues to actively engage in reconciliation efforts.
Reconciliation begins with society’s commitment to remember the past instead of forget it.
Remembering can be painful, especially for victims who feel alone, isolated, and helpless in their
grief and fear. People may feel inclined to push these memories of trauma or violence away
5from one’s consciousness and disassociate them from one’s past. The government and parties
guilty of committing atrocities look for quick options to forget the unpleasant past and to “move
on,” allowing a return to the status quo. However, Bishop Nigel Biggar outlines three clear
reasons why a policy of forgetting, a reaction all too common by governments of internal
conflict-torn states, is not just, practical, or preventative:
First, some may be able to forget; but not, I think, the victims. Second, if government does not
attend to the victims and their injuries, then it fails in one of its most basic political
duties…protecting and upholding victims of injury…And Third, grievances without redress tend
to fester…infect[ing] future generations with an indiscriminate hatred of the perpetrators and their
descendants — and also with an endemic mistrust of the state. 13
Forgetting the past in this way would be submission to the power of the same institutions and
individuals who engineered and committed such injustice. It permits legacies of secrecy and
denial and allows cycles of violence to continue without consequence. The guilty parties often
pursue a “reconciliation” that serves their own political agenda, promoting the idea of pardons
and amnesties as signs of forgiveness. They will push forgiveness between victims and
perpetrators prematurely in order to claim “reconciliation,” and, thus, favor among constituents.
This, no doubt, is false reconciliation. In order for national reconciliation, all sectors of society
must agree that they feel reconciled. However, an agenda of amnesties for perpetrators,
disingenuous apologies, scarce cooperation to find the truth, and no attention to the victims’
post-conflict needs for justice leaves the victims behind. In order to feel truly reconciled, victims
and their families often need a very different agenda: prosecution and punishment.” Collective
exercises in memory provide these victims with the hope of recognition and empowerment. The
active participation of authority figures in initiatives for the exposure of the truth,
acknowledgment of the victims of abuse, and the pursuit of justice for the resurrection of the
victims are essential in order to aspire to their eventual goal of reconciliation.
6Reconciliation requires three essential components: full knowledge of the truth of the past,
acknowledgement of the victims’ suffering, and justice for the victims and for society as a whole.
Guilty parties must demonstrate genuine regret for and change from the past in order to gain or
regain trust. Victims need opportunities to win back their dignity and their humanity, evidence
that society recognizes their value, and new confidence to face their past and reconcile with the
very individuals that caused them harm. Achieving trust and stability between individuals and
among communities contributes to a stronger statewide reconciliation movement.
Carol A. Prager reminds us of the realistic limitations of any one initiative due to the
painstaking, long-term nature of true reconciliation: “that fact that reconciliation is not
terminated by the conclusions of war crimes trials or truth and reconciliation commissions must
be faced. Reconciliation is never achieved once and for all, but occurs with alternate bouts of
forward movement and the stasis of anger and grieving.” 15 Thus, it is crucial not to set one’s
expectations of truth commissions (or any other single measure) too high and risk
disillusionment, but neither should one dismiss the positive value and the contributions it can
have as an initial step in a series of efforts towards reconciliation.
Tags: abuse, empowerment, movement, truth commissions