Reconciliation

Reconciliation means different to different people. Its significance varies from culture to culture, and changes with passage of time. In my opinion reconciliation is not about political organizations or parties. Its more than that, it’s about healing society, holding the nation and its people whole together aftermath dictatorships--- in democratic governance by bringing the perpetrators and victims through long process before justice once and for all. 

So, what is reconciliation?

Ideally reconciliation prevents, once for all, the use of past as the seed of renewed conflict. It consolidates peace, breaks the cycle of violence and strengthens newly established or reintroduced democratic institutions.

As a backward-looking operation, reconciliation brings about the personal healing of survivors, the reparation of past injustice, the building or rebuilding of non-violent relationships between individuals and communities, and the acceptance by the former parties to a conflict of common vision and understanding of the past. In its forward-looking dimension reconciliation means enabling victims and perpetrators to get on with life and, at the level of society, the establishment of a civilized political dialogue and an adequate sharing of power.

Reconciliation: When & How fast?

Given the volatility of an immediate post-conflict context, time management in processing reconciliation is an extremely important but difficult dimension in the search for a shared future. Policies must not come too soon or too late.

The end of conflict creates a complex agenda----rebuilding the political machinery and civil service, holding free elections, drafting a national constitution, guaranteeing a minimum physical security, establishing a non-partisan judiciary, prosecuting human right abusers, rebuilding the economic infrastructure, and so on. More often than not it will be impossible to tackle all tasks simultaneously.  As reconciliation is only one of the many challenges, short-term political or economic interests may lead to reconciliation measures being postponed. Or a post-conflict society may be forced to direct its efforts in several directions at once, ultimately allocating insufficient attention to the building of coexistence, trust and empathy. The decision as to when to develop reconciliation process will inevitably impact seriously on the final outcome. Difficult decisions have to be taken. To get the time as right as possible, policy makers must:

• Understand the time, that is, make an adequate reading of the forces that exert an influence on the transition agenda.

• Be conscious of the importance of measures for the long term.

• Be aware that mere passage of time will not ultimately generate reconciliation.

Some of the factors affecting a society’s dealing with a violent past, such as nature of the past settlement, also shape the ranking of problems that appear on the transition agenda. Past experience shows that this has often led to politics and economics being put first, at the expense of reconciliation programs. If political and economics for the victims is a key step to reconciliation, care must be taken not to damage the prospects of long-term reconciliation by establishing inappropriate political and economic structure.

However, reconciliation efforts cannot be put off indefinitely. Experience with past truth commissions suggests that the quality of witness statements diminishes quite fast. Healing also has to start soon, as with time victims become further trapped in their pain and isolation. If the context prevents an early start, at least interim measure should be taken.

EPP: with the downfall of the Isaias regime, let’s the process of reconciliation begin!!