The works listed in this first section present the notion of reconciliation from various perspectives and methodologies: while Bloomfield, et al. As a part of the process of rebuilding political relationships, reconciliation is, in either case, vital for the process of democratization and appears to involve both attitudinal, interpersonal, and institutional changes. To reflect these debates, it is divided according to the types of definition: thick, or thin religious, or political and institutional, judicial, restorative, or therapeutic. The works included this bibliography mostly focus on political reconciliation at the level of nations and communities, more precisely after a systematic and widespread violation of human rights. It must therefore capture both the institutional and the interpersonal characters of political interaction. It therefore appears that an adequate conception of reconciliation must concentrate on expectations of citizens and officials, on their attitudes, and on the way institutions structure political relations. Reconciliation thus becomes a simple modus vivendi, a “departure from violence” (Borneman), and a way to coexist without the reconciling parties necessarily interacting or forgiving one another. The problem with such a conception is that it ignores the deeply personal, intimate, and complex nature of reconciliation. At the other end of the spectrum, scholars have tried to empty the concept of reconciliation from any moral connotations and to consider it in a purely objective, neutral way (e.g., Eisikovits). However, the term also has a deep religious content and is often viewed in a thick, normative way (Lederach) as describing a form of friendship, harmony, or healing.
Others say that reconciliation is an abandonment of justice and an invitation to political apathy and resignation in front of justice (Mamdani). Some scholars therefore argue that one should talk more of “conciliation” than “re-conciliation” (Nagy, Moon, Dwyer). It is also problematic in that it implies that there is a form of prior harmony to return too, when too often, such a state never existed. Reconciliation is thus accused of being apolitical. The concept of reconciliation has also been accused of being illiberal in that it promotes an ideal of political harmony that denies the fundamental pluralism of modern societies (Garton Ash). According to Marx, it was a conservative term, coined by Hegel as a way to dissolve social conflicts in the interest of the State. Philosophically, the concept of reconciliation is highly controversial too.
One of the reasons for this lack of conceptual clarity is that reconciliation is both a goal and a process, which can happen in various contexts (between husband and wife, offender and victims, friends, communities, or nations). On the contrary, it seems that there is little consensus on what “reconciliation” actually means. If reconciliation could indeed be reduced to an equation, there would be little debate regarding what should be done to promote it in postconflict situations.
“Reconciliation = closure + healing” wrote Johan Galtung.
0 kommentar(er)
