Analyzing the reconciliation process.(Report)

Publication: International Journal on World Peace

Publication Date: 01-SEP-07

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2007 Professors World Peace Academy

This paper addresses the apparent lack of systematic analysis classification of the components comprising the reconciliation process following intractable conflict and their mode of influence on the conflict parties. It offers a theoretical analysis and taxonomy of the types of activities carried out by collectives (e.g., states or ethnic groups) in the reconciliation process. Components of such reconciliation processes and their activities are analyzed and illustrated, exploring the way each activity influences the parties and the processes, as well as their dialectical relations with other activities. The analysis proposed has practical implications for leaders and policy makers by assisting in determining the appropriate course of action in the reconciliation process; as well as to researchers, by providing them with additional tools to assess the implications of past reconciliation processes and to interpret empirical research.

**********

Intractable conflicts between collectives (i.e., states, ethnic or religious groups) are prevalent worldwide. These conflicts most negatively impact the involved parties (Coleman, 2003; Pargament, McCullough, & Thoresen, 2000). Some of these conflicts reach the resolution phase, whereby the conflict is resolved and a peace agreement between the parties is achieved. Still, even then, the aftermath of the conflict and its destructive impact must be addressed in the post-conflict phase, in the framework of a reconciliation process (Lederach, 2000; Montville, 1993; Staub, 1998). Without such a process each party involved in the conflict, and particularly the party most severely affected, will continue to suffer significant and negative consequences (Fukatsu, 1995; Lira, 2001). Furthermore, without a process of reconciliation, conflicts considered to have been resolved can reappear and jolt the social climate in the national and international arena (Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004; Coleman, 2000; Kriesberg, 2000a). Extreme examples of such outbursts occurred in recent years in the former Yugoslavia, in several countries in the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere (Kelman, 1999). Additionally, the notions of social justice and the recognition of past suffering are given serious consideration today. Hence, even in the absence of concerns over possible violent outbursts, both (or more) parties to a conflict are encouraged to work towards reconciliation. Awareness of this critical aftermath of conflicts has led researchers in the recent period to focus on the reconciliation process as one bearing meaningful political and social importance (Cunningham, 1999; Hawk, 2001; Kriesberg, 2000b; Ruhana, 2001).

Despite growing recognition of the importance of the reconciliation process and its multitude of immediate implications in sites of historical conflict, research addressing it is relatively scant (Bar-Tal, 2000; Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004; McCullough & Thoresen, 2000). In addition, since the literature that does exist is relatively new, it deals with the activities performed in the reconciliation process in only a general and global manner, as will be exemplified in the literature review. That is why it seems that there is a need for a systematic differentiation, refinement and taxonomy of reconciliation activities. Such an endeavor may explore new perspectives and allow for a better understanding of the reconciliation process, and thus generate new hypotheses and predictions regarding the reconciliation process for the benefit of theory and practice. The purpose of this paper is to partly address this void by proposing a theoretical construct of several components and activities comprising the reconciliation process that have not yet been addressed in the literature.

The paper begins with a review of relevant literature on the reconciliation process, proceeds to propose a theoretical taxonomy of this process, and concludes with some propositions that stem from the proposed taxonomy.

RECONCILIATION--LITERATURE REVIEW

Bar-Tal and Bennink (2004), integrating the definitions of fourteen separate researchers for the term "reconciliation process," characterized this process as "the formation or restoration of genuine peaceful relationships between societies that have been involved in an intractable conflict, after its formal resolution is achieved" (p. 14).

Various aspects of the reconciliation process are reviewed in the literature. To begin, some of the research relates to the condition of parties to an intractable conflict as they enter the reconciliation process; these parties are the objects of the process. Three domains of this condition are discussed: psychological, economic and socio-political.

With regard to the psychological domain, the literature usually distinguishes between the conditions of victim and perpetrator, although it is recognized that in many conflicts both parties are victims as well as perpetrators (at least from the subjective viewpoint of each party), albeit not to the same extent (Jamal, 2001). Thus, members of the victimized party are characterized as having, among others, a sense of guilt for surviving while loved ones have died, low self-esteem, a perception of the world as threatening and hostile, a desire for control over their lives, violent behavior (Staub, 1998), rage, a motivation to seek revenge, trauma symptoms (Ross, 2003) and a need for physical and psychological security (Rothestein, 1999b). For the perpetrating party, the aftereffects of past wrongdoing may be manifested in a sense of collective guilt (Montvile, 1993; Swim & Miller, 1999).

For both the victimized and perpetrating parties, these psychological phenomena may even be manifested among members who were not personally or directly affected by the conflict, due to their collective nature (Doosje & Branscombe, 1998; Staub, 1998). In addition, both parties possess a "psychological repertoire" for coping with the conflict (Bar-Tal, 2005). This repertoire includes an ethos of the conflict (a set societal beliefs that justify the group's objectives, sense of collective victimhood, positive self-esteem, patriotism, and de-legitimatization of the other party; Bar-Tal, 1998, 2000a); a collective memory of past events of the conflict (Hasian, 1999; Kansteiner, 2002); and a collective emotional orientation (e.g., fear and hate; Bar-Tal, 2001; Volkan, 1988).

With regard to the economic situation of the parties upon entering the reconciliation process, it has been noted that intractable conflicts by nature require vast investment in the economic domain on the part of the involved parties (Kriesberg, 1993). In addition, in many intra-state conflicts, the economic situation prior to the eruption of the violent phase of conflict is characterized by wide economic gaps and by the exploitation of the poorer segments of the population by the wealthier ones (Wittaker, 1999). Further, these conflicts cause enormous damage to the infrastructure and the economy of the state (Rothestein, 1999b). This explains why states in a post-conflict phase oftentimes suffer from vast unemployment, low standard of living, and poverty (Enquist, 1995; Staub, 2000; Whittaker, 1999). Among the oppressed segments of the population, this gives rise to an urgent need and demand to secure economic development and a reasonable standard of living (Rothestein, 1999b; Wittaker, 1999).

It appears that the socio-political domain of the parties is more relevant in intra-state conflicts, since, for example, the political institutions in each state usually do not change in inter-state conflicts (Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004). In many such intra-state conflicts, the social-political situation prior to the eruption of the violent phase of conflict is characterized by vast social gaps, undemocratic practices, and the political hegemony of one party over the other (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004; Wittaker, 1999). Among the oppressed segments of the population in these states, this gives rise to the demand to implement different social and political arrangements that may secure their social and political rights, usually through a process of democratization and the reorganization of armed forces (such as military and police; Rupesinghe, 2004).

All three abovementioned domains, in which the severe, negative outcomes of intractable conflict are manifested, should be carefully addressed in the framework of the reconciliation process.

Many pre-conditions are required to ensure a successful reconciliation process, including: (1) The cessation of violent activities (Bar-Tal, 2000); (2) the successful completion of the resolution stage and the signing of a peace agreement (Bar-Tal, 2000); (3) a considerable reduction in ethnocentric emotions and racist-nationalistic ideologies, and the establishment of norms of tolerance and human rights (Kriesberg, 2000); (4) a determination by party leaders to reconcile (Bar-Tal, 2000); (5) the existence of mutual interests by both parties to reconcile (Kriesberg, 2000); and (6) improvement in the economic situation (Bar-Tal, 2000).

Two central factors influence the effectiveness of the reconciliation process. First, the process of resolving a conflict and signing a peace agreement, as well as the reconciliation process that sometimes follows it, should be based on justice. This means that impartial considerations, rather than either party's relative power, should impact the resolution and reconciliation processes (Jamal, 2001; Kelman, 1999; Lederach, 1997; Ruhana, 2001; Shriver, 1995, 1999; Staub, 1998). Second, establishing trust between the parties to the conflict is a vital aim of the reconciliation process, and is also an important determinant in its...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.