THE ESSENCE OF RECONCILIATION BY ISRAEL KASHIM AUDU

THE ESSENCE OF RECONCILIATION BY ISRAEL KASHIM AUDU 

The tradition of new year resolutions and people waiting till the end of the year to send forgiveness note have become a norm for some people in our society today. Who are those we call friends? Those who expose your secret when you have misunderstanding? Those who always condemn you? Or Those who are praying for your downfall?

Why do relationships have to be so complicated? Why do good friends get “wrapped around the axle” with each other? Why do family members become so alienated they may not speak to one another for years? It is because we are sinners who are, by nature, enemies of God and of each other. However, the message of the God is the message of reconciliation (that is, putting together divided parties; Jesus’ bringing God and man together). “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19).

The English word reconciliation has its etymological roots in the Latin reconciliare: re-, “again” and conciliare, “make friendly.” In most Germanic languages, the word for reconciliation – e.g. the Swedish word försoning – hasa Low German root, namely sonen, which means “to settle a strife.” However, the Swedish national encyclopedia defines försoning as “the reestablishment of  peace and solidarity between divided peoples, in religion between deity and mankind.” So, even though the Latin and German base words differ, the term holds the same meaning – the reestablishment of  peace or friendship. Thus, both refer to going back to a state that existed earlier, before a bond was broken. The term reconciliation has strong religious connotations. Reconciliation is used in the Christian tradition to describe the broken relationship between God and mankind due to sin, with Jesus reestablishing concilia-tion between them through the sacrifice of his life: “That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them and he has committed to us the message of  reconciliation.

Paul’s use of the word reconciliation to describe God’s movement toward men implies that there was the need for an end to enmity, animosity, or malice. God’s communication with His creation had been disrupted, the connection broken. 

Radical repair was necessary in order for God to again show His love for people. This radical repair came in the form of Christ’s death on the cross. God was willing to count our trespasses against Christ, rather than against us. The recipients of God’s grace become His messengers of reconciliation.

 The power that raised Christ from the dead raises His followers to new life. Old thinking, old behavior, old opinions, old personality traits, and attitudes have passed away; they are dead. As new creations, men and women are called to communicate the message of reconciliation. How is this message communicated? The same way God communicated His work of reconciliation to us, in the radical repair of relationships by showing love to offensive people.

C.S. Lewis has written that Jesus “told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences” (Mere Christianity). God is the one “chiefly offended” in all conflict. Yet it is so difficult for mere mortals to forget their own hurt and anger and to remember that the sin causing them so much suffering, is ultimately against their heavenly Father. The problem lies in the fact that the communication of this reconciliation necessarily comes about as God works through human sinfulness and emotions to bring about the need for reconciliation. Obviously, there would be no need for reconciliation in the world if there were no conflict.

People sin against each other, or think they have been sinned against, and conflict is born. Pride, false assumptions, anger, and bitterness can result from the behavior or attitudes of others. Reconciliation, indeed, becomes a tricky business when a man believes he has been sinned against, yet the other person seems unaware of his or her transgression. Perhaps it is a simple misunderstanding. The best course may be to overlook the sin: “A man’s wisdom gives him patience; it is his glory to overlook an offense” (Prov. 19:11 NIV). Scripture also states that men are to “love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8 NIV). However, if the sin is particularly hurtful, or has serious repercussions, or is grievous enough to warrant church discipline, the example given in Matthew 18:15–17 is to be the model for reconciliation: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone but if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.” Certainly, private communication is more comfortable and more pleasant for everyone involved in a conflict. Clear and gentle communication, coming about as early in the conflict as possible, guards against false assumptions and the “taking counsel in” one’s soul that leads to constant sorrow (Ps. 13:2). We are to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15), that is, speaking it without impatience, unkindness, boasting, arrogance or rudeness, irritability, or resentment (1 Cor. 13). The ability to speak the truth in love is the essence of the communication of God’s message of reconciliation that is to be shown to the watching world.

Why should we do this? Why go to this trouble? Jesus prays to the Father for the unity of His people in John 17:20–23, stating that this unity was to be illustrated “so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” The reputation of Christ’s bride is at stake when conflict undermines relationships. Unresolved conflict may lead us to either fight back in anger or flee in fear of contact. Bitterness and resentment dull appreciation for God’s goodness in our lives. Avoidance prevents the enjoyment of free and open relationships with others. At the root of each of these reactions is pride. Perhaps words have been the weapon of injury, or maybe an actual knife or gun has taken the life of someone dear. It may have been an auto accident caused by a drunk driver, or gossip that led to character assassination. For a man to wonder why such a thing has happened to him is a natural reaction. The Psalms are filled with rich descriptions of the emotions of anger and fear in the face of loss and hurt. Yet, there is the awareness that the sin is ultimately against God. Men’s anger is to be a righteous anger focused in the direction of seeing to it that God’s good name is preserved (Pss. 37:7–13; see also 4:4–8; 13:3–6; 55:12–14, 19–23). “Be angry and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent” (Ps. 4:4). Ponder, or think about, what? The sweetness and richness of the truth that we were alienated from God, and now we are reconciled. Free forgiveness and the desire to reconcile results in treating the other person’s sin as God treated the sins of His people, removing them as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103:12) and remembering them no more because of His great love.

Sometimes reconciliation seems to fail. There appears to be no way to re-establish communication and a viable relationship. Does the process cease and the animosity continue to grow between two who will not be reconciled? No, the Scriptures also speak to this opportunity to communicate God’s message of reconciliation: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27). Jesus is teaching that there will be enemies, those who cannot be reconciled as friends. Yet, God’s people are to go on loving (see Rom. 12:17–19). How can God ask this of His people? Because that’s what He did for us: “While we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom. 5:10).

Reconciliation can be a painful process. God understands this. It took the life of His Son to reconcile sinful man to Himself. He has not called His people to sacrifice their children in order to appease an earthly enemy. He has called us to sacrifice our pride in order to model His message of reconciliation to others. He has called us to live peaceably with all men. When that fails, He calls us to love unselfishly, from a heart that has been reconciled to God. He calls us to remember that we are new creations, with new affections and new behavior, and that we were first loved when we were enemies.

Different Aspects of Reconciliation

In the following we will focus on the literature concerning six different aspects of reconciliation (religious, socio-cultural, psychological, economic,

political, and juridical). The objective is to investigate the main issues of

concern and dilemmas regarding reconciliation from each perspective. 

Religious aspects.

As mentioned above, the term reconciliation has strong religious connotations. In Christianity, reconciliation between God and humanity through

Jesus is a fundamental theme. Historically, within Christianity there has also

been a division between Eastern and Western traditions regarding the view

of sin and thus also of reconciliation. The Eastern Orthodox Church considered sin from a relational perspective, emphasizing the breaking of loving relations between God and man or between human beings. Western

Christian traditions (Catholicism and Protestantism) were in the past more

influenced by the Roman legal tradition and focused thereby on the legal

dimension of sin. seeing sin mainly as disobedience of the law of God. 

Today, however, the Western traditions have shifted from this preoccupation

with normative moral rules to considering sin and reconciliation from a relational point of view.

One approach to the Bible’s concept of justice is that it can be seen as

interpersonal reconciliation, which focuses in particular on the issues of

compassion, mercy and forgiveness. Interwoven in the theological context

of reconciliation is also the notion that human justice is limited. Justice can

never achieve full retribution for the victims, especially not for the dead, but

the theologian hope is that victims will be vindicated after death. Reconciliation is from this point of view seen as the “ultimate fulfillment of justice”,

requiring forgiveness.

In the Buddhist tradition, compassion rather than forgiveness is stressed.

The fundaments of the Buddhist Middle Path are acceptance, tolerance,

and above all, compassion. There are no examples as yet of a Buddhist

country officially working for reconciliation after internal conflict. In Cambodia, however, ongoing negotiations are being held between the government and the UN on how to deal with the country’s conflicts filled past. In

a paper on the pursuit of justice and reconciliation in Cambodia after the

atrocious regime of the Khmer Rouge, Wendy Lambourne states that some

Cambodians she interviewed were sceptical against replicating the Christian concept” of truth commissions as they are based on “confessing and

forgiving”. One interviewee explained that it would not be applicable to

Cambodian tradition where, in accordance with Buddhism, people who

have committed crimes will always be held responsible for them – there is

no God who will ultimately forgive. Another interviewee argued on the

same lines but drew the opposite conclusion, saying that it would be easy for

Cambodians to forgive because they believe the perpetrators will be punished in the next life. 

Implications for Development Cooperation: Awareness of the Christian connotations reconciliation may have in both Christian and non christian countries is important. Consequently, give a clear definition of reconciliation

when using the term or use another word if more appropriate in the specific

context.

sociocultural Aspects.

Culture is the rich and complex blend of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour regarding everything from food to art to politics and religion in a certain society. Culture shapes how we perceive ourselves and others. Violence, fear

and hatred during war result in the modernization of old myths and stereotypes to explain one’s own or some other group’s gruesome behaviour

and thereby justify whatever atrocities are committed. After the war, the

societal and cultural fabric is drenched with these beliefs. They can be seen

in how history is described, how the language is used, in education, the media, theatre etc. In order to live in peace, these beliefs must be questioned

and transformed. Unfortunately there is no universal technique for this.

The search for sustainable peace in a society after conflict must begin from

its own roots, importing from outside whatever can be of use, but basing

that society’s transformation on its own unique set of traditions and cultural

heritage. In the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the

African notion of ubuntu held important meaning. Ubuntu means that humanity is intertwined, a person is a person through other people, we are

human because we belong. Through this concept, Desmond Tutu argued

that “even the supporters of apartheid were victims” and “the oppressor

was dehumanised as much as, if not more than, the oppressed.” The misconduct of one person reduces everyone’s ubuntu while good deeds increase the ubuntu and well-being of all. Thus, reconciliation was part of

restoring ubuntu in both victims and former perpetrators, for everyone is

linked together. In this way, the TRC brought together its mission for national reconciliation, which often used Christian vocabulary, with the traditional African cultural heritage in the attempt to pave the way for reconciliation.

In Caritas International’s handbook Working for Reconciliation a “Tool Box

for Keeping a Cultural Perspective in Reconciliation Work” is proposed.

The recommendations include the following: to identify cultural dimensions to the conflict (e.g. ideology, religion, social inequality), to identify cultural realities that impact negatively (prejudice, fear etc) or positively (shared

values regarding cooperation, similar reconciliation customs) on the resolution of the conflict, and to explore traditional or cultural methods for reconciliation.

Implications for Development Cooperation: Support local and national, cultural grounded initiatives for reconciliation. They will have the highest legitimacy and sustainability in the long run.

Economic Aspects

As mentioned above, studies show that post-civil war societies are significantly more likely to experience civil war again than societies with no prior

experience of war. Barbara Walter argues that two factors are imperative

for this vicious circle to reoccur, both being related to the individual citizen's

incentives to go to war: people feel that continuing life in the current condition is worse than the possibility of death in war, and there is a closed

political system that does not permit change (except by use of violence).

Walter’s study of civil wars suggests that improvement in economic well-being together with increased political openness significantly decreases the

risk of experiencing war anew. Walter writes: “Conflict begets conflict not

because violence makes poor countries poorer or undemocratic governments more autocratic, but because individuals in these countries fail to experience any improvement over time.”

On the same lines, Collier and Hoeffler argue that negative economic

growth rates are the primary source of civil war. Furthermore, studies

show that war greatly strains the economy, “so that there is the potential for

a trap – a cycle of economic deterioration and repeat conflict.”

There is also the risk of spillover effects in neighbouring countries, leading

to instability in the region and the risk of expanded conflict.

How does then economy relate to reconciliation? Economic development seems essential for peace, and peace is essential for reconciliation. Furthermore, and more specifically, in the work of truth commissions around

the world the importance of economic compensation has become unmistakable. “Reconciliation must go hand in hand with economic justice,”

states Alex Boraine. Survivors of atrocity and injustice have often been

denied access to for example education, jobs, housing, and medical care.

When the time comes for building a new and peaceful society, the gaps are

vast between former perpetrators and survivors regarding all areas. As

Robert I Rotberg writes: “Reparations and compensation strengthen the rule

of law, reconciliation, and the overall process of institutional reform.”

Money can never compensate the death of loved ones but can help a surviving

family build a better life as well as serve as “…an official, symbolic apology.”

The truth commissions in Argentina and Chile have had the most substantial economic reparations for victims. Other countries’ commissions

have recommended financial compensation for victims but the governments have failed to provide resources and expedite this crucial step in the

work for reconciliation. In South Africa for example, testifiers had been

promised economic compensation for witnessing in the TRC but the monetary help was seldom handed over to the victim. This led to renewed anger

and feelings of humiliation in victims.

Implications for Development Cooperation: Assist governments in delivering financial compensation to survivors and family members of those killed or missing, who have given testimony in truth commissions. For reconciliation,

economic justice is crucial. Thus, economic compensation must also reach

those who do not take part in a truth commission. Supporting micro finance

projects, joint market days, and other economic projects in order to reduce

gaps and compensate suffering is thus central for reconciliation.

Political Aspects

Is a state of reconciliation politically desirable? Timothy Garton Ash argues

“…the reconciliation of all with all is a deeply illiberal idea.” Whether this

is so or not of course depends on how reconciliation is defined. If reconciliation demands no conflict, no differences, and only love, harmony, and

unity – then reconciliation is probably both illiberal and impossible. If we

use our definition from above: “Reconciliation is a societal process that involves mutual acknowledgment of past suffering and the changing of destructive attitudes and behaviour into constructive relationships toward sustainable peace” this neither implies lack of conflict nor total harmony.

Rather, it refers to a state, as discussed above, that after atrocity and injustice.

builds a future on remembering the past, handling conflict without violence,

and respecting the rights of all its members.

In the first systematic attempt to study reconciliation on a national, political level, Long and Brecke have examined the presence or absence of

‘reconciliation events’ after civil conflict and subsequent relations between

former adversaries. Reconciliation events are defined as including: a

meeting between senior representatives of the former opposing factions;

a public ceremony, covered by national media; and ritualistic or symbolic

behaviour that indicates peace. Studying all countries that experienced civil

war in the 20th century, Long and Brecke found that for countries in which a

reconciliation event took place 64% did not return to violent conflict. However, among countries that had not experienced a reconciliation event, only

9% did not return to war. This supports the notion that political attempts at

reconciliation after internal conflict are essential in the quest for peace.

An example of political, symbolic behaviour indicating peace is the official apology – an increasingly common phenomenon over the last years.

German Chancellor Willy Brandt was one of the first, falling to his knees in the Old Jewish Ghetto in Warsaw in 1970, gesturing an apology for Germany's atrocities during World War II. The pope has apologized for the Catholic Church’s past maltreatment of the Jewish people, the IRA has apologized for having killed civilians in its 30-year anti-British campaign, in 2001

the Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi expressed remorse for the Korean

suffering under Japanese rule during World War II. The UN Secretary

General Kofi Annan apologized to Rwanda for the UN’s inability to act and

prevent the 1994 genocide; former US president Bill Clinton did the same.

In Sweden, the government and the Church are working for reconciliation

with the Swedish Saami, a minority living in northern Sweden who were

subjected to discrimination for centuries. In Australia, Bringing Them Home,

a best-selling official report published in 1997, described how aboriginal

children up until the 1970s had been stolen from their families to be placed

in and raised by white families for “assimilation.” The Australian population was outraged by this knowledge. The government has not officially

apologized for its past conduct, but an annual “Sorry Day” was established,

held on May 26, and “sorry books” were distributed around the country for

the public to sign. Within a year hundreds of volumes were filled with signatures of over 100,000 Australians. Official acknowledgment of, and expression of remorse for, past wrongs has an entirely new role in today’s

world politics.

Implications for Development Cooperation: After internal conflict, in which the

state has been an actor, support initiatives for increased awareness among

top-level leaders regarding the importance of official self-reflection and acknowledgement of past atrocity committed by the state. After acknowledgment of past injustice, support governments to distribute compensation. Support governments in taking the crucial political responsibility of paving the

way for reconciliation through for example laws and education.

Psychological Aspects

On an individual level, traumatic experiences do not disappear through silence. As Hamber writes: “…psychologically, sleeping dogs do not lie; past

traumas do not simply pass or disappear with the passage of time. Psychological trauma research has shown that it is of great importance to heal traumatic wounds in order for life to continue without the trauma becoming cemented in physical and/or mental disorder. Victims of torture and

other human rights violations often have a feeling that no-one would believe

them if they told their story – just as they often have been told by their perpetrators. Official acknowledgement of past atrocity and injustice is important for working with individual traumatic experience because it validates past experiences and helps restore dignity and self-esteem. Telling

one’s story to someone who listens is thus of greater importance than one

might first imagine. However, to speak of traumatic wounds, which often

have left feelings of deep humiliation, shame, and guilt, is difficult and painful. Therefore it is of great importance how the talking and listening is

done and that the victim is aware that revealing does not lead to instant

healing.

During truth commission hearings, victims must recall and relive traumatic experiences in a public environment, most often having only one opportunity to testify and most likely not meeting the commissioners he/she is

speaking to again. In South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) had the objective of uncovering past atrocities in order to

achieve healing and reconciliation in the nation. The objective of healing led

to much debate among psychologists in South Africa. Some expressed

their support, others were sceptical, and some considered it to be more

harmful than beneficial. Alfred Allan warns for the belief that witnessing in

a commission would be healing, referring to studies showing that some individuals, both victims who testified and staff members who listened to the

testimonies, were further traumatised by the experience of participating in

the TRC.

He argues that even though some individuals experienced giving testimony as cathartic, this does not necessarily imply that it was therapeutic.

He states that the question remains “whether the process brought about an

enduring change for the better, or merely a short-term symptomatic relief,”

and calls for research in the area. Similarly, Swartz and Drennan argue

that it is not clear today if emotional self-exposure, even in a clinical setting,

automatically has a positive effect on mental health. Allan warns that this

“myth” – that testifying in a TRC is a healing process – can involve risks, for example: survivors may be misled to testify in the belief that it will be good

for them; the risk that governments believe in the myth and will fail to arrange for treatment needs; and that the belief may deprive people in grave

need of treatment from adequate help, as the needs are not appreciated.

 Allan and Allan claim that “it is inevitable that, for some of them [testifiers], psychological dysfunction and emotional pain will follow.” The authors point to the fact that the aim of truth commissions usually is to focus

on collective rather than individual experiences, a factor that might be antitherapeutic. “We still await studies about the psychological impact of truth

commissions” states another scholar. However, as Hayner writes, “the

central aim of a truth commission is not therapy.” Many truth commissions do nevertheless aspire to function as a therapeutic tool for society. In

this process it is important to remember the individual suffering behind the

stories, and ensure that appropriate care is given.

Implications for Development Cooperation: Support national initiatives for psychological rehabilitation. How this is designed depends on country, tradition, history, and culture. However, during and after truth commissions for

example, some sort of psychological support programme for victims, perpetrators, as well as staff is crucial in order to avoid further suffering and

achieve the best circumstances for reconciliation.

Juridical Aspects

The question of how to deal with the atrocities of the past in a country

emerging from internal conflict is critical and enormously complex. Should

there be tribunals to punish perpetrators? Should amnesty be granted in

order to avoid disturbing a fragile peace? Or should a truth commission be

established to ensure that the past will be acknowledged and not repeated,

and dignity restored in victims and survivors? What does the justice versus

stability equation look like and what is best for the process of reconciliation?

Firstly, Rama Mani states that there are three dimensions of justice that

must be taken into account in peace building after internal conflict:

– The rule of law: the apparatus of the justice system must be restored as it

has usually broken down and lost all legitimacy during the war. The rebuilding of the rule of law also “may serve as an indication to combatants and civilians in war-torn societies of a return to security, order, and

stability.”

– Rectificatory justice: addressing the injustice and pain that has been suffered by people during conflict. This is important from three distinct

perspectives: by international law countries are bound to prosecute past

abuses; politically it is needed to establish legitimacy and stabilize peace;

and psychosocially it aids to understand and heal trauma.

– Distributive justice: “addressing the underlying causes of conflict, which

often lie in real or perceived socioeconomic, political or cultural injustice” in order to prevent further violence.

In this process of building a new justice system adhering to the dimensions

above, a country must then also decide in what way it shall deal with the

crimes of the past. This decision is central in the discussion of reconciliation: what kind of justice should be used? There is strong consensus that, as

Professor Daniel Bar-Tal puts it, “justice is indispensable for reconciliation.” Within the literature on reconciliation, there has been much discourse in recent years concerning retributive versus restorative justice.

Retributive justice, also called criminal, procedural, or legalistic justice, focuses on crime as the violation of law. Crime is, one could say, a matter between the perpetrator and the state. Punishment, and suitable compensation to the victim, is decided upon by the criminal justice system, transferring “the individuals’ desire for revenge to the state or official body.” Although being the most commonly seen form of justice in the world today,

retributive justice is a fairly recent idea historically, with roots in the Middle

Ages.

Restorative justice, on the other hand, with variations also referred to as

transitional or reparative justice, focuses on crime as a conflict between individuals as well as on the injuries crime inflicts on all parties: the victim, the

perpetrator and the society. The interest of the justice system is here to reconcile and heal conflictive relationships in order to end the vicious circle of

crime, revenge, and recurring crime. This is done inter alia by official acknowledgment of the past, publicizing the names of perpetrators (seen as a form of

punishment in itself), formalized apologies, and compensation to victims. Restorative justice systems can be traced back several thousands of

years. There are Babylonian and Sumerian Codes from around 2000 BC

with instructions for how conflicting parties should proceed to bring about

the restoration of broken relationships and order in society.

The dilemma for a country in the transition from conflict to peace is to

find a balance between the moral desire for restoration, which inherently

involves compromise regarding justice, and the legal desire for retribution,

which innately carries the risk of silencing the past (as war criminals will

seek to avoid punishment by withholding certain truths). Or, as one scholar

puts it, how to accommodate “individual criminal responsibility and national

reconciliation.”

A budding trend can be seen in countries attempting to deal with a

conflictive past and promote reconciliation, namely the combination of

these two forms of justice. In Rwanda, offences committed during the genocide in 1994 have been graded according to severity. The most severe criminals, such as organizers and leaders of the genocide, are to be tried in the

conventional courts, including the International Criminal Tribunal for

Rwanda. The perpetrators of slightly less serious crimes however will be

tried in traditional community courts, called the gacaca courts. In this way it

is hoped that the involvement of the population in the trials will promote a

process of reconciliation. Similarly, in South Africa the TRC gave amnesty

to those who confessed to having been part of the apartheid rule. The accounts helped paint a picture of the past, and finding the truth was seen as

more important than attempting to achieve legal justice, also considering

the fact that “[f]ull justice is not always possible in a society in transition.”

In East Timor a similar method of blending restorative and retributive justice is being used in the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation. Restorative justice, including (retributive) prosecution for certain

crimes, holds promise for the future.

Implications for Development Cooperation: Support national initiatives for restorative justice, including for example education and support for the work

in truth commissions and tribunals, securing reparation and compensation

(medical, psychosocial, economical) for those witnessing, educational programmes in trauma and human rights, documentation of testimonies and secret files. Prosecution and punishment of severe crime is also important

for restorative justice. Thus, supporting the retributive justice system, such

as the police, prisons and the formal legal institutions is also of great importance for reconciliation.