Reconciliation is both the means and the end

Lionel Wijesiri

The process of developing a framework for reconciliation in post-conflict Sri Lanka remains open, and it appears to be shaping up to be a coherent, inclusive, consultative and participatory guided process. A number of local and international conferences involving civil society have generated widespread public debate about the key issues. There has been a good progress made in trying to engage institutions such as parliament in debate that will pave a way in formulating reconciliation policies and legislative bills.

There is no dispute that Sri Lanka's post-1970s history of socio-political conflict, due to LTTE terrorism, has had a profound and continuing effect on different categories of people in society. In responding to these, a range of individuals and organizations are working on a variety of strategies that can be an important part of the Sri Lanka's national reconciliation project. The work ranges from one-to-one dialogue with victims, to community-based activities on raising awareness as informed by the political environment.

Such social reconciliation interventions are specifically designed to foster intergroup understanding, strengthen nonviolent conflict resolution mechanisms, and heal the wounds of the conflict. They differ from conventional projects and programmes in that their primary objective is to promote social reconciliation, and not to provide services or advance economic, social, or political development.

Social reconciliation

A social reconciliation intervention is supposed to achieve one or more of the following objectives: (1) To prevent or resolve the occurrence of violent conflict by facilitating communication and by developing peace structures, (2) To reduce deep-seated anger, prejudices, and misunderstandings among the conflicting groups through reciprocal dialog, cooperative action, and acknowledgment of the past and to establish or re-establish positive relationships among conflicting parties through communication and cooperative activities.

To achieve these objectives, conflict theorists have proposed several basic strategies around which a wide array of social reconciliation interventions can be devised and implemented.

One strategy is to dialogue among the conflicting parties. The implicit premise is that dialogue entails a willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints and helps in acknowledging mutual needs, rights and obligations. The primary object of dialogue is the process itself, rather than the specific outcomes.

Another strategy establishes and strengthens responsible, professional media-both print and electronic. The premise is that such a strategy can promote social reconciliation in several ways. It helps dissipate the rumours and propaganda disseminated by extremists, which feed social and political tensions. It also creates a space for articulating diverse viewpoints, approaches, and opinions. Above all, it contributes to both transparency and accountability in public affairs, exerting pressure on political and social leaders to behave in a responsible way.

Any successful national reconciliation and healing programme needs to answer three important questions.

1. Who needs?

One possible answer is that the choice between pursuing justice and opting for reconciliation is not an easy one, as this depends heavily on circumstances. In the first national conference on Reconciliation held recently, Prof. Rajiva Wijesingha, MP, explained that reconciliation does require healing, but the wounds that must be healed are those of deprivation rather than resentment. "It is in that context that we must understand the distinction we have heard between restorative justice and retributive justice. Those who declare themselves proponents of the latter claim that punishment is required for those who did wrong, but they forget that, on the one hand, many of those guilty of the worst excesses are beyond punishment, and on the other that many of those responsible for manifold deaths were forced into actions for which they cannot be held wholly responsible," he added. Given this situation, though regrettable from a moral point of view, restorative reconciliation may be the only realistic option.

2. Why needed?

The second question is why reconciliation and healing are needed. This requires an understanding of the underlying causes of the conflict and the violence that manifest from it, the means used to resolve the conflict and whether the process was viewed as political or judicial. How did people react to these means? Were there feelings of suspicion that something was missing?

To answer these questions, one must be cautious to argue for restorative justice over retributive justice. In this regard, what is of importance is ensuring the existence of an inclusive and consultative approach which allows all segments of society to take part in the process. Such a process should also be seen as a way of helping people come to terms with the traumatic past.

Transitional justice is a mix of both restorative and retributive justice. As Former Attorney General and Special Advisor to the Cabinet of Ministers Mohan Peiris said recently, the model perceived in Sri Lanka in structuring a home grown mechanism incorporating international legal principles was the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). It focused on concerns that were real to people at that time, reflect on the past and learn from the recent history.

There were other restorative mechanisms as well. For example, National Action Plan for the Protection of Human Rights! All these were success stories of, not only transitional justice in the post-conflict period, but restorative justice, as well.

Again, it is appropriate to quote Prof. Rajiva Wijesingha, MP, when he said, "Our stress should be on ensuring that all those who lost loved ones come to terms with their bereavement. This is difficult, and we see from much of the testimony before the LLRC that what concerns people is finding out what happened to their loved ones, not clarifying responsibility for any deaths".

However, he emphasized that this does not mean that prima facie cases of abuse should not be investigated. "And the fact that that search extends back into the last century, the need for clarification that was not satisfied during so many years of terrorism, make it clear what our priorities should be with regard to the past - not punishment, but understanding and sympathy.

But we should use the investigative resources we have, not in pursuing cases based on manipulated evidence, but rather on finding out what we can do about the missing. This, I believe, we should have done more thoroughly from the moment resettlement began, and I think the longer we delay, the longer we will have to wait for reconciliation".

3. The means

The third question is about appropriate means of reconciliation and the consequential implications inherent in each strategic process. Central to this are key questions such as: Who are the actors and institutions most likely to promote inclusive and transparent reconciliation and healing processes? What are the potential entry points to the reconciliation process - individual and community versus national levels? What kind of reconciliation does each of the proposed processes and mechanisms bring to the reconciliation process?

For national reconciliation to achieve the desired objective of uniting the fractured social and political groups, the most appropriate means is the civil society engagement. A successful national reconciliation process requires meaningful engagement of civil society and the public at large. This is because a process aimed at responding to people's needs must necessarily involve the people affected by the conflict, especially at grassroots level.

Civil society

In this context, civil society organizations can play a vital role in monitoring the implementation of the reconciliation and healing processes. In this way, their work can give greater legitimacy to the healing process, thereby reinforcing the principle of bottom-up approaches which guarantee sustainable and transformative peace. On the other hand, lack of citizen participation and consultation diminishes the crucial elements of openness and ownership of reconciliation and healing processes.

It is also essential to achieve widespread agreement on all aspects of national reconciliation. The process must be devoid of partisanship with those favouring and opposing a formal reconciliation process exhibiting political tolerance. Consensus and legitimacy of the outcome of the national reconciliation exercise will be enhanced where the government and other interest groups work together to develop the framework and other key aspects of the national reconciliation project.

Finally, with this on-going operation there is a need to educate the general Sri Lankan community about the experiences of trauma and grief as well as their extent and effect on women, men, children, the elderly and the disabled. There is also a need for re-education on how communities that have experienced violent conflicts can coexist in peace and harmony. Educational programmes should be linked to processes of trauma-healing and reconciliation and should be acknowledged by the wider community, as affirmation of a public commitment to the broader healing process agenda.