Restorative Justice in Transition by Kerry Clamp

Author:Kerry Clamp [Clamp, Kerry]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781138922365
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2015-06-09T00:00:00+00:00

Reconciliation and personalism

Reconciliation is a popular term that is often held out as a principle aim of transitional justice mechanisms (Aiken 2010). Weinstein (2011: 2) points to the religious overtones8 and understandings of reconciliation in the South African TRC as the source that ‘spawned an industry of reconciliation advocates and practitioners […] that could lead only to inflated expectations and ultimate disappointment on the part of those who suffered’. Since then, member states of the United Nations and the European Union have expended considerable amounts of money and human resources on this elusive aim (Clark 2006). However, it is plagued by problems around its conceptual meaning and the ‘ideological use of the “re-conciliation” discourse’ (Parmentier and Weitekamp 2007: 136). As Chapman eloquently explains:

One reason for the difficulty in understanding the requirements for reconciliation is that the term refers to a wide variety of types and levels of relationships and an equally broad array of initiatives to overcome ruptures in them. Reconciliation is used synonymously with such diverse processes as peace-building, mutual accommodation between former antagonists, reconfiguration of individual and group identities, healing, restorative justice, social repair, and community building.

(2009: 145)

To illustrate this point further, Shriver (2003) shows that reconciliation can be categorised into: national reconciliation (political consensus and interaction); societal reconciliation (which includes both individual and communal reconciliation); personal reconciliation (between victims and offenders); and finally, political reconciliation (between hostile groups). Amstuz (2006) also distinguishes between reconciliation as a process (through which broken relationships are healed) and as a condition (harmonious relationships or co-existence), which are said to speak to outcomes sought by both restorative and transitional mechanisms respectively.

However, the issue with this approach to understanding reconciliation is that the conceptual issue is not a problem around the layers of reconciliation, but rather about what the term actually means. Is it about ‘social cohesion’ (Parmentier and Weitekamp 2007: 135) or ‘peaceful co-existence’ (Chayes and Minow 2003); ‘forgiveness’ (Shriver 2003) or ‘tolerance’ (Van Stokkom 2012); a shared narrative and understanding of the past (Shriver 2003) or reintegration (Eastmond 2010)? Crocker (2002) has attempted to provide some clarification of what we mean by reconciliation by distinguishing between ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ notions of reconciliation. ‘Thick’, ‘maximalist’ or ‘communitarian’ notions of reconciliation require victims and broader society to build strong ties with human rights abusers. Here, it is the development of a shared narrative of the past and unity in a past and unity in a shared future that is prioritised, with the elements of truth, justice, acknowledgement and forgiveness all seen as the vital components (Eastmond 2010).

Elite rhetoric during transitional processes that have employed ‘thick’ notions of reconciliation have been clearly evident in Columbia and South Africa, where individuals rejecting such ideals have been labelled ‘enemies’ of peace (see Uprimny and Saffon 2007; Wilson 2001 respectively).9 Critics of the South African TRC have drawn attention to how both the Christian-inspired ethos of ‘reconciliation’ and that of ‘rainbow nation-building’ precluded certain things being said by the relatives of victims and those who had been

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.