Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Paradise Lost or Pragmatism? - Brandon Hamber (2007) - How does contemporary politics deal with the consequences of years of violence and atrocities by establishing a process of forgiveness or reconciliation?

Extract

[...] From then onwards, the act of voicing the pain was exhilarating and promoted in the new-found modern democracies. As it appeared, the human and individual aspects made a resurface, and that entailed that the processes of building better societies put the forgiveness and reconciliation processes at the center. If this first section of the article was tackled with a rather historical approach, with political, psychological and social takes, the remaining sections are much more subject to a critical vision on our part. [...]

[...] - Brandon Hamber (2007) - How does contemporary politics deal with the consequences of years of violence and atrocities by establishing a process of forgiveness or reconciliation? Peace and conflict: journal of peace psychology, 115-125 « Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Paradise Lost or Pragmatism?" (Brandon Hamber) https://fr.scribd.com/document/489101119/Forgiveness-and-Reconciliation-Paradise-Lost-or-Pragmatism Critical Analysis "Amongst men, forgiveness can only mean: to give up vengeance, to keep quiet and do as if nothing happened, which means: to walk away by principle, while vengeance will always remain with the other and does not put an end to the relationship. [...]

[...] And how do modern day politics cope with the consequences of years of violence and atrocities by presenting a forgiveness or reconciliation process? Let's attempt at giving some clarity on these issues by analysis the paper published by B. Hamber with many other contributions from peace politicians, psychologists and sociologists. One important note to keep in mind is the context of publication of this paper: the study relates to the 1990s and early 2000s, as opposed to the decade of the 1980s where many violent processes and atrocities where taking place around the world and politicians did not yet embrace the full consequences of the processes ahead. [...]

[...] How does the author lay down the limits of intergroup forgiveness? During their studies on intergroup forgiveness, Kadiangandu and Mullet observed some African communities after the genocide perpetrated in the Democratic Republic of Congo and found out that their only viable way for forgiveness was through the wrongdoer community to request forgiveness to the other one(s). Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, Ferguson et al. realized that intergroup forgiveness was absolutely impossible whilst violence was still somewhat present in the given communities (or even at a close enough distance that these groups felt these new conflicts were a sequel to their own past conflicts). [...]

[...] The question is now: what concept is the most adapted one to a political peace building process: reconciliation or forgiveness? This article argues that, based on experts' take on the matter, it appears as if reconciliation is the better way out, past violent atrocities taking place in communities. Indeed, mere forgiveness is not to be underestimated, as it is an essential part of the process, but it lacks the commonality of the reconciliation process, bringing both parties together. In order to have reconciliation, both belligerents need to agree on a common vision of the issue or at least on a common vision of the process lying ahead and the situation to achieve (ideally a better future where the atrocities are impossible to be committed again). [...]