This document analyzes the relationship between forgiveness and reconciliation in post-conflict peace processes, questioning which concept is more adapted to political peace building.
Extract
[...] How could it be that forgiveness and reconciliation are two opposite processes? 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 analyzing 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 were taking place around the world and politicians did not yet embrace the full consequences of the processes ahead. [...]
[...] Indeed, as opposed to reconciliation, forgiveness is a purely moral and private act that does not rely on both belligerent parties to agree on a common process and a shared vision of a better future. 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. [...]
[...] 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? 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. [...]
[...] How does the paper explain the recent rise of forgiveness and reconciliation processes in the political world? The focus on forgiveness and reconciliation is not new, but in the decades of 1990s and early 2000s, it became an increase focus for societies coming out of all sorts of conflicts. And experts started observing a curious and very interesting shift of these discussions from the purely philosophical and societal grounds to the political one (Hayner, 2001). However, what kind of events pushed the question of forgiveness and reconciliation to arise in the political world only in the late 1990s? [...]
[...] What changed in the late 1990s and brought the urgency to deal with forgiveness and reconciliation at the political levels? B. Hamber explains in this paper that it is the rise of individualism, the reach for modern democracy and political transition, the desire to speak up in an "expressive, psychologically minded individualism" (Summerfield, 2001). Novick (2001), argues that the main change happened when the role of victim started getting glorified more than the actual traditional image of a hero itself: indeed, in the Western world, the cultural icon of a hero shifted from the traditional image of a silent, strong, courageous figure towards a vulnerable victim of atrocious massive or personal violent acts. [...]
