A few weeks ago, we warned that the manner in which political establishments want to handle the delicate issue of national reconciliation was flawed and could result in vigilantism as it seems to favour perpetrators of political crimes at the expense of victims.
Indeed, this week victims of political crime and violence spoke out at a National Reforms Authority consultative meetings. They are not happy. They want justice, and they deserve it. Let us all bear the following in mind as we go about navigating our way around this thorny issue:
Reconciliation is the objective of post-conflict reconstruction processes but is often vaguely defined. National reconciliation is achieved when societal and political processes function and develop without reverting to the framework of the conflict. Individual reconciliation is the ability of each human to conduct their life without fear or hate.
According to a paper from Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, the distinction is central because some transitional justice mechanisms promote one type over another. There is a growing consensus of the nexus between peace and justice. The justice debates infer that justice in the form of criminal proceedings followed by punishment will not lead to reconciliation. However, certain mechanisms of retributive and restorative justice can support reconciliation in particular contexts.
Findings about the different forms of transitional justice include:
- Truth commissions give a voice to the voiceless. However, recommendations are often ignored. They are less politically sensitive because they are unable to punish and can therefore be used to avoid issues of transitional justice. The lack of accountability can undermine the transition process.
- Civil society in numerous post-conflict societies has demanded trials and retributive justice. Stability may be threatened if no action is taken. Accountability must be established from the very beginning.
