Reconciliation, Democratic Governance and JusticeThe Potential and Limits of Reconciliation Processes

Philip Oxhorn

Professor of Political Science and Founding Director

Institute for the Study of International Development, McGill University

Executive Education Program, Reconciliation, Conflict Prevention and the Goal of More Inclusive Societies, Institute for the Study of International Development, McGill University, October 26-30, 2015

IntroductionThe High Stakes When Seeking Reconciliation

New Democracies and Transitional Justice: • Fragile Political Stability• Expediency: “Truth” vs. Reconciliation or Justice?

Old Democracies• Opening old wounds—Why Now?• Guilt and/or embarrassment—Leave well-enough alone?

Anywhere: Opening a Potential Pandora’s Box• Frustration when expectations not met• The costs, material and in human terms—how much, when will it end?

Easier to ignore?

The Necessity of Striving for Reconciliation

Recent National Traumas Must be Addressed• Genocide• State Repression• Civil War

Latent Dangers of Historic Trauma• Manipulation by Political Elites• Scapegoating

Social Justice and Sustainable Democratic Governance• Ending marginalization• Realizing Values of Equity, Social Inclusion, and Respect for the “other”• Maximizing the Potential of all Societies

Organization of the Module

A Civil Society Perspective What is Reconciliation? When is it Needed? Why is it Too Important to Ignore? How is it Achieved How Do We Know When We Have Succeeded? By Way of Conclusion: Getting on the Right Path

A Civil Society Perspective Common Understandings of Civil Society

• A Western Phenomenon: Individuals share a high level of consensus and trust• Normative: People are “civil” toward one another• Social Capital

Alternative View: Civil Society as a Sphere of for Conflict Management• Definition: “The social fabric formed by a multiplicity of self-constituted

territorially- and functionally-based units which peacefully coexist and collectively resist subordination to the state, at the same time that they demand inclusion into national political structures”

• Reflects the Relative Dispersion of Power

Civil Society and a Thin Societal Consensus

1) Organizations accept that they are part of a greater public entity• The Possibility of Defining a “Public Good”

2) Organizations accept the right of other organizations to coexist within that entity

• Agreeing to disagree• Distrust as an incentive to organize

The actual level of society consensus is the outcome of historical processes• Western Europe: Arguably a maximum

−After centuries of warfare−Now Challenged by transnational governance structures—the EU

Social Capital and Civil Society are Related but Distinct

Social capital helps build strong societies through organization Not all strong societies are civil societies

• Successful Revolutions• Cases of Genocide

The Importance of the Distinction: “Bad” social capital is not part of civil society• Ex.: The Klu Klux Clan (and other extremist groups)

Civil Society and the Social Construction of Citizenship The Origins and Nature of Citizenship Rights State-Society Struggle

and Bargaining• Agency Is The Key to Understanding How Citizenship Rights Evolve or

Stagnate−Who Participates (or Doesn’t) and How

The Strength of Civil Society is Mirrored in the Scope and Depth of Citizenship Rights• Weak Civil Societies are Associated with Limited Citizenship Rights• Unequal Social Capital and the Marginalization of Potential Potentially Self-

Constituted Actors

Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples

The Thin Societal Consensus is Difficult to Achieve

• The nature of contested sovereignty means that the nature of the public good and its relation to Indigenous people is also contested.

• Colonialism, racism and poverty imply a level of coercion that belies a strong consensus on the right of Indigenous people to compete for political influence

• This also makes it particularly difficult for Indigenous people to organize autonomously.

Yet without self-constituted collective organizations, Indigenous peoples can neither negotiate a solution to the problem of contested sovereignty, nor can they effectively work to overcome the racism and history of exclusion and avoid radicalization.

What Is Reconciliation? Many Potential Definitions

• Economic: Reconciling Accounts• Pragmatic: Accepting Something Undesirable or Less than Ideal—Second Best• Ideal: Trust and Forgiveness

Ethnocentric Rather than Universal • Masking the Reasons Why Reconciliation is Needed in the First place• Western Centric?

−Pragmatism and Economic perspectives uniquely part of Western Liberalism?−Forgiveness is as a Christian Value?

Assumes Reconciliation is a State of Being: We Are (or Are Not) Reconciled

Too Much Onus on Those Who Are Wronged

Reconciliation As Agency and Process A Process Defined By:

• It’s inclusiveness• Equality of Participation• Mutual Respect: The parties involved have the right to participate

−For the historically dominant, respect is earned by agreeing to participate−Respect for “Victims” is achieved because they are now agents of their own destiny

As a Process, it Takes Time• Cumulative and Self-Reinforcing

Reconciliation Therefore Defined in Practice Laying the Groundwork for Harmoniously “living together”

−Creating social cohesion and laying the foundation for democratic good governance

Note the Parallels with Civil Society as a Concept

Reconciliation and Other Values

Truth Telling• Necessary but Not Sufficient

−Source of Empowerment

• Defining Truth: Ex. of Rigoberta Menchu

Justice• Necessary but Also Not Sufficient• Defining Justice: Pragmatic Postponement vs. Alternative forms of Justice

−Retribution vs. Restorative Justice

Trust• Neither Necessary Nor Sufficient• A Potential Outcome?

When Is Reconciliation Needed? Reconciliation as a Means of Dealing with National Trauma

• Genocide• Transition from Authoritarian Regimes or Transitional Justice

−Including End of civil wars

• Historical Processes of Colonialism and Oppression−Attempted Annihilation and Coerced Assimilation

Coercion is violent, widespread and targets specific segments of society• Over time can lead to subconscious action

−Slavery in the US−The Unique Case of Brazil

ExampleThe Continuing Trauma of Colonialism

Latin America: The “Conquest” largely complete Within 30 to 70 years• Aztecs: 95% population decline by 1605; Incas: At least a 50 % decline within 40 years

− Slave trade compensates: so bad, labor had to be imported

• Spread of racism as Rationalization• Disruption of Social Networks and Destruction of Symbols of Religion

Africa• Conservative estimate: 16,255,000 Africans died due to colonial conquest, Millions suffered

consequences of slave trade• The Consequences of Imposing Artificial borders

Consequences: • Indigenous peoples:15% of the world’s poor, but only 5% of the world’s population• Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC): One of the Most Contentious Aspects of

Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Claims− Recognized in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples− Must be seen as a demand for community consultation, buy-in and collaboration

o Why is this different from the “Not in My Backyard Syndrome” in Developed Countries?

Why the Need for Reconciliation is Too Important to Ignore

Is Such Sole-Searching Worth It? • How much does the public notice or care?• Can the Past Truly be Rectified?• The Threat of Instability: a possible trade-off between Reconciliation and Justice?

Reconciliation is Greater than Maintaining Political Stability Setting the historical record straight by preserving historical memory

• The explicit goal of “never again” (“nunca mas”)

Catharsis for those who suffered abuse −Helping end the cycle of substance abuse and violence

Latent dangers than can be manipulated by opportunistic elites (Rwanda, former Yugoslavia)

The Urgency of Action Toward Reconciliation Pre-empting Future Violence as conflicts Intensify

• Extractive Industries• Global climate change• Food security• Ethnic and Religious conflict

The danger that societies become desensitized to discrimination, marginalization, inequality, and violence• The SDGs in a post-MDG World

Example: The High Rates of Violence against Indigenous Women and Girls in Canada and Mexico• 1980-2012, 16% of all female homicides in Canada were Aboriginals• Mexico: femicidio (femicide)

Moving Toward Reconciliation Process vs. Outcome: Recreating or Creating united, consensual societies

• Managing conflict, not eliminating it• Charles Taylor: “people can bond not in spite of their differences but because of them.

Inclusive Participation• Easier for Political Elites to Reconcile than non-elites: The Experience of S. America and S. Africa

Public Component Anti-colonialism Local Dimension Important: This is where we live and work

• Models and building blocks for reconciliation• Cf. structural approaches to justice/equality

Alternative Understandings of “Justice” Emerge Through this process• Integrating “justice” with needs for reconciliation: mutually reinforcing• S. Africa: restorative justice: confess and forgiven, possibility of reparation• Courts as adversarial institutions: a second best solution?

How Do We Know When We Have Succeeded?

Reconciliation’s Goal is Fundamentally Better Governance: • Consensus vs. Division • Fairness and Respect • Feeling of Inclusion

Reconciliation Australia:• Levels of historical acceptance, or acknowledging wrongdoing• Levels of material equality, equality of opportunity and equality of access to

services among groups• Levels of legitimacy of the process and political leadership in moving forward• Quantity and quality of intergroup relations• Existence of a commitment to sharing a common future together

By Way of Conclusion: Getting on the Right Path

Dare to Challenge Assumptions It is a Collective Project that Involves Everyone Ends Do Not Justify the Means Reconciliation Leads to Trust, Not the Other Way Around The Audience is the Same Society that Generates Reconciliation, not

International or External Actors• It’s outcomes therefore will be unique to each context

Socially Constructing the Meaning of Justice• Perceptions of impunity may be inevitable, but reconciliation processes can

minimize them, if not prevent