Reconciliation, Democratic Governance and Justice
The 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
Introduction
The 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 SelfConstituted 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
Example
The 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