Transitional justice can offer many useful approaches, but it is not a panacea. Thailand has concluded a Truth for Reconciliation Commission, and provided reparations for victims. But this is clearly not sufficient in any context struggling with deep challenges of reconciliation, justice, and reform.
Priscilla Hayner, senior adviser to the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, makes a point while addressing the Sept 2 forum on reonciliation in Bangkok . Photo by Pattanapong Hirunard
Reconciliation has been highlighted as a priority by the current government, and also by the immediately previous government. There seems to be broad agreement, in general terms, that more effort is needed to move Thailand further along the path to reconciliation.
What is not so clear is what is meant by reconciliation in Thailand. Is it true that everyone is referring to the same thing, when they emphasize the importance of a reconciliation platform?
My experience in other countries is that this word, reconciliation, may in fact mean different things to different people. This is not always intentional, and may not be something that we are even fully conscious of, when we use this word. The idea of bringing a country together, and to reduce political tensions, is hard to argue with. But what does this mean, really? And is it possible that the variations in understanding of this concept are in fact pointing to quite different visions of a country’s future?
Allow me to explore several examples I what I have seen in other countries. Some of these examples offer warning signs: that of the risk of abusing the idea of reconciliation for the wrong purposes, or for means of manipulation or coercion. But they also offer positive ideas, which I will turn to later.
One common mistake, I believe, is to call on the need for “reconciliation” as a means to argue for a policy of forgetting: to turn the page on the past, to wipe clear all past sins and transgressions. This has sometimes led to the proclaimed justification for awarding amnesty to persons responsible for very egregious acts. This was what happened in Argentina twenty years ago: after several generals were tried and convicted for thousands of disappearance in that country’s “dirty war,” the president promptly pardoned them. He argued that this was in the interest of national reconciliation. This was roundly rejected by most Argentinians. As a result, the word “reconciliation” quickly became to be seen as a negative, tainted word.
Indeed, this form of “reconciliation based on forgetting” is usually rejected by victims, and in my view is an unacceptable and disrespectful approach.
A second trend that have seen, perhaps even more pernicious, is that of “reconciliation by coercion.” When a people are told they must reconcile, it is almost guaranteed to end to failure, and may well worsen the situation.
A striking example of this was seen in Egypt several weeks ago. After the military took over government, their priority was to silence the supporters of the deposed president. You have of course seen the large protests that took over sections of Cairo for weeks. There was a moment, in the army’s desperation to take control, when they decreed a 48-hour deadline for their opponents to “join the reconciliation program.” This was an explicit threat: join the transitional, military-led government, or we will use force against you. The idea that “reconciliation” can be achieved in such a manner is highly dubious. I don’t think there is any example where such an approach has been successful.
A final example of a misuse, in my view, of the concept of “reconciliation” is an approach best-described as “overcoming differences by covering them up, or denying that they exist.” Following the tragic genocide in Rwanda, the new government outlawed any reference to ethnicity on identity cards or other documents. Hutus and Tutsis could not hate or fear each other, it was surmised, if they didn’t identify by their ethnic group. The problem, of course, is that ethnic identity cannot be so easily erased. And this prevented any effort to understand the roots of the problem at a much deeper and more nuanced level. I don’t believe that papering over differences is very helpful, where there is a need to understand and confront very real challenges that may face a society.
Thus I am arguing that reconciliation is not best achieved through forgetting, coercion, or covering up. What does this suggest, then, about a more positive notion of this word? In short, what might reconciliation best look like, if it is to be achieved?
The best examples of reconciliation, from around the world, are those that focus on a process, and not an end point. It may be, regrettably, that reconciliation is not something that can be reached, per se, but rather is a path that one begins on, and then works very hard to continue down. To begin down this path, and to strengthen and deepen the journey, many different kinds of initiatives are possible, and this is open to the imagination, creativity, and political commitment of those in a position to give this shape. This is also something that is highly dependent on national context and culture, and it would be inappropriate to import exact models from elsewhere.
An example of a process-led reconciliation program can be seen in Liberia, where a national truth commission suggested an ambitious, long term program of community discussions, which they referred to as “Palava Hut” discussions, drawing on well-rooted indigenous practices in the country.
In East Timor, community elders brokered agreements between perpetrators and communities, after a period of political violence, to allow the reintegration of wrongdoers; this led to apologies and arrangements of community service to repay for the physical harm they had done, such as rebuilding destroyed buildings.
In South Africa, the Mandela government supported the TRC even when it was revealing the most painful parts of the history of the ANC liberation movement, as it became clear that the ANC had also committed serious abuses while in opposition to the apartheid regime. Over several years of public hearings, one fascinating and surprising aspect became clear: those persons who admitted to wrongs, and who had the strength to apologize, ended up stronger, both politically and personally. Those who continued to deny – and there were important examples where members of the apartheid regime were simply unable to acknowledge their wrongs – seemed to be almost cast aside, left outside the political fabric of the new South Africa.
Let us then look at the question of what the ingredients might be of a program or policy that leads a country down a reconciliation path?
First, it is essential that the direction of this path is not pointed towards a specific political endpoint. In other words, if there is a hidden agenda, it won’t work. “Reconciliation” can never mean “overcoming or fooling the opposition in order to achieve one’s own political purposes.” Be careful here: it is a common error. Given the strong political forces at play in most contexts, certainly in the countries that I have watched, it is understandable. But it very unlikely to succeed.
Instead, the aim must legitimately be to build trust between parties and to identify common national interests, and work to build these common interests over time.
Second, reconciliation cannot be rushed. While there should be no delay in getting started, the process itself must be treated with respect and care. It must be based on communication, on listening, on carefully crafting a process that leads towards mutual national interests, engaging the interests across the political aisle.
Third, let me not downplay the substance of the matter. Concrete measures can be taken in the area of political or legal reform, recognition and apology, economic empowerment, and development. Many specific measures were recommended by the TRCT, for example, which offer a strong starting point. Recommendations in the reports of the People’s Information Centre and KPI echoed similar themes to the TRCT, and should also be carefully considered.
Before I conclude, allow me to return briefly to the subject of amnesty, as I know this is an issue of considerable interest to Thailand at the moment. As with many issues, it may be an error to judge an amnesty proposal too narrowly by comparing it against established international legal guidelines. This would risk missing or misunderstanding the local context. However, I would suggest that any proposal for amnesty should abide by certain basic principles: it should be respectful of victims, it should not be seen as serving specific political interests, and it should be attentive to fair process – both the process of crafting the parameters of an amnesty, and the process of how exactly the amnesty will be applied. For example, while an amnesty may waive criminal responsibility for certain crimes, it should never take away the rights of victims to know the truth. This suggests that investigations may still be necessary. In most national contexts, there are certain acts which can reasonably receive amnesty or pardon. The controversy around the amnesty bill in Thailand, including the fact that many victims’ families have expressed concerns, and in some cases strong concern, should give pause. As an international looking in, I know the hard work on this must be done by nationals here in Thailand, but I would hope that these basic principles could be met.
Let me close by making a final point in relation to reconciliation. The framing principle for all of this, I would suggest, should be a commitment to democratic principles. True democratic space must be assured. There is an irony in the vision I am describing here: while working together across political lines for national interests, there should naturally and simultaneously be competition in the political space. Political parties will of course have different ideas of what should be done. To allow healthy democratic debate, there must be respect for the rules of the democratic game. This will be seen in the space for public campaigning, lobbying, debating, and in fair governance.
However, at the heart of political difference, there must be a common national interest accepted by all: that of putting first the interests of a peaceful and democratic country, one that respects the rights of all. It is through this overall vision that the path of reconciliation might best be found.
Priscilla Hayner is Senior Advisor, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue