|
|
|
|
State Interests and Public Spheres: The International Politics of Jordan’s Identity
Kimberly A. Maynard
1999
6. Rebuilding Community Cohesion
|
Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed. |
|
—Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization |
Global change has outpaced our ability to react to complex emergencies. While international agencies have learned significant lessons over the past eight years, natural disaster methodology has led the international response, even as we studied the unique ramifications of identity conflict. Physical and economic sectors still dominate the reconstruction efforts. Though critical, this approach often leaves the significant psychosocial needs to today’s crises lacking attention and funds. Left unattended, gaping psychological and social wounds can fester and eventually cause a reversion to conflict, slowing the long-term healing. The challenge of international assistance, therefore, is to expand and address these broader needs. As identity conflict seeps down through all aspects of society, it ultimately pools at the lowest point: that of the community and its members. Consequently, rehabilitation efforts must address the inherent grassroots nature of today’s emergencies.
This chapter attempts to build a conceptual framework for reintegrating communities torn apart by violence. It examines the concepts behind reconciliation and the complex processes of reestablishing relationships damaged by conflict and displacement. Finally, from a more theoretical perspective, it outlines a comprehensive approach toward rebuilding community cohesion and reconciliation.
Developing a Concept of Peace
The premise behind community reintegration stems from the notion that the ideal state of human society is harmony among its members (Voutira and Brown 1995). Indeed, nearly all parties to, and observers of, conflicts profess that “peace” is their objective. What peace represents, and how to attain a sustainable truce, however, are contentious questions. Violence—that is, physical harm to persons and property—lies at one end of a long spectrum, and deep mutual respect and intergroup collaboration are at the other. Understandings of “peace” might fall anywhere from the midpoint to the far end of full harmony.
At its place near the center of the spectrum, “peace” may simply mean the absence of overt violence. In Peace and Reconciliation as a Paradigm, Hizkias Assefa discusses various conceptions of harmony, in which he describes the absence of violence as a “negative peace.” Manifested in enforcement and balance structures such as police forces, justice systems, and nuclear deterrence, its primary goal is the pursuit of stability and control of violence. Regardless of the resulting “law and order,” writes Assefa, this form of peace can breed structural violence, defined as “social and personal violence arising from unjust, repressive, and oppressive national or international political and social structures” (1993:3). Negative peace can lead to abject poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, and servitude at the hands of the powerful and wealthy, which may ultimately be as devastating as more overt forms of violence, according to Assefa.
Further along the spectrum, peace may connote an atmosphere of serenity, free of dissension or discord. This definition ignores the realistic and beneficial roles conflict plays in any society. Most observers would concur that disagreement itself is an essential element in progress, rational decision-making, and building healthy relationships (Fahey 1993). Handling disputes, generating positive outcomes, and synthesizing the conflicting elements require effective means. At the far end of the spectrum, then, lies what might be the most constructive concept of peace, that of genuine, respectful relationships among people engaged in mutual contemplation and cooperation. In this form, conflict is not absent, but it does not descend to a level of mutual abuse, and structures exist to help transform disagreements into achievable solutions.
This notion of peace coincides with the larger concept of complex interdependence. Assefa describes it as “a philosophy . . . [that] provides a framework to discern, understand, analyze, and regulate all human relationships in order to create an integrated, holistic, and humane social order” (1993:5). To achieve this level of peace, fundamental relationships and root issues must be explored. 1 The notion of interactive relationship, rather than technical and impersonal contact or agreement, is at the root of a broader conceptual paradigm presented in this book, one that is designed to fit the conditions of today’s identity conflicts. The deep-rooted nature of these conflicts, which pervade all aspects of society, necessitates expanding our concept of peacemaking beyond negotiated settlements between nation-states to include rebuilding a sense of trust, equality, and participation.
Contending Methodologies of Conflict Intercession
Certain basic assumptions underpin the notion of conflict intercession. The goal of intercession is to help restore order and balance in a society (Voutira and Brown 1995). Intercession does not always achieve this end, particularly in identity conflicts, for several reasons. First, the mechanisms may not be well developed, or they may not fit the specific conditions of the conflict and culture (Lederach 1992). Second, those conducting the intercession may be inappropriate, biased, or otherwise unfit (Moore 1993). Third, intercession itself may be construed as interference in domestic affairs and therefore be unwelcome to certain parties (Awoonor 1993). And fourth, intercession may be the wrong tactic altogether for the particular situation; there may be situations that require absolute noninterference. Though this option is rarely considered, I believe that it should be seen as an option in discussions of responses to identity conflict.
These shortcomings notwithstanding, intercession can be a valid response to intergroup conflict. Somewhere between art and science, the field of conflict management 2 has yet to develop precise theoretical and methodological categories. Two basic approaches appear to dominate the field, each of which contains finer variations and complements the other in the broader picture of whole bodies politic.
The Leadership Approach
The first might be called the “leadership approach,” since it focuses on the upper levels of the decision-making structure. This approach primarily employs mediation and negotiation in an effort to reach an agreement on ending the cycle of violence. Other instruments of statecraft may also be used, such as economic sanctions and incentives, propaganda, and force as discussed in chapter 1 (Saunders 1996b). This is by and large a technical process, conducted around a table in which the various parties attempt to address the issues, symptoms, power balances, and costs of violent conflict through psychological maneuvers, establishing trust, and articulating claims (Scimecca 1993; Volkan, Julius, and Montville 1990; Voutira and Brown 1995).
These proceedings are critical to laying the foundation for substantive conclusions to the conflict; any ensuing agreement can establish a premise for peace and cement the basis for future cooperation. Such agreements are, however, as Harold Saunders claims, “like skeletons without ligaments, muscles, sinews, flesh, nerves or blood vessels” (Saunders 1996a:2). Many scholars agree that the roots of the conflict are left untouched by the leadership approach, along with the broader disruption in civil society and the political process. More important, in its technical approach it does not address the more complex subject of human relationships. Another, less formal process is necessary in order to go beyond government negotiation and into the network of human interaction.
The Relationship Approach
This more far-reaching method might be called the “relationship approach.” Fundamental to it is the notion that the fuel of contention lies in the underlying human relations; these relations, therefore, are the focus of transformation. The “relationship approach” is a process more than an action; it addresses conflict as a function of deep-seated patterns rather than a technical problem; and it takes place in a domain outside the heart of government (Volkan, Julius, and Montville 1990).
Saunders describes the steps involved in this approach in a letter to Cyrus Vance:
Citizens outside government during a civil conflict begin dialogue across the lines of conflict—a public peace process that paves the way for official talks and provides ideas when the official peace process stalls. They create organizations to help refugees return home. They create their own organizations to build relationships across the fault lines and to teach political practice to citizens outside government. They begin to generate connections between the coagulations of warring groups—the sinews of nascent cohesion in a society building peace. (Saunders 1996a)
The two approaches are complementary in that relationship-building can aid the leadership negotiation effort by motivating and supporting settlements, while the technical framework and absence of violence resulting from an agreement at the leadership level can increase security and lay the foundation for more substantive relationship development. In my experience, nowhere is this more evident than at the grassroots where identity conflict has attacked the heart of community interaction.
A Multidimensional Approach to Rebuilding Community
The intricacy of complex emergencies as well as the upheaval associated with identity conflict require an equally multifaceted intercession. The process of rebuilding must incorporate all elements of society, such as the economy, politics, and education, as well as culture, entertainment, technology, and the media (Volkan, Julius, and Montville 1990). The approach should center on human needs, addressing selfhood, security, and physical comfort, while specifically focusing on durable social reintegration rather than short-lived interaction (Gutlove et al. 1992). Intercession must attend, furthermore, to the psychological dimensions of healing for both the victims and the victimizers, without which the effect would be merely superficial (Montville, forthcoming).
Community rebuilding must include a vertical component, one that addresses the conflict between the community and the surrounding territory as well as between it and the rest of the country, and even the entire region. A study of 233 communal groups in conflict conducted by Ted Robert Gurr of the University of Maryland bears this out. Gurr’s study (1993) found that where concerted efforts were made to accommodate and integrate dissenting minorities within the cultural and political system, conflict tended to abate. In the study, integration involved pluralism, devolution of power to ensure citizen participation, democratization, and protection of civil rights.
There appear to be three foci in the evolution of intergroup dynamics within the community itself: the leaders, the individual, and the community as a whole. Each of the three elements has various influences on the opinions, attitudes, and perceptions of the common citizen. At the same time, each is in itself influenced by experience and other entities.
The Leaders
Leadership-directed change may come about through the technical process of redirecting the community’s development. The leaders may begin to reexamine relationships among members, develop plans and projects based on improving relations, and attempt to diminish barriers to cross-group interaction. For example, in an effort to place community cohesion over other priorities, leaders might suggest a road reconstruction project between sectors containing members of opposing groups, rather than new housing for local authorities.
Leaders with foresight will set longer time frames and extend objectives to encompass a gradual regrowth in community relations, including specific intermediary steps. They can use their role as administrators, moreover, to establish community policies that promote cordial relations and encourage cross-group interaction. As the members begin to coalesce and several successful reintegration projects come to pass, the leaders may come to view their participation as a powerful tool in conflict transformation.
The Individual
The daily communication among individual community members establishes patterns and expectations. Proactive efforts to bridge identity group gulfs may bear positive results in terms of community rebuilding. As a member of an identity group, each individual develops an attitude toward opposing groups, based to a large extent on the prevailing group sense. The growing collective animosity between the Abkhaz and the Georgians, for example, had a strong effect on the individual community members (Gluck 1995).
A rebirth in civil society may also have distinct ramifications on individuals. Those independently involved in some component of civil society, such as membership in a women’s group or labor union, may feel a magnified effect through personal participation. Nevertheless, the sheer existence, let alone the growth, of NGOs, trade unions, professional associations, the media, and the like are apt to touch the lives of everyday citizens. Through their social and political advocacy and publicized opinions, these organizations can ultimately influence individual attitudes toward the issues of conflict.
The Community
The third focus is the community as a whole. The experience of deteriorating, improving, or stagnating conditions understandably significantly affects the general outlook for reintegration and rehabilitation. These conditions include the state of the economy and the status of the physical infrastructure, as well as the level of tension among members. The process of decision-making a community employs in reconstructing destroyed structures, for instance, will tend to influence the overall level of revitalization. A gathering of diverse members to set community goals and attempt to meet the needs of the society and its marginalized members, for example, will result in an overall sense of cooperation.
Likewise, group activities designed to involve the entire community in the process of rebuilding can have positive ramifications. A conspicuous illustration is joint reconstruction projects, whether of individual houses or community structures. A public ritual might officially give homage to a symbol of reunification, such as a ceremony to honor recent heroes, blessing of a new or surviving structure representing peace, or the dedication of an area for peacemaking. As in the first two foci, the process of reintegration and concerted efforts toward positive relationship-building can offer a powerful experience that, in itself, can affect the larger efforts.
In this approach to rebuilding community, it is vital to use a large conceptual framework to look beyond the immediate experience and smaller issues. A broad perspective offers the opportunity to go beyond the previous conditions and reach for higher objectives. As scholar Peter Sollis puts it, “Reconstruction should not mean a return to the status quo ante, with emphasis placed solely on the repair of damaged physical infrastructure and production capacity. Reconstruction is an opportunity to address those inequalities—political, social, economic and gender—that together were the root causes of the humanitarian emergency” (1994:11).
The process of rebuilding community also carries the potential for rechanneling the question of identity toward a positive end. By exploring new forms of political identity, wiping clean old, outdated ones, and searching for creative avenues for cooperation, the restructuring can conceivably contribute to a more stable nation-state with internal cohesion and a solid structural framework upon which decisions can be made and problems resolved. This holistic approach must be composed of achievable steps. The next section offers a five-phase process for healing community wounds.
Five Phases of Community Healing
I propose a sequence of five steps for rebuilding community cohesion: (1) establishing safety, (2) communalization and bereavement, (3) rebuilding trust and the capacity to trust, (4) reestablishing personal and social morality, and (5) reintegration and restoration of democratic discourse. There are three important considerations. First, the healing process requires time. Given the profundity of the wounds left by identity conflict, an adequate—often lengthy—recuperation period is critical.
Second, the process must be based on the principle of participation. The more members involved in each phase, the greater the opportunity for healing. Ideally, participation would include members from each identity group, both sexes, a variety of ages, representative occupations, and all levels of social status and class. This process draws on the principle of whole bodies politic and the need to address every aspect of society.
Finally, each phase builds on the others. While there may be a high degree of overlap, each step nevertheless requires a firm foundation in the previous phase. As the fundamentals of one are achieved, even before full completion, the next phase may begin. Elements of subsequent phases may be launched throughout the process, but careful consideration should be given to not skipping any phase.
Establishing Safety
Critical to any healing is removing the danger and replacing it with a foundation of security. In communities tormented by repeated violence, as we have already seen, safety is the most compelling motive for action. Unstable conditions tend to be exacerbated by the return of community members who fled during earlier bouts of fighting; land disputes, threats, retribution, and intimidation are common. Individuals may be frightened by other individuals or gangs, identity groups as a whole may be afraid of large-scale retribution or attacks based on association, and the community at large may be threatened by other regions, the military, or government persecution. Healing under these conditions can be extremely difficult. Therefore, freedom of movement within the community, absence of personal or group threats or attacks, property security, and access to community resources are necessary first steps on the path to recovery. The principle of safety must apply to all members of the community, regardless of status.
Part of the process of establishing safety is coming to a sustainable ceasefire. Peace agreements at the upper level of authority do not necessarily end the fighting at the community level. Leaders may be too weak to be able to implement any settlement and the national structure may be so frayed or nonexistent that inadequate support exists to follow through on the details. Moreover, the dispersion of the population may simply make any agreement substantively irrelevant.
Real ceasefire, by definition, must occur at all levels, not merely the top. Each group in society must participate in order to sustain a ceasefire. The process of obtaining a comprehensive ceasefire is time-consuming, but it is a necessary step in the achievement of a sustainable peace. The tendency to accelerate the transition can cut short the essential psychological massaging, realizations, acknowledgments, and group interaction that lead to complete ceasefire.
Certain conditions can encourage the voluntary end of hostilities. Accor-ding to Helena Meyer-Knapp (forthcoming), an expert on ceasefires, suffering is the key ingredient. When a population as a whole has endured more anguish than it can bear, continued fighting is no longer viable. Each culture, it would seem, has its own tolerance for misery, allowing certain armed conflicts to persist for decades, as in Afghanistan, where fighting has continued for more than twenty years. As I have suggested throughout this book, although all levels of society endure horrific pain as a result of violent conflict, the grassroots nature of identity conflict translates into pervasive suffering at the community level. It is therefore likely that it is here that the first demands for an end to the violence emerge.
A further condition for a sustainable ceasefire, according to Meyer-Knapp, is that those party to the conflict lead the quest for an end to the violence. She suggests that it may be an ordinary civilian who sees the opportunity for leadership in a peaceful society and initiates and drives the effort. The implication is that outsiders have difficulty establishing a motivation for ending the fighting; a ceasefire in an internal conflict must be internally generated for it to be taken seriously and therefore hold. The Chechen-Russian ceasefire of August 1996 may satisfy that condition. In contrast, the Bosnian ceasefire, which was externally facilitated, may meet its demise.
Finally, Meyer-Knapp maintains that a lasting ceasefire depends on the three “Rs”: repatriation, release of prisoners, and reparation. I have experienced for myself, in places like Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Rwanda, how lingering reminders of the unfinished business of conflict, such as refugees living just outside the borders, missing persons, and a destroyed physical infrastructure, serve as a continual reminder of the root issues themselves. Restoring life as much as possible to its preconflict state—or an improved state, particularly under previously oppressive conditions—may help build a sense of a potential common future.
In countries experiencing recent conflict, all aspects of society appear to be extremely fragile. There have been, in the places where I have worked, few if any domestic development programs, little legitimate government control, and even less trust in any ensuing national plans. In this context, the local level grows in importance, as individuals depend on their communities for direction. At the same time, however, conditions in the community such as large numbers of IDPs, recent returnees, little infrastructure, a foundering economy, few jobs, and possible land mines tend to add to the sense of instability.
Yet another factor is the ramifications that grow from the militarization of society. The abundance of weaponry makes eradicating the threat of violence much more difficult, even if a disarmament agreement is reached. Weapons may be cached or simply removed from the immediate area for access at a later date. Demobilization is an equally complex process, given the difficulty in distinguishing civilians from fighters. The division between police, military, and irregular forces is often faint. The use of force, moreover, corresponds to the ability to obtain resources. In an economically impoverished country, hence, demobilization often translates to diminished income generation for the former soldier. Furthermore, individuals in war-torn societies, particularly those involved in protracted conflicts, have often grown so used to fighting that many know little else. Resources and options for other occupations may be limited, and even basic skills such as literacy may be rare (Stafford 1993).
Under these conditions, the danger that the violence will reignite is real. Joseph Montville, a leading expert in conflict management, speaks of a “wounded group self” which, much like a wounded animal, is dangerously poised to defend itself and extremely vulnerable to attack. He describes three characteristics of victimization in this state: the victim experiences traumatic loss, including security and/or faith in the future; the precipitating violence cannot be justified legally or morally; and there is a constant fear of repeated attack (Montville 1995). The establishment of safety is thus critical to mollifying the fear that paralyzes intergroup interaction and to beginning to heal the wounded group self.
While physical security is essential for individual and community rehabilitation, it does not, by itself, exhaust the concept of safety. Economic security and some semblance of livelihood, for example, are also vital to establishing a sense of security and beginning the healing process. Realization of certain freedoms, such as movement around the community and country, communication with whomever one pleases, and expression of opinions are also important aspects of security. Restrictions on these freedoms, such as government monitoring of conversations, denial of access to certain areas or visiting rights, or the inability to contribute to planning and long-term objectives, in contrast, increase the sense of fear and exposure. Furthermore, safety must include a sense of future, both for the individual and the community, and for the next generation. A limited time frame tends to instill a sense of impending doom that perpetuates an impression of insecurity.
Communalization and Bereavement
Perhaps most critical to the rehabilitation process and a sustainable peace is a reconsideration of the violent offenses. Communalization—the act of sharing traumatic experiences, perceptions, resulting emotions, and responses with other people in a safe environment—together with a period of mourning over the losses, are essential beginnings of the healing process. Communalization, in addition, establishes a public record of historical events, an acknowledgment of circumstances and occurrences crucial for (re)establishing national identity. This extremely important phase, however, is often neglected both in an effort to avoid painful recent events and in the rush to move on.
Sociology, psychology, and conflict studies literature are replete with the idea that processing traumatic experiences and violations is essential to healing. Psychologists have found, for example, that retelling stories of loss and injury is critical to the recovery of combat veterans, as well as victims of domestic violence who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (Shay 1994). Communalization and mourning help restore, as Montville terms it, “self-consciousness” in the wounded group self which has been destroyed by rage, disrespect, and insult (1995:166). The process is important for all levels, including the individual, the identity group, the community, and the nation, wherever the tendons of selfhood have been severed. In Bosnia, the Project on Genocide, Psychiatry, and Witnessing is attempting to help Bosnians reconstruct a sense of shared history, under the assumption that having a historical memory is critical to establishing a pluralistic society. According to Stevan Weine, codirector of the project, “Individual survivors must learn how to reconcile the hatreds they feel with their vision of living together. . . . They need to learn how to reconcile their desire for justice or even vengeance with their desire to live in a multi-ethnic democratic society” (Weine 1996:31).
Beginning the journey of communalization can be a difficult step, given the intensity of the animosity and grievances in identity conflict. Individuals involved in violent conflict frequently adamantly avoid revisiting the disturbing experience and resulting emotions. An honest recounting of painful violations, however, can begin to relieve the pain attached to the injustice; grieving over losses eventually subdues the suffering. Both victims and perpetrators benefit from this process, and the community as a whole begins to establish a collective memory based on combined input. Scholar Lucette Valensi examined the consequences of failure to engage in this process in the context of the French military involvement in Algeria between 1954 and 1962. She argues that the Algerian wounds will never heal completely until their side of the story is told, while at the same time, “the Algerian conflict . . . is an unhealed scar in the political consciousness of France” (Watson Institute 1997:14).
In this phase of healing, the essential element is storytelling in an atmosphere of compassion, encouragement, and support. Communalization may transpire in an identity-mixed environment or under segregated conditions; it may occur within a group setting, in an organized public fashion, or individually. The contexts may be a women’s organization, a nationwide truth commission, a health clinic, an official workshop, or informal gatherings of friends and family. The Project on Genocide, Psychiatry, and Witnessing used mental health workers as “witnessing professionals.” The witnessing approach offers individuals a listener for their story and then seeks appropriate ways to share their story with others (Weine 1996). Under very specific conditions, a judi-
cial process may contribute to communalization. Montville (forthcoming) describes an exercise of “taking a history” in which each party expresses fears, rage, anxiety, and perceptions of the opposing party in a historical review of events. Both grieving and communalization can require substantial periods of time. Partly for this reason, this step is often omitted in the rehabilitation process.
If fully realized, the process of communalization and bereavement will lead to acknowledgments of wrongdoing and forgiveness. At this point, according to Montville, parties to the conflict describe explicitly the acts of violence committed against the other and take moral responsibility for the resulting traumatic losses. This begins the process of true reconciliation. Restitution, if possible, finalizes this phase by symbolically or otherwise offering contrition to the victim in a gesture of true remorse. Though such an outcome is optimal, significant healing can occur simply by beginning the process of communalization and bereavement; submitting to this phase is essential to the overall rehabilitation of the population.
Rebuilding Trust and the Capacity to Trust
The next phase in rebuilding community cohesion and reintegration is reestablishing mutual confidence among individuals across identity lines and redeveloping reliance on one another. After identity conflict so mercilessly tears the fabric of society, faith in others is fundamentally shaken and suspicion prevails. In the absence of any modicum of mutual confidence, however, the community will likely remain unable to function effectively. As we have seen in chapter 5, trust is essential to community transactions of all kinds—in economic cooperation, trade, mutual assistance, reconstruction, care for dependents, decision-making, and future development.
The endeavor to rebuild trust requires penetrating people’s sense of being (Volkan, Julius, and Montville 1990). It includes reestablishing a relationship based on fundamental knowledge of the other, considering his or her cultural values, fears, hopes, perceptions, wounds, and historical experience (Saunders 1990). This clearly goes beyond the purely political dealings of state affairs. As interdependence begins to rebuild, however, government authorities, opposition parties, and faction leaders become increasingly interested in the relationship quotient.
Mending relationships, then, is a major function of restoring confidence. In conflicts in which the violations were extremely deep and essentially one-sided, as in genocide, this step can be exceptionally long and intricate. At the community level, the process is complicated by a history of intimate interaction and shared culture, creating a unique experience of communal relationship (Montville, forthcoming). At the individual level, the implications of each personal contact with other members of the community raise the personal stakes of interaction. This can directly affect the will of individuals and the community at large to improve relationships, recognizing the potential long-term benefits of positive relations as well as the ramifications of disastrous ones.
According to several scholars on the subject, building relationships occurs through a series of processes. Saunders, a pioneer in the concept of relationships, suggests that it is “a cumulative and generative process of continuous interaction at many levels that can gradually change perceptions and create opportunities for solutions that did not seem to exist before” (Saunders 1990:18). This kind of interaction presents opportunities to facilitate constructive communication and discover new information, which may counter prevailing stereotypes.
The challenge, nevertheless, is substantial. In cases of extreme animosity, such as those found in identity conflict, Montville maintains that the opposing groups tend to be exceptionally fixed in their perceptions. They are, therefore, unlikely to consider positive change even possible, often viewing adversarial characteristics as genetic givens (Montville 1993). The process may require an extended period of time and indulgence from all those involved. Research on psychological reaction to encounters with antagonistic individuals suggests that short-term or one-time exposures often reinforce negative stereotypes, while consistent interaction over time provides multiple opportunities for new experiences and therefore reversal of previous perceptions (OTI 1995). The potential for stereotype reversal is ostensibly higher in cases where the outbreak of violence has been fairly recent and the deterioration in relationships relatively rapid. In these situations, the process involves reconnecting old unions and redeveloping past mutuality (Montville 1993).
Montville (1993) also discusses how communication becomes critical in rebuilding relationships and establishing trust. The length and consistency of engagement and the resulting perceptions ultimately affect the evolution of the relationship. Each party’s perception of the other’s credibility influences its decision to use intellect and discussion, or to resort once more to physical force. “As two [groups] recognize the interdependence of their interests through interaction, the quality of their interaction may change, and they may find more ways to communicate, to change perceptions of each other’s motives, and eventually to work together on problems that affect them both,” writes Saunders (1990:19).
Montville (1993) notes that some degree of management of the interaction is important. Virtually all societies appear to have intrinsic systems of behavior regulation for various conditions. Primitive societies, according to John Keegan, limited the negative repercussions and increased the potential for positive outcomes of combat through the use of tacit constraints. These included tools regulating combat; restricting certain members of society from attack, such as the elderly, women, and children; carefully selecting the place and time of combat; adhering to a season for conflict; and performing rituals that defined the nature of combat as well as the recourse to conciliation, arbitration, and peacemaking (Keegan 1993).
In the more formal framework of a community decision-making process, or within the structure of civil society, interaction can be regulated by means of standards of practice and mutually agreed-upon rules. Generally, in the early stages of meeting, groups seem to establish agreements for self-management and positions of fallback, such as acceptable representation, appropriate means of communication, and an equitable decision-making system. According to Montville (1993), in the less organized setting of everyday individual interaction, regulation may frequently be a product of ritual or custom emanating from shared culture. Regulation may occur, for example, by recognizing areas of appropriate cross-group contact, such as business, maintaining respect for certain individuals (such as the elderly), or avoiding recognized points of agitation. In all cases, regulation offers a means of limiting offensive behavior that may undermine the trust-building process (Montville 1993).
Transformation in the relationship may be the result of any one of several factors. It may stem from a change in the situation itself and the conflict at hand. It can also occur when one party independently experiences a shift, resulting in a new perspective on its association with the rest of the world. Or it may come as a consequence of new learning and information generated from the relationship itself (Saunders 1990).
The evolution of a beneficial relationship and the rebuilding of trust and the capacity to trust can take on several characteristics. First, an increase in communication that leads to better knowledge and understanding tends to promote a growth in interdependence (Montville 1993). This positive development may come from the mutual experience of an ability to work together on problems that threaten both parties. But, as Saunders (1990) points out, successful cooperation on one issue does not guarantee a positive relationship nor the potential for working on other issues. Nevertheless, continual collaboration on a variety of problems can lead to increased insight and eventual trust.
Consistent interaction on shared problems can develop into a valuable capacity in its own right. The mutual benefit of collaborative problem-solving—that is, defining problems, setting objectives, developing alternative solutions, and selecting a course of action—can become an end in itself. This capacity allows the relationship to take on added value and become less strained and more stable. Given continued cooperation, fear eventually begins to subside and, over time, trust develops. As it progresses, the focus on group differences decreases to a level of healthy cross-identity tension. Ultimately, the powerful experience of transforming change can have a widespread ripple effect throughout the community and even beyond, further expanding the capacity to trust.
Reestablishing Personal and Social Morality
The fourth phase in the process of social reintegration is reconstructing the concept of thémès, or “what is right,” 3 and reestablishing guidelines for individual and group behavior. Social ethics include acceptable standards for appropriate contact and communication among each segment of the population, standards of honesty, forbidden grounds, responsibility to family and community, personal accountability, the role of loyalty and obligation, and methods for handling emotions such as anger, injustice, betrayal, and jealousy. The development of healthy community social standards is essential to building faith among groups and providing a foundation for social interaction. Furthermore, it can help place boundaries on specific actions, thereby limiting inappropriate or offensive behavior that can build tension and lead to resumption of hostilities.
Simply recognizing the need for such rules and order is the first step in the process. After intense disorder and violation of moral standards, there may be a tendency toward increased community-wide awareness of the dearth of legal and social guidelines. As trust gradually builds across identity lines, a more formal structure within which to develop the growing relationship can provide added reassurance and strengthen credibility. The second step, then, is acknowledging the immorality of past acts. This step actually begins in phase two, during the process of divulging grievances and mourning losses. In phase four, reviewing and admitting to violations committed serves to confirm the communal ethical foundation and reestablish norms of behavior.
Third, defining and firmly asserting a moral order can set the code of conduct as a legitimate social structure. This may be either or both an informal, verbal process of fixing limitations on individual behavior, or an institutional procedure defining legal boundaries and penalties for violation. In the case of the latter, great care should be taken to establish an impartial authority when (re)constructing the judicial system. If the population perceives the judicial system as biased or corrupt, it will fail to serve as a moral guide and may instead be viewed as an avenue for revenge, thus prolonging the cycle of hostilities. Conversely, good laws and judgments can help rid the culture of impunity and reestablish intolerance of immoral conduct. By carefully advocating atonement, moreover, these can assist in the process of forgiveness. (Arguably, real forgiveness must come from a genuine sense of remorse. Misuse of gestures of atonement can exacerbate the grief and misunderstanding; they should therefore be used only in conjunction with personal acceptance and an authentic sense of repentance.)
The development of a legal system to help set the tone for morality ideally begins after the first three phases have been well established. If punishment by law begins too early in the process of rebuilding community cohesion, it may again be seen as revenge. Instead, it must be conducted in a spirit of community healing.
In addition to the legal system, communal law can serve as another source of moral guidelines. Given equitable treatment for all identity groups, deference to traditional cultural practices can help reestablish social ethics while reaffirming shared heritage. Accordingly, respected moral authority figures, whether they be community elders, tribal chiefs, village mediators, committee members, or religious leaders, can enhance the strength of moral law.
The last step in the process of rebuilding a sense of individual and group morality is maintaining the established codes. For institutionalized ethical rules of behavior to be effective, all members of society must be held accountable for their actions. A sense of responsibility for individual behavior, then, should be part and parcel of community life, and any deviance must be regarded seriously.
Reintegration and Restoration of Democratic Discourse
The last phase in rebuilding social cohesion is the process of systematizing a diverse contribution to community affairs, which restores community spirit and helps ensure its sustainability. A healthy society accepts and integrates its diverse elements. Though not without contention, such a community has the skills and structure with which to handle disputes peacefully. This inclusiveness supports participatory discussion that allows the community to make comprehensive decisions, plan for the future, and implement development strategies.
The process of reconstructing inclusive systems of operation in a deeply divided society, such as one recovering from identity conflict, involves several elements. First, as suggested in phase three, it necessarily entails problem-solving, given the multitude of issues facing the community, such as reconstruction, economic rehabilitation, and care for the marginalized members of the community (Conradi 1993). Second, to continue on the path toward reintegration, the process must entail a win-win approach that accommodates at least some elements of all parties’ interests (Assefa 1993). One-sided decision-making structures tend to encourage resentment and ill will. Third, it should incorporate meaningful participation from as broad a base of community members as possible to help create a cooperative vision of shared goals. Ideally, such inclusiveness encompasses individuals and groups often on the fringes of decision-making, such as women and the handicapped. Last, considering the probable extended time frame of the healing process, the focus should be on long-term effectiveness, rather than short-term results.
At the same time, certain divisive ventures ought to be avoided. According to Assefa, the win-lose formula of multiparty elections and the (often externally generated) pressure for pluralism, for example, tends to undermine any shared vision, mutual cooperation, or consensus. He explains that “although people in multi-party systems tend to recognize the maxim that ‘winning is not everything,’ in deeply divided societies, winning might be the only thing.” He illustrates this point with the 1992 Angola elections, where lack of confidence that the political system would care for all of Angolan citizens generated a party power-play in which winner took all (1993:26–27).
Similarly, the (also often externally generated) pressure for the economic competition of a free market system can aggravate the polarization of a society, according to scholars Eftihia Voutira and Shaun Brown (1995). In the typically resource-scarce environment of a postconflict community, competition for resources is intense. Therefore, pressure for economic rivalry may be a divisive strategy for rehabilitation, potentially reopening wounds and increasing resentment and hostility.
Instead, according to Voutira and Brown, the approach to developing democratic discourse should be integrative and inclusive and encourage consensus-building as much as possible; the underlying mechanism should encourage parties to seek common ground rather than vie for position or dominance. In contrast to majority rule, Assefa’s reconciliation politics uses the problem-solving method of “interest negotiation,” involving continuous interaction in search of mutually agreeable solutions to issues of reconstruction, relief, development, and so on (1993). Above all, this approach focuses on cooperation, which, by definition, entails interdependence and the building of relationships.
Several instruments can help the process of reintegration and the development of democratic discourse. One mechanism used successfully, at times, early on the road to democratization is a national convention. A convention offers the potential to develop a common vision of postconflict society by soliciting a wide array of opinions and holding intensive discussions on the sensitive matter of future development. Obviously a delicate, complex, and time-consuming endeavor, a national convention nevertheless provides a forum for building consensus on critical issues (Assefa 1993). A similar process might be useful in a community setting to build a common vision of a rehabilitated society.
Another tactic is to rebuild traditional decision-making structures. Particularly in protracted conflicts, these mechanisms tend to become debilitated to the point of being inoperative and, therefore, may be absent during the initial stages of rehabilitation. As in the deference to communal law in phase four, resuscitating elders councils, religious institutions, committee formats, and citizen plenary sessions helps restore traditional custom and places emphasis on internal rather than foreign means (Rupesinghe 1991). Chapter 7 will explore this process further. It is important to note, however, that some of these mechanisms may have become (or, indeed, have always been) biased or oppressive. Correcting the inequities and empowering the institutions, as Assefa contends, may help move the society toward a more rooted, participatory, and harmonious structure.
Another forum for democratic discourse that can lead down the path toward reintegration is the (re)development of a civil society. Though civil society can play multiple roles in the relationship between the state and its citizens, its relevance here is the access it provides to the democratic process (Blair 1992). In a healthy political structure, civil society offers an arena for citizen participation in decision-making. It also provides a means by which the population holds the government accountable for its actions. A strong civil society, moreover, offers avenues for peaceful change by presenting disgruntled citizens with access to nonviolent methods of persuasion, instead of resorting to physical violence.
Conflict-ravaged communities have usually lost most semblance of civil society, which is generally the product of a strong social infrastructure. In addition to the dispersal of, and decrease in, the population itself, the means and security required to assemble members of civil society are likely inadequate. As a result, whatever political structure may exist cannot benefit fully from citizen involvement, and the population itself suffers from the lack of access to the larger decision-making structure. Revitalization of civil society can provide a means of democratic discourse and, ultimately, peaceful change. Strengthen-ing civil society in a recovering community offers greater opportunity for wide participation and for presenting differing views in a relatively safe space.
These phases present a generic, ideal progression from a segregated, hostile population to a respectful, cooperating community committed to mutual future development and sustainable peace. The actual process of reintegration, rebuilding community cohesion, and eventual reconciliation, however, is obviously complex, convoluted, and long. There is no cathartic cure for the wounds of violence.
Nevertheless, what choice do we have as international helpers in these circumstances but to approach recovery from complex emergencies in a comprehensive, yet visionary manner? As we have seen, this entails addressing not merely physical and economic issues but also psychological and social rehabilitation. The next chapter discusses the role of the international community in the recovery process. It explores the negative impacts of external aid, proposes a new operational framework, and offers specific strategies for rebuilding community.
Endnotes
Note 1: Assefa suggests that such a holistic conception is founded on four values and principles: (1) the absolute necessity of identifying and resolving root causes, (2) the importance of justice and fairness in the process of dispute settlement, (3) the underlying commonality of interests and objectives between disputing parties, and (4) the fundamental role of restructuring relationships in resolving conflict (1993:5&-;6). Back.
Note 2: The ongoing debate over terminology reflects the changes and growth in the field. Some experts maintain that the word resolution connotes an unrealistic absolute denouement of the underlying contention and hence use transformation instead. The latter refers to an evolution in the antagonistic relationship ostensibly toward a—possibly heated but—nonviolent interaction. The words management and mitigation are also used here, acknowledging the seemingly intractable and deep-rooted nature of identity conflict, along with the necessity of coming to terms with the situation. Back.
Note 3: Jonathan Shay (1994) uses the concept of thémès in Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character to describe the deep-seated ethics, which, regardless of culture, when violated elicits an intense mental learning. Back.
Email this citation