Foundations 7 Reconciliation Is Grounded in Hope

Reconciliation Is Grounded in Hope

Reconciliation is a word describing an unexpected breakthrough in a relationship which has been broken in the past. Structures and Policies which foster respect, dignity and equality support these relationships, making it possible to believe that they are not just irreconcilable events. For some of us, reconciliation is a new or little used word. So, let’s start with some background.

Reconciliation Is Relational, Structural and Restorative

At the root of the word reconciliation is ‘the other’ or ‘the other person’. It comes from the Greek “allos” meaning the other, and the Latin meaning ‘to bring back together’. Reconciliation is related to setting aside ‘hostility with another’ or ‘estrangement’. For this reason, reconciliation is something that happens both to me and to the other, in which we take each other seriouslyxvii, and accord them their unique worth as a full human person. Reconciliation describes bringing back together people who are, or have been, ‘hostile others’, ‘at enmity with one another’. So reconciliation involves returning to, or moving on to, a new more open, easy and just state of relationships, in which the terrible past is no longer the decisive reality between us. In our experience, many societies dominated by deep social conflict do not value relationships with different others as a priority. It is often ‘First Rights then relationships’. For us rights go together with relationships. Rights that are simply demanded may be just and at the same time, they sustain distrust and fear between different people which puts those rights at risk. At the same time, relationships which formalise injustice, where there is no dignity or respect for the other, are not free. They are relationships of rivalry where we try to ‘defeat’ rather than ‘meet’ the other. Many societies have therefore established important ‘minimum’ rights, that belong to a person and cannot be taken away. In this way, the person has dignity in their rights. Such minimum cultural or legal standards are essential if everything is not to dissolve in violence, but they are insecure without the possibility of relationship, in which the other is much more than their rights. Each person is a partner in the journey of being human, both teacher and taught, and to whom dignity belongs. Where relationships decay, rights become an object of struggle, and even a weapon we use against each other. The question is therefore not rights or relationships, but how do we make relationships which make rights appear as natural parts of what we

owe one another as persons, rather than legal duties which are only conceded because they are laws. For us, reconciliation in whole societies has, at least, three elements-relationships, structures and forms of restoration and healing. It requires:

• A focus on nurturing trustworthy relationships;

• Safeguards in structures which ensure that everyone has a place of dignity and respect;

• The possibility of acknowledgement of wrongdoing, restoration and restitution. Restoring relationships has a number of milestones: Reconciliation is relational, structural and restorative.

• recognising both the relationships in our lives where we had trust and freedom and those which now prevent us from trusting and working with the other.

• reflecting on the way in which we are repeating old patterns from the past, for good and for bad, and where we might hope for change in these structures.

• meeting together with others in a way that allows us to see them differently, even though they have threatened or hurt us, or we have threatened or hurt them. Restorative practices have been developed in a systematic way in a number of societies. In these cultures, the restorative tradition “prioritises processes that tie people historically to wider social movements in which positive behaviours were and are supported and reinforced over time,… they also are processes in which people can integrate their healing, recovery, hope, and aspirations into citizenship. These are purposeful and meaningful activities in which they feel they have a say and experience personal competencexxvi. A restorative culture is rooted in paying attention to the health of relationships, and the contribution each person can make to that health. Eventually this can become so normal that it becomes part of the law, part of the way in which society works, part of normal everyday life. Eventually, restorative practices are rooted not only in personality or events, but in wisdom held by cultures, in habits learned in societies which can be deliberately translated into restorative learning practices that are experienced and learned together. Eventually such practices may underpin more restorative relationships, structures and systems.

As a short introduction consider: The Five P’s - Five Practices to Move The Restorative Agenda On Through:

• People- developing small practical initiatives together that heal or address division.

• Pilots- modelling possibilities though new ways of working together.

• Programmes- growing new programmes.

• Policies & Practices- embedding & supporting new policies and practices.

• Public Advocacy- challenging and inviting people to explore what restorative means.

Examples in each strand might be:

1. People - Promoting Restorative Processes in Various Institutions- Schools-Youth Projects-Community Programmes.

2. Pilots - Establishing Restorative Principles In the Organisational Cultures of Public Bodies; Charities; Schools; Colleges.

3. Programmes - Promoting Restorative Processes in a Variety of Institutional Settings as a Way of Handling Conflict e.g Councils; Health; Banking; Credit Unions.

4. Policies & Practices - Aligning Restorative Economic Practices with Inward Investment, Social Inclusion and Economic Development. Promoting Restorative Practices in Practices addressing Social and Economic Inclusion.

5. Public Advocacy - Restorative Practices supporting a more just society, ‘defined as a society in which all human needs are met’. Restoring an enhanced Urban Environment.

Essentially those involved in reconciliation need an open spirit, a willingness to meet and have robust and respectful engagements with and between different others. To accept reconciliation in its relational, structural and restorative dimensions of safeguarding everyone, means that meeting, restoring trust, taking responsibility and ensuring that everyone is welcome and can participate are central requirements of a society. Where there is hostility, reconciliation says – “find a place where trustworthiness already exists and where trust and hope can grow.” It never rests with an uneasy hostile separation or fears and threats that fester and linger. The focus is therefore on the question: Who is trustworthy? Where is safety? How do we develop rituals where each person has a dignified place. Because only in these kind of places, where people feel safe enough that they do not have to rival, can we really learn in a transformational way. Such transformative relational, structural and restorative practices are the only way we can open up and nurture good community relations open to people of any background, including different religious beliefs, political opinions, sexual orientations, and ‘so called ‘racial groups’ (See Amartya Sen,xviii) Before equality is practiced, it has to be known.

The good news is that spaces like this can open up anywhere in groups, clubs, sports, music, cultural and artistic groups, as well as in public and civic institutions. What each can be is a reflective environment in which those responsible for the space take care that everyone belongs, that everyone is able to be fully present, and that each person takes responsibility for each other feeling safe. Real work of this sort embraces each person in all of their complexity. A central challenge is that each gives the other their place with dignity. Reconciliation often is a challenge in the midst of fearful relationships We are very easily drawn away from reconciliation, into believing that change comes from beating the other, and eliminating their influence. This is particularly true when we ourselves feel under threat. We seek security through strength and distance. Our wish is to reverse this dynamic. While this works for a while, eventually the only security is in new relationships. I will only escape the desire to win through beating the other, when I meet them in ways which enable them to be part of my life, not a threat to me. Creating spaces to stimulate meeting and trust, promoting structures which support them and building habits that sustain them, is the core of our work and these materials.

Political Reconciliation and Relationship Building

To live on a frontier is to live permanently ‘on the edge’. It is to live where almost everything seems provisional and uncertain. In the face of uncertainty, especially where there has been a lived history of violence, threat or conflict, we quickly become caught up in fearful and antagonistic relationships. Where people who fear one another live together, contested societies emerge. “In a world of interdependency and conflict, people will successfully secure their own well-being, and that of their families and communities, only by developing the capacity to understand the needs and desires of others. ” The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030: the future we want, Dr. Ayhan İncirci, Kristy Howells, Alexandra Sawicka OECD, E2030

Frontiers easily become places where we seek secure borders, gathering round our sense of identity and nationalism. Despite the fear, antagonism, and violent actions of frontier societies, there also exists in them often slender strands of reconciliation that need to be acknowledged and supported. Reconciliation in these societies sometimes looks like the choice to not join in the wider violence and to wait. Stepping away from the crowd can be seen as ineffective by those who “worship decisiveness and effectiveness.” This perspective fails to acknowledge that “people who have suffered appallingly” are refusing to ‘to see all-pervading malignant intent in the ‘other’xx. Frank Wright detailed in his defence of the Peace People Movement in Northern Ireland what happens when relationship building is given room to occur in contested societiesxxi. ‘People with different experiences of where the violence came from communicated with each other and understood why they differed politically and what respecting each other’s differences might mean. It is very unlikely that this period is the failure it is now represented as being by those who judge things entirely by ‘decisive results’. What can never be quantified is what evils may have been prevented.xxii In short, Wright insisted that the victories of peace movements and reconciliation projects are, by definition, invisible. They are the lives not taken. They are the blood not spilt. They are ‘the news that doesn’t happen’ (as one of the Peace People’s own leaders put it)xxiii.