Dealing with the Past: Time to move to a new level

 I began to explore the issue of how Northern Ireland should deal with the past shortly before the 1998 Agreement. At that time, when I asked policymakers and community groups whether the issue of dealing with the past was important or would become important in the future, responses ranged from bewilderment to hostility. More immediate issues were at hand. A discussion of the past was equated for some with suggesting unravelling the peace process while others were dogmatic they had nothing to account for. However, a decade on the issue of dealing with the past has become mainstream. The fact that PEACE Ill has a funding stream entitled 'Dealing with the Past' is proof in itself. The key question though is whether society is any closer to grappling with the past.

Brandon Hamber, Derry, September 2023 CC BY-NC-ND

Progress

Much has happened since the Agreement. The peace process has spluttered to a (seeming) finale marked by the unthinkable cooperation between Paisley and McGuinness as First and Deputy First Ministers in the new Assembly. In terms of dealing with the past there has been, among others, the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, commissions to investigate disappearances; inquiries into political murders north and south; cases before the European Court of Human Rights; the Historical Enquiries Team; and the Consultative Panel on the Past set up by the British government to provide ways forward on the dealing with the past question.

At the civil society level, the Healing Through Remembering initiative, which has brought together former loyalist and republican combatants, British soldiers, members of the PSNI, victims of the conflict, people from church and civil society backgrounds, academics and others, to debate ways of dealing with the past has made a significant contribution. The project has presented options for truth recovery, hosted a Day of Reflection, considered methods such as storytelling and provided ideas for a living memorial museum (Healing Through Remembering, 2002, McEvoy, 2006). The breadth and extent of this project, and its unique position in driving the dealing with the past debate from the bottom up, is unprecedented internationally.

Thus, it would be untrue to say this society is not dealing with the past. Rather, the question is whether more is needed and whether a structured collective process is necessary.

Resistance

Many questions remain about the past in terms of truth and the secrets of the 'dirty war'. For some victims the question of justice remains pressing. Although some apologies have been made, genuine acknowledgment from the governments, paramilitaries and wider institutions that had a role in the past such as churches, the judiciary, the media, the educational establishment, and those allocating services such as housing, has not been forthcoming.

• When the particular question of truth recovery is raised typical responses follow: 
• the truth is too damaging, everyone has secrets and it is safer to leave these alone;
• Northern Ireland is small and the violence intimate, truth-telling would be destabilising; 
• justice cannot be delivered; the Agreement has already granted early release;
• truth-recovery is too expensive;
• acknowledgement can only be forthcoming once culpability has been conclusively established; and
• no one would tell the truth anyway.

These resistances to truth recovery are interesting. Graham Hayes writes: "the perpetrators fear the truth because of the guilt of their actions; the benefactors fear the truth because of the 'silence' of their complicity; some victims fear the truth because of the apprehension of forgetting through the process of forgiveness; and other victims fear the truth because it is too painful to bear" (Hayes, 1998, p.46). Hayes' comments command respect for the difficulty of acknowledging the past, while at the same time they pose a challenge to us all.

Why is it that we are better at thinking of why not to address the past than arguing why we should? Giving the reason that people will not tell the truth as a justification why we should not interrogate the past is a case in point. Yes, lingering half-truths and lies, and a failure to take responsibility for actions and inactions is a reason why we should be wary when considering the issue of truth recovery, but it is also a reason as to why truth recovery is an imperative.

A new level

Dealing with the past can be a technical matter that could be dealt with by a legitimate and inclusive truth-recovery process. However, it is also about political will and courage. Being open to reasons why dealing with the past may be necessary is the first step. Having the courage to admit that not all that was done in the name of a just cause - whether you see that as your role as the state, defending the state or fighting against it - is the next.

So has the dealing with the past process moved on in ten years? The answer is a cautious yes. Dealing with the past is now squarely on the agenda and much is happening. However, risks remain that the debate about how to deal with the past will be self-defeating or the debate in itself may become the process rather than moving to a new level.

In 1998, after investigating different views on the matter of dealing with the past, I concluded the following on truth recovery: "Most political players demand truth from those they perceive as the other side or sides, but seem unwilling to offer the truth from their side, or acknowledge and take responsibility for their actions. This is mostly due to fear that such acknowledgement (public or otherwise) will weaken in the new dispensation and that the truth may be used against them within the context of the delicate peace that prevails. There are also those in Northern Ireland who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong or that their action (or inaction) was complicit in perpetuating the conflict" (Hamber, 1998, p.80-81).

I am not convinced many have moved beyond this. Surely the time has come to stop obfuscating, talking about whether we should talk about the past or waiting for another committee to report on what should happen next. Someone has to jump first, and that means at an absolute minimum, publicly admitting mistakes were made and acknowledging one's own role, either by commission or omission, in the conflicts of the past. This should be followed by a commitment to developing and participating in a process of truth-recovery.

Published by Brandon Hamber in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Review, 2007, Winter(6), 13.

Reference

Hamber, B. (2007). Dealing with the Past: Time to move to a new level. NIHRC Review, Winter(6), 13

Dr Brandon Hamber is  the Research Co-ordinator of INCORE, a United Nations Research Centre for the Study of Conflict at the University of Ulster and a Senior Lecturer at the University. He is the Chair of the Healing Through Remembering project. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of all the membership of Healing Through Remembering.

References

Hamber, B. (Ed.) (1998) Past Imperfect: Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland and Societies in Transition, Derry/Londonderry, University of Ulster , INCORE.

Hayes, G. {1998) We Suffer our Memories: Thinking about the Past, Healing and Reconciliation. American Imago, 55, 29-50.

Healing Through Remembering (2002) Report of the Healing Through Remembering Project. Belfast, Healing Through Remembering. Availableatw ww:healingthroughremembering.org

McEvoy, K. (2006) Making Peace with the Past: Options for truth recovery regarding the conflict in and about Northern Ireland. Belfast, Healing Through Remembering. Available at www:healingthroughremembering.org

The truth commission lost in translation

The South African theatre production, Truth in Translation, was the hit of the Belfast Festival this year. The play, for those of you who have not seen it, focuses on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Instead of relying on the testimonies of victims, perpetrators, commissioners or the commission audience, Truth in Translation centres on the interpreters who worked for the commission. The production tells the story of a group of translators who have to contend with 11 official languages. At the same time, there is an expectation that they remain uninvolved while recounting atrocity after atrocity. However, by the nature of translating in the first person, they get absorbed into the process, becoming vehicles for the truth and the lies they themselves have to utter. Narrating other people’s stories also results in each interpreter grappling with his or her own past.

In Northern Ireland, the production added to the debate about dealing with the past in a society where active political conflict has just drawn to an end. Watching the play in Belfast, as a South African living there, reminded me of the distance that South Africa has travelled compared with Northern Ireland, where the debate about examining the past is in its early stages.

However, at the same time, I was left wondering if the play was currently creating more debate abroad than in the country.

To some degree, the South African commission was a victim of its own success. The more public it became and the more high-profile stories it told, the more people felt that, when it was over, the past had indeed been dealt with. However, most of the commissioners would probably concede that the TRC uncovered new truths in at best 10% of the 22 000 cases brought before it. No systematic process of implementing the commission’s recommendations was ever set up.

Further, investigations and prosecutions of those who failed to take the opportunity of the generous amnesty offered to them through the TRC is an unpopular issue. South Africans still fear that further investigations might destabilise the political process or be used for political purposes. However, although the commission was powerful in enabl-ing stories to be told, as Truth in Translation reinforces, did it uncover the whole truth or build lasting reconciliation? The TRC made a good start but I doubt that most victims would answer this in the affirmative.

The needs of victims do not disappear with the passage of time. This is difficult because victims have multiple needs and it would be naive to think that any process can meet all needs. Nevertheless, expecting victims to forget the past when their lives have been profoundly altered by violence is not an option.

That said, dealing with the past is also wider than meeting the needs of victims alone. Of course, taking the political stability of the country into account is important and wallowing in the past at a social level can be counterproductive. But, equally, if we are going to tout South Africa as a model for dealing with the past, we should not avoid hard quest- ions.

Have we really addressed the needs of apartheid victims? Are some of the factors that contributed to the conflict, such as poverty and racism, still stimulating new types of violence? Or what about ongoing human rights violations like torture of criminal suspects which allegedly continues in some South African jails.

So where does this leave South Africa? There are many lessons South Africa can teach others. I am delighted to see a South African production helping to stimulate debate elsewhere. Fittingly, however, Truth in Translation does not have a neat ending or a simple answer. All the characters continue to struggle with their history when the curtain goes down. Dealing with the past is a process and not an event. Have we, South Africans, forgotten this?

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 7 November 2007 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Putting the 'R' back into DDR

Brandon Hamber in the KOFF Centre for Peacebuilding Newsletter, 1 November 2007, No. 62, pp.4-6

Dealing with ex-combatants following war or armed political conflict is a complex and challenging task. Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) programmes have been attempted across the globe with varying levels of success. A psychosocial approach raises additional questions and invariably means a focus on the reintegration component of the DDR process. Reintegration however is the part of the process that is the least developed yet the most long-term and difficult to achieve.

Disarmament and demobilisation are finite tasks, their success is relatively easy to assess in terms of cessation of hostilities or weapons decommissioned. Reintegration is more ephemeral with its success deeply entwined in socio-economic and political reality, whilst also being about psychological rehabilitation. On top of this, the reintegration needs of combatants are dramatically variable.

Gender and age specific needs

It is now common practice to consider all those linked with armies in combat as combatants, e.g. active soldiers, those caring for the wounded, those housing combatants, and those smuggling arms. The Cape Town Principles, aimed at dealing with child soldiers, argue that a combatant is anyone who was part of an armed force including cooks, messengers, and girls recruited for sexual purposes. It is important to cast the net as wide as possible when offering reintegration programmes, but such a broad definition raises question about how to deal with a variety of needs. This is cut across by other factors such as gender and age. It is well established for example that female ex-combatants often fail to access reintegration programmes or are excluded. Notwithstanding the work done by many innovative reintegration programmes, there has been at times a one-size-fits-all approach to reintegration.

Economic perspectives

To date reintegration has largely, although not exclusively, focused on subsidies, as well as skills and educational development aimed at employment and economic reintegration. This is often coupled with activities such as community sensitisation, psychological assistance, reconciliation initiatives and public education. This is important because social and psychological reintegration cannot be divorced from post-conflict reconstruction. It is common in countries such as Sierra Leone and Liberia for ex-combatants to point out that the skills they have learned in training programmes are useless in a climate of mass unemployment. Obviously a strong economy and a stable political context are vital to reintegration efforts. However, often employment is seen as the panacea for dealing with social and psychological reintegration, or the relevance of counselling and reconciliation rituals are overly emphasised. A balanced process is needed.

It is interesting to consider for example a relatively prosperous society like Northern Ireland in this regard. Ex-combatants, and especially those released after lengthy prison services, still find it difficult to find work because of discrimination, skills deficits and a small employment market as they are often afraid to work outside of their ‘own areas’. Research suggests that 30 to 40% of ex-prisoners are unemployed compared to a national unemployment rate of about 5%.

That said, it would also be inaccurate to simply assume that all those unemployed do not work because of their ex-prisoner status. Many suffer from health problems and some find it difficult to work in environments over which they have little control or are subject to hierarchical relationships. In other words, the legacy of the conflict endures in the structural make-up of the society, but there are also psychological obstacles. This is true for excombatants as it is for the society at large.

Photo by Alexander Ugolkov on Unsplash

Psychological pitfalls

Reintegration as a concept cannot be detached from the psychosocial context in which it is being undertaken. This might sound like stating the obvious, however, from a psychosocial perspective, it is the nuanced interplay between the psychological and political and socioeconomic situation that is important. This can impact on how we conceptualise and run reintegration programmes, as well as determine their success.

Training someone for a new job is not simply about teaching them how to do a task. Reintegration demands so-called ‘soft skills’ such as co-operation, selfreliance, networking ability, community development and social entrepreneurship,not to mention psychological readiness to deal with the challenges a new job will present. It is difficult to teach these ‘skills’. Some international lessons suggest these are best imparted through strong active excombatant organisations themselves and reintegration programmes that are participatory rather than just training based.

In addition, DDR processes can fail to acknowledge that disarmament and demobilisation are in themselves contributing factors to why some male ex-combatants fail to reintegrate. Some men, as a result of the violent masculinitiesshaped during war, can feel emasculated as a result of disarmament. Being trained with basic skills such as food gardening or a trade can be seen as demeaning influencing ex-combatants willingness to continue such work after the training. The meaning attached to a reintegration programme is also important.

In South Africa, hundreds of ANC guerrillas who were offered a place in the new military ‘walked away’ from the process. They felt their ‘bush experience’ was not valued because of the low ranks they were given in the new integrated military. They felt undervalued. In Northern Ireland, using the term reintegration could alienate some former combatants because it is a term generally used within the criminal justice service. Being part of a reintegration scheme can be seen as a form of ongoing criminalisation. From the opposite end of the spectrum, reintegration as an option can also be a bridge too far for the people excombatants have hurt or bereaved, and seen as a reward for violent behaviour. This in turn undermines ex-combatants’ chances of ever being reintegrated.

Thus, getting to grips with reintegration is about grappling with issues at the heart of most conflicts, such as the legitimacy of the use of violence. This is a society-wide task and requires political will, as well as being the responsibility of ex-combatants themselves. We also need to move away from seeing DDR processes as essentially functional tasks that need to be undertaken to cement peace. Reintegration cannot simply be about a-contextual investments into training schemes that count success by the number of people who are trained. Capacity building and life skills, as well as dealing with the psychological residue of the conflict in the minds of ex-combatants and other citizens too, should be part of the package.

Published by Brandon Hamber in Koff Centre for Peacebuilding Newsletter, 62, 1 November, 2007

Reference

Hamber, B. (2007). Putting the 'R' back into DDR. Koff Centre for Peacebuilding Newsletter, 1 November, 62, 4-6.