Reconciliation: Northern Ireland Case Study

Hamber, B., & Kelly, G. (2018). Reconciliation: A Northern Ireland Case Study. In Kofi Annan Foundation and Interpeace (Eds), Challenging the Conventional: Can Post-Violence Reconciliation Succeed? (pp. 98-148). New York/Geneva: Kofi Annan Foundation & Interpeace [Download Chapter, Download Complete Book].

Pushing Boundaries Seminar: Hidden Barriers

On 7 November 2018, myself, Dr Coyles and Dr Grant made a presentation entitled "Hidden Barriers and Divisive Architecture: The Case of Belfast" at the Pushing Boundaries Seminar hosted by the School of Applied Social and Policy Sciences. This builds on our Cartographies of Conflict project.

See all the posts and activities about Cartographies of Conflict project.

Response on Reconciliation to Consultation on Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past

The government launched a consultation on "Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past" earlier in 2018 with a closing date of October 2018. As part of the responses to the consultation myself and Grainne Kelly made a submission on Reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a stated principle and aim of the Consultation Paper: Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past (May 2018). Reconciliation is noted in the consultation document under principles, that is “the principle that reconciliation should be promoted”. Later in the document reference is made to the Implementation and Reconciliation Group (IRG) with its stated aim “to promote reconciliation and anti-sectarianism and to review and assess the implementation of the other legacy institutions proposed in the Stormont House Agreement”.

Drawing on our body of research work on reconciliation undertaken over a 14 year period the main points we make, expanded in our submission, is that although reconciliation is a stated aim and principle of the process (and the Secretary of State also affirms this in the Foreword) there is, firstly, no attempt to define what is meant by reconciliation. Secondly, the document does not outline how reconciliation might be supported and promoted. We understand that implementation might be the task of IRG members, but our research findings suggest that this might be very difficult for a number of reasons. We argue that the current proposed structure of the IRG, and the appointment process in particular, will compound the challenge of reconciliation. At the same time, we believe that the work we have done in defining reconciliation could be beneficial to the process.

50th Anniversary Civil Rights Commemorative Dinner

Many see the 5th of October 1968 as the beginning of the contemporary conflict in and about Northern Ireland, the day when the so-called second civil rights march took place in Derry. In 2018 the 50th Anniversary Commemorative Festival took place with events held across the city. It was fantastic to host the organising committee and friends of the festival for a dinner at the Magee Campus on 7 October. It was a fitting occasion to mark this important moment in history, and to thank the committee for their work in organising the festival. To acknowledge contemporary rights issues the dinner also included inputs from the Chief Executive, Adrienne Darragh, from the Hibiscus Initiative working on contemporary slavery and trafficking issues, as well as Kay Glynn from Birnberg Peirce who worked on the Hillborough Inquest and are currently working on Grenfell inquest.

Brandon Hamber, Paul Arthur, Kay Glynn, Pat Hume, Adrienne Darragh, Paddy Nixon, Malachy O'Neill

Organising committee of the 50th Anniversary Commemorative Festival

The Reconciliation Paradox

Brandon Hamber and Gráinne Kelly

Hamber, B. & Kelly, G. (2018). The Reconciliation Paradox. Peace in Progress, 34. International Catalan Institute for Peace (ICIP): Barcelona. 

Nokulunga Wall of Reconciliation, pamrob3

Political conflict damages relationships between individuals and communities, as well as trust in public institutions and the state. Building peace therefore requires atten-tion to relationships. In its simplest form, reconciliation is the process of addressing conflictual and fractured relationships after political conflict. The term reconciliation can, however, be confusing when applied to societies emerging from violent conflict, as it requires not only the reconciling of broken relationships (as the term semanti-cally implies), but also the process of building previously non-existent relationships between individuals, groups and institutions. This can include a range of activities at multiple levels from inter-personal and inter-group initiatives that could include positive encounter, dialogue, education and mutual understanding, to political level trust-building processes, including public acknowledgement and apologies of wrong-doing, institutional reform, truth recovery and reparations.

The process of rebuilding relationships is also a multi-directional process. To help un-derstand this complexity, we have proposed a “working definition” of reconciliation that, we argue, involves five interwoven and related strands [1]:

• Developing a shared vision of an interdependent and fair society. This requires the involvement of the whole society, at all levels. Although individuals may have different opinions or political beliefs, the articulation of a common vision of an interdependent, just, equitable, open, and diverse society is a critical part of any reconciliation process.
• Acknowledging and dealing with the past. The truth of the past, with all its pain, suffering, and losses, must be acknowledged, and mechanisms implemented providing for justice, healing, restitution or reparations, and restoration (including apologies, if needed, and steps aimed at redress). To build reconciliation, individuals and institutions need to acknowledge their own role in the conflicts of the past, accep-ting and learning from it in a constructive way to ensure non-repetition.
• Building positive relationships. Following violent conflict, relationships need to be built or renewed, addressing issues of trust, prejudice, and intolerance in the process. This results in accepting both commonalities and differences, and embracing and engaging with those who are different from us.
• Significant cultural and attitudinal change. The culture of suspicion, fear, mistrust, and violence is broken down, and opportunities and space open up in which people can hear and be heard. A culture of respect for human rights and human diffe-rences is developed, creating a context for each citizen to become an active participant in society and feel a sense of belonging.
• Substantial social, economic, and political change. The social, economic, and political structures that gave rise to conflict and estrangement are identified, re-constructed or addressed, and transformed. This strand can also be thought of as being about equality and/or attaining equity between groups.

Three additional points are important in understanding this definition.

First, paradoxes, tensions, and even contradictions are always present in reconcilia-tion processes. For example, the articulation of a long-term, interdependent future (Strand 1) is often in tension with the requirements for justice (Strand 2)[2]. Fostering economic change (Strand 5) may also require a change in resource allocation or ownership (for example in post-Apartheid South Africa), yet may negatively affect the potential to build positive relations between those who gain and lose in this process of redistribution (Strand 3).

“Reconciliation involves developing a shared vision of the future, dealing with the past, and building positive relationships with cultural and attitudinal change”

Second, reconciliation is a morally loaded concept and an ideological term. Relati-onships are fundamental to human interaction and, as a result, reconciliation is often linked to our basic beliefs about the world [3]. Someone from a theological background might stress the importance to building empathy within the reconciliation process, while a human rights advocate might wish to promote the rule of law as an effective means of regulating how people engage with one another and to wider institutions.

Third, reconciliation is not just about individual outcomes in isolation (say, addres-sing social inequalities between groups, Strand 5) but rather the process of addres-sing the detail of the five strands holistically. This is challenging because the soci-al, interpersonal, and political contexts are in constant flux. Reconciliation should, therefore, be understood as dynamic and progressive, but also conflictual and prone to setback. As such, reconciliation should be measured as the ability of a society to manage the complex paradoxes and tensions inherent within, and between, the five strands, as outlined above.

We cannot simply apply our working definition to any context without reflection and analysis. Each context is unique, and even the language used (including the term re-conciliation itself), can be fraught with controversy and sensitivity. In some societies reconciliation is seen as a ‘soft’ term that favours compromise over formal justice (this is often heard in Latin American countries), and has been rejected by some victims and human rights advocates.

In others societies, such as Northern Ireland, the connotations are different. In our research in this region, we found apprehension to using the term reconciliation among some peace-focused practitioners, not because it is seen as ‘soft’ but rather because it is understood as a process that fundamentally transforms societal and political relations [4]. They have indicated to us that they have experienced resistance from some when initiatives explicitly use the term reconciliation as it implies a ‘hard’ process that requires meaningful, but potentially uncomfortable personal, cultural or community change.

“Paradoxes, tensions, and even contradictions are always present in reconciliation processes”

At the political level in Northern Ireland a more minimalist view of reconciliation has been adopted, which accepts that different communities (with different political aspi-rations) exist, but only limited efforts have been made to break down the social, resi-dential and educational segregation which exists between the two main communities. With significant improvement in the security context since the 1998 Agreement, and trust between estranged groups generally better than in the past, attitudes towards ‘the other’ have gradually improved [5], but the underlying divisions remain unresolved. Trust between political parties has deteriorated significantly in recent years and at the time of writing this article the devolved legislative Assembly (at the core of the 1998 Agreement) has been suspended for over a year.

Our research shows that this political impasse has also been exacerbated by the lack of a common vision of the future of the region (Strand 1). The 1998 Agreement provi-ded for the establishment of a devolved local government structure within the United Kingdom: a compromise for unionists who wish to remain within the UK at large, and, for nationalists and republicans, a stage in a longer-term process towards a constitu-tionally united (Northern Ireland joining the Republic of Ireland) island of Ireland. This has resulted in different political understanding of what a ‘reconciled’ society might ultimately look like. At the risk of generalising, for republicans the desired fu-ture is of equal and respectful relationships between communities in a united Ireland (they use the term reconciliation to capture this). For unionists, it is a limited form of ‘sharing’ power with nationalists within a devolved and political body, still dominated by British institutions and culture (they generally avoid the term reconciliation).

As a short-term goal following prolonged violent conflict, a minimalist approach that promotes tolerance of ‘the other’ might be a useful first step. However, without crea-ting conducive or supportive conditions for inter-community interventions to thrive and sustainable relationships to develop, the danger of getting stuck at this stage or backsliding is ever-present.

“Reconciliation should be measured as the ability of a society to manage the complex paradoxes and tensions inherent within”

Our research has found that there is a strong public desire for the political classes to jointly design - and publicly commit - to a process of horizontal and vertical relati-onship building. While community-focused relationship-building work has been fi-nancially well supported (for example, the EU alone has contributed nearly €2 billion for community-based work) and well-received with the general population, without significant policy-making to systemically address inter-communal division, its impact is somewhat limited.

Reconciliation is a challenging and even paradoxical concept that is highly contextual. In any setting, a genuine interrogation of how a society understands the core elements of reconciliation is vital. This may uncover differences between those who view re-conciliation as a transformative process (were underlying differences are addressed, new relationships and cultures of connection emerge and all concerned change in the process) and those who view it as a more limited, functional process (basic levels of respect and tolerance but with little social interaction or addressing root causes of the conflict). In doing so, we might more readily address these inconsistencies from the outset of a peace process, ensure greater clarity and tailor approaches to both assuage genuine fears but also reward those willing to take greater risks for sustainable peace. We have found our “working definition” to be a useful tool to “diagnose” the develop-ment of reconciliation processes over time and where new impetus might be required. In Northern Ireland, we would argue that greater efforts to find a common vision for the future, while also seizing the opportunity to address the hurts of the past, is now urgently required. In other societies, this emphasis might look quite different. What is important is that we remain attuned to the potential outcomes of choosing trans-formative or minimalist approaches to addressing a legacy of political conflict and monitor the outcomes these approaches deliver.

Footnotes

[1] See among many other publications Hamber, B., & Kelly, G. (2009). Too Deep, too Threatening: Understandings of reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In H. van der Merwe, V. Baxter, & A. Chapman (Eds.), Assessing the Impact of Transitional Justice: Challenges for Empirical Research (pp. 265-293). Washington: United States Institute for Peace.

[2] See Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.

[3] See van der Merwe, H. (2000). National and Community Reconciliation: Competing Agendas in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In N. Biggar (Ed.), Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice after Civil Conflict. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

[4] Hamber, B. and Kelly, G. (2017). Challenging the Conventional: Can Post-Violence Reconciliation Succeed? A Northern Ireland Case Study. Kofi Annan Foundation & Interpeace: New York.

[5] Morrow, D., Robinson, G., & Dowds, L. (2013). The Long View of Community Relations in Northern Ireland: 1989-2012. ARK: Belfast.

Reference

Hamber, B. & Kelly, G. (2018). The Reconciliation Paradox. Peace in Progress, 34. International Catalan Institute for Peace (ICIP): Barcelona. 

Hidden Barriers and Divisive Architecture

David Coyles, Laura Lane, Brandon Hamber and
Adrian Grant presenting at the KESS Seminar 18 June 2018

For the last three years David Coyles, myself (Brandon Hamber) and Dr Adrian Grant from Ulster University, with partners from LSE (Ann Power and Laura Lane) have been involved in a project called "Cartographies of Conflict".

On 18 June 2018 we presented some initial findings from the research entitled "Hidden barriers and divisive architecture: the case of Belfast" at Stormont at a KESS Seminar.

The policy brief, as well as presentation and video are available below:

[Policy Briefing] [Presentation] [Video]

Find out more about Cartographies of Conflict project. 



Abstract: Hidden Barriers and Divisive Architecture: The Case of Belfast

The “peace-walls” in Belfast are particularly symbolic of the role that architecture plays in separating residential communities and a comprehensive scholarship continues to assess their effects. This presentation outlines original findings from a three-year multi-disciplinary academic research project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, which extends this current understanding of physical and social division. It reveals new evidence of a distinct and important, yet largely unrecognised, body of divisive architecture; an extensive range of ‘hidden barriers’ embedded in various architectural forms across Belfast’s residential communities. The presentation draws on six distinctive case-study communities that have been subjected to the implementation of ‘hidden barriers’ during the comprehensive redevelopment of social-housing during the Troubles: all six communities fall within the top ten percentile of the most deprived electoral wards in Northern Ireland with comprehensive, evidence-based examples of less visible and undervalued forms of social and physical division. The case studies provide a rigorous and reliable evidence base drawn from qualitative fieldwork that includes architectural mapping, photography, community focus groups and in excess of 100 community interviews. This data is underpinned by new and extensive archival research and analysis of NINIS statistical data. The presentation explains how emerging findings from the research reveal complex and multi-layered impacts that these “hidden barriers” have on community relations and community regeneration policy aspirations that are central to the implementation of the Executive’s ‘Together: Building a United Community Strategy’. It concludes by outlining recommendations on how these issues could be addressed within current policy frameworks, presenting the case for the development of novel and bespoke approaches to issues of concern, with a focus on housing, tourist development, and infrastructural investment.

See all posts about the Cartographies of Conflict project.

Presenting in the Basque Country on "Hidden Barriers"

On 17 of May 2018, the team from the Cartographies of Conflict project (all project posts), along with community representatives from Northern Ireland visited the Basque Country. Part of the visit focused on presenting some of the findings of the project to date which tracks "Hidden Barriers" in Belfast (click here for more information on the project). A second part of the trip focused on learning about planning issues and social regeneration in the Basque Country.

David Coyles talking about the hidden barriers
of Belfast in San Sebastián in the Basque Country

"Guiding Architects" giving a tour of Bilbao
Guggenheim Museum in the background

See all Posts about the Cartographies of Conflict Project

Consultation: Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past

The government has now launched a consultation on "Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past". The blurb reads:

More than 3,500 people were killed as a result of the Troubles. The hurt and suffering caused is still felt by people across Northern Ireland and beyond. The Troubles affected lots of different people, including victims and survivors. People have been affected in different ways.The Government is trying to find the best way to meet the needs of victims and survivors and to help people address the impact of the Troubles in the areas of information, justice and acknowledgement and help Northern Ireland transition to long term-term peace and stability. We need to do this in order to support true reconciliation and healing at a societal level.We want to know what you think. Take part in the consultation online, or scroll down for details of other ways to take part.

This consultation closes at 5pm on 10 September 2018, details can be viewed here.

Please note that the consultation has now been extended to 5pm on 5 October 2018.

A new dawn for South Africa, but a false start for Northern Ireland

South Africa has a new leader; the current negotiators in the North feel like a spent force               

In a strange way the South Africa and Northern Ireland peace processes have always been linked. In the 1990s both were heralded as examples of how deep divisions could be overcome, and co-operation fostered between former enemies. Other connections were more direct, such as the former ANC lead negotiator and now new South African president Cyril Ramaphosa’s role in the decommissioning processes as an inspector on behalf of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

Two decades later, however, both peace processes have lost their shine.

In Northern Ireland a lot has been achieved. For example, a stable powersharing arrangement was running for a number of years, there has been substantial police reform and a dramatic decrease in political deaths.

However, the powersharing government has been collapsed for over a year. Social division also remains. Some 90 per cent of social housing is still single-identity, according to the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations. Only 7 per cent of children go to integrated schools.

Although paramilitary activity has decreased, there were 30 bombing incidents last year. Assaults, mainly on young males, by paramilitary groups have continued at roughly consistent rates for the last 10 years.
Significant gains

For South Africa, redressing decades of racial inequality has been a priority. Significant gains have been made. For example, 93 per cent of South Africans now have access to potable water compared to 62 per cent in 1994. The ANC government has built three million homes, housing 16 million people.

However, a backlog of 2.5 million houses remains. The official unemployment rate stands at a staggering 26 per cent. On top of this, the former government led by Jacob Zuma was throughout beset with serious corruption allegations.

However, unlike Northern Ireland, which has now seen a breakdown in the negotiations to re-establish powersharing, South Africa saw Ramaphosa instated as president. A wave of new-found optimism has swept the country. In his state-of-the nation address on Friday, Ramaphosa spoke of a new dawn, turning the tide against corruption and tackling inequalities, while maintaining economic stability.

The campaign to remove Zuma has been sustained over a number of years, and has included media exposés of corruption, large public demonstrations by opposition parties and civil society organisations, a series of court cases that have opened the way for the prosecution of Zuma and his cronies, and latterly a determined bloc inside the ANC and its allies to remove Zuma from office.

South Africans have a new belief in democracy and people power, and have learned first-hand the value of a free media and an independent judiciary. There is new hope in the constitution, the rule of law and the institutions developed to protect democracy.
Frustration

In Northern Ireland things feel very different. Everywhere one turns you hear people complaining about the inability of politicians to make a deal. The frustration is palpable, yet the malaise continues despite the ongoing division, Brexit and economic difficulties looming large.

Like Zuma’s administration that suffered from illegitimacy and drift, the Stormont talks have lost their way, and have lost touch with the people.

While South Africans are optimistic on the promises of Ramaphosa’s “new dawn”, Northern Ireland wallows in the tatters of what was once called a “fresh start”. So why the difference, and what can be done?

First, in South Africa there has at last been a qualitative change in leadership. In contrast, the current negotiators in the North feel like a spent force. Although some top positions in Northern Ireland have changed, those who were there at the start of the current impasse remain largely the same. One way to change this dynamic is to rework the talks structure to include all political parties, bringing in new leadership.

Second, civil society participation has been key to the new South African impetus. It is time to reignite civil society interest in the Northern Ireland peace process. New ways of people interacting with the talks have to be found. Ideas such as a citizens’ assembly have been proposed. Politicians need to encourage new civic interactions rather than corralling around the stale and secret Stormont talks.
New energy

Of course, South Africa is not a perfect or a directly comparable model. The new energy will dwindle over time if expectations are not met. Time will tell if Ramaphosa can deliver. But the current situation in South Africa reminds us once again that change is possible and the re-set button can be pushed. Hope and vitality can be restored to the body politic.

We forget at our peril that a commitment to a new vision, farsighted leadership, civil society engagement and, ultimately, the willingness to compromise is what drove the remarkable changes in Northern Ireland and South Africa in the 1990s.

Unless this genuine spirit for transformation can be reignited in Northern Ireland, as it has been sparked in South Africa recently, the risk is that the Belfast Agreement will become a rather sullied footnote in history.

Published by Professor Brandon Hamber, John Hume and Thomas P O’Neill chair in peace based at the International Conflict Research Institute (INCORE), Ulster University, Irish Times, 20 February 2018

The original article is available here in the Irish Times, 20 February 2019

Screening Violence Project

I am delighted to be part of the Screening Violence Project. Screening Violence is a four-year research and documentary filmmaking project sponsored by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). The project is based in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Bristol and Ulster University, and works with co-investigators and partners in Algeria, Argentina, Colombia and Indonesia. Screening Violence is an innovative engagement with communities that have experienced prolonged and entrenched violence of different kinds: from guerrilla warfare, to state sponsored persecution of particular groups, to mass murder, to sectarian conflict. It aims to achieve a new understanding of how social imaginaries shape civil conflicts and transitions to peace. This project recognises visual culture as a key imaginary space where meaning is made about conflict and violence. We therefore engage with communities that have experienced violence through the medium of cinema and documentary film.

For more detail on the project visit the website.

To see all the posts related to this project and ongoing activities, click here.

Resilience Focused Workshop in Sierra Leone

Project Participants in Sierra Leone

With partners Fambul Tok (Sierra Leone), Catalyst for Peace (US), Refugee Law Project (Uganda), Green String Network (Kenya), and the Research and Advocacy Unit and African University (Zimbabwe), I am managed to secure a seed grant to develop a Global Challenges Research Fund project to bring together partners to consider: "What are the internal-external framework and relationships that genuinely, in practice, support the creation of resilient communities facing ongoing and dynamic peace and development challenges, and how can communities, local organisations and international donors help to grow these?" A large inter-country meeting took place in Freetown in 22-26 January 2018. A range of new initiatives will now flow from the meeting including joint research and proposals.