Reconciliation: My Publications

Last Updated 12 November 2025.

I have numerous requests for my writing and publications on reconciliation. The publications below really deal with the conceptual and definitional issues on reconciliation.

So below I have compiled a list of published work to date:  

• Deng, F. M., & Hamber, B. (2022). Two Perspectives on Fanie du Toit’s When Political Transitions Work: Reconciliation as Interdependence. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 14(1), 366-375 [Download PDF | DOI]
• Hamber, B. and Kelly, G. (2018). Response on Reconciliation to the Consultation Paper: Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past. INCORE, University of Ulster. Submitted online 5 October 2018 [Download]
• 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 Book]
• Hamber, B. & Kelly, G. (2018). The Reconciliation Paradox. Peace in Progress, 34. International Catalan Institute for Peace (ICIP): Barcelona [Substack | Medium | Blog | Download PDF]
• Hamber, B. (2014). Reconciliation. US Institute of Peace Insight Newsletter. (Fall 2014). USIP: Washington DC [Substack | Medium | Blog | Download PDF | Download Alternative PDF]
• Hamber, B., & Kelly, G. (2009). Too deep, too threatening: Understandings of reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In A. Chapman & H. van der Merwe (Eds.), Assessing the Impact of Transitional Justice: Challenges for Empirical Research. Washington: AAAS [Request Publication]
• Hamber, B., & Kelly, G. (2009). Beyond Coexistence: Towards a working definition of reconciliation. In J. Quinn (Ed.). Reconciliation(s) Transitional Justice in Postconflict Societies. Montreal: McGill University Press [Request Publication]
• Hamber, B. (2008). Forgiveness and Reconciliation: A Critical Reflection. In L. O'Hagan (Ed.), Stories in Conflict: Towards Understanding and Healing (pp. 139-155). Derry: Yes Publications [Request Publication]
• Hamber, B., & Kelly, G. (2008). The Challenge of Reconciliation: Translating Theory into Practice. In Community Relations Council (Ed.), A Sustainable Peace?: Research as a Contribution to Peacebuilding in Northern Ireland (pp. 3-26). Belfast: Community Relations Council [Request Publication]
• Hamber, B. (2007). Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Paradise Lost or Pragmatism?. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13(1), 113-123 [Download]
• Hamber, B. & Kelly, G. (2007). Reconciliation: Time to grasp the nettle. Scope - Social Affairs Magazine, February. NICVA: Belfast, Northern Ireland [Substack | Medium | Blog | Download PDF]
• Hamber, B. (2006). Exporting reconciliation or reality TV. Polity and Engineering News, 17 March 2006 [Substack | Medium | Blog]
• Hamber, B., & Kelly, G. (2005). The Challenge of Reconciliation in Post-conflict Societies: Definitions, problems and proposals. In I. O'Flynn & D. Russell (Eds.), Power Sharing: New Challenges for Divided Societies (pp. 188-203). London: Pluto Press [Request Publication]
• Kelly, G. & Hamber, B. (Eds.) (2005). Reconciliation: Rhetoric or Relevance?. Report 17. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Democratic Dialogue [Download]
• Hamber, B. & Kelly, G. (2005). A Place for Reconciliation? Conflict and Locality in Northern Ireland. Report No. 18. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Democratic Dialogue [Download]
• Kelly, G. & Hamber, B. (2004). Coherent, contested or confused? Views on reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Paper presented at the Reconciliation: Rhetoric or Relevance? A roundtable discussion on concepts and practices of reconciliation, Wellington Park Hotel, Belfast, 9 June 2004 [Download]
• Hamber, B. (2004). Public Memorials and Reconciliation Processes in Northern Ireland. Paper presented at the Trauma and Transitional Justice in Divided Societies Conference, Airlie House, Warrington, Virginia, USA, 27-29 March 2004 [Download]
• Hamber, B. (2004). Submission to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Reconciliation: Ways of dealing with Northern Ireland's Past. Submission, December 2004. London: Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. [Download]
• Hamber, B. & Kelly, G. (2004). A Working Definition of Reconciliation. SEUPB & Democratic Dialogue: Published with PEACE II Funding Guidelines [Download]
• Hamber, B. (2003). Transformation and Reconciliation. In J. Darby & R. MacGinty (eds), Contemporary Peacemaking: Conflict, violence and peace processes, Palgrave/MacMillan, Hampshire: UK [Request Publication]
• Hamber, B. (2002). Maximising our contributions to building peace and reconciliation. Paper presented at the Standing Community Convention, Armagh City Hotel, Northern Ireland, 16 December 2002 [Download]
• Hamber, B. & Maepa, T. (2000). Education for Reconciliation in South Africa. The Development Education Journal, Volume 6(2), pp. 15-17
• Hamber, B. & van der Merwe, H. (1998). Rainbow of Reconciliation. New People, No. 55, July-August, pp.19-22 [Download PDF]
• Hamber, B. and van der Merwe, H. (1998). What is this thing called Reconciliation?. Reconciliation in Review, Volume 1, Number 1, pp.3-6. Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation [Substack | Medium | Blog | Download PDF]
• Hamber, B.E. (1997). Truth: the Road to Reconciliation?. Cantilevers: Building Bridges for Peace, First Quarter, pp.5-6 [Substack | Medium | Blog]
• Hamber, B. (1996). Will Reconciliation Follow Disclosure?. New Nation, 3 May 1996 [Substack | Medium | Blog]

If you cannot access any of the above publications, please send me a request and I will email it to you.

A Truth Commission for Northern Ireland?

This week the BBC has been focusing on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. The most startling thing about this debate has been how issues have been narrowed before genuine discussion has started. Concepts like truth and justice have been bandied about as if they were mutually exclusive and as if they meant the same to everyone.

The South African model has been used as a benchmark for discussion, with little recognition of what it was about. The other twenty or so truth commissions, in societies as diverse as Ghana, Peru, Argentina, Chile and Sierra Leone, have meanwhile been ignored.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, it seems we all should have an opinion on whether there should be a truth commission for Northern Ireland. Ground work already done on these issues has been neglected, and more measured approaches circumvented.

Debate on this issue is vital, and the more the better. But some key points have been lost in the media circus.

First, dealing with decades of conflict is long-term, complex and time-consuming. It cannot be summed up in a few interviews or emails. It will not entail a single approach or model. International lessons suggest it takes decades. We should not look for any quick fixes.

We should not rush into opinions on different methods before we have agreed that remembering, acknowledgement, truth and justice are important issues for victims and society at large. We must interrogate what we mean by these terms and debate our different perspectives.

The past can only be dealt with if all concerned enter the debate in an inclusive way, aimed at entrenching peace. We should not underestimate the importance of getting this right, ensuring that the discussion is aimed at reconciliation and not point-scoring.

If we do not first agree the underlying principles, all discussion will be contorted and subject to political wrangling. This will ultimately result in mechanisms that will continue the conflict by different means, rather than finding ways constructively to resolve it.

The most extensive consultation on this issue to date has been carried out by the Healing Through Remembering Project. This sought to document possible mechanisms and realisable options for how remembering should occur, so that healing could take place for all those affected. This took two years of discussion.

Importantly, this consultation was run by a board reflecting a range of very diverse backgrounds. The project received over 100 written submissions and recorded thousands of hits on its website.

Many submissions endorsed the value of remembering and spoke of the importance of finding ways to move society forward. But others expressed concerns about the potential pitfalls. The idea of remembering also evoked an emotional response, indicative of much hurt and unresolved pain. The project’s recommendations include a focus on truth recovery, but extend well beyond it.

This is the second point: dealing with the past needs to be seen as wider than a truth-recovery process. Any such mechanism should run alongside other initiatives, such as storytelling, a living museum about the conflict, an annual day of reflection and a network of commemoration projects. Many community projects are also part of the picture.

In the same vein, although victims are central in dealing with the past, thorough engagement demands a focus on the entire society. This is vital when considering the issue of responsibility for the hurts suffered.

It was pointed out in several of the submissions that the need to revisit the past was not confined to those who saw themselves as primarily involved in the conflict: politicians, victims and those who carried out violent acts. For any collective remembering to be helpful it needs to engage the entire society and particularly those who saw themselves as ‘uninvolved'. The whole society has a responsibility to deal with the past.

Thirdly, the Healing Through Remembering Project does recommend that a formal truth-recovery process should be given careful consideration, though only as one part of dealing with the past. But it stipulates that an important first step is a process of acknowledgement, by all, of acts of commission and/or omission.

Political parties, the British and Irish states, republican and loyalist paramilitaries and other institutions would all need fully to acknowledge the extent of their particular culpability. In fact, we should all consider what we have done and have not done to prevent loss of life. Sincere acknowledge

ment is the key foundation for exploring truth recovery in an even-tempered, self-effacing and responsible manner.

Published by Brandon Hamber, Democratic Dialogue, 11 June 2003

Brandon Hamber works as an independent consultant to the Healing Through Remembering Project and is a research associate of Democratic Dialogue in Belfast.

Challenges of Intergenerational Healing after Mass Atrocity

We have just a new piece published in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal. 

Hamber, Brandon and Palmary, Ingrid (2021). A Dance of Shadows and Fires: Conceptual and Practical Challenges of Intergenerational Healing after Mass Atrocity. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 15 (3), 100-120 [Download].

Abstract

The legacy of mass atrocity – including colonialism, slavery or specific manifestations such as apartheid – continue long after their demise. Applying a temporal inter-generational lens adds complications. We argue that mass atrocity creates for subsequent generations a deep psychological rupture akin to witnessing past atrocities. This creates a moral liability in the present. Healing is a process dependent on the authenticity (evident in discourse and action) with which we address contemporary problems. A further overriding task is to open social and political space for divergent voices. Acknowledgement of mass atrocity requires more than one-off events or institutional responses (the grand apology, the truth commission). Rather acknowledgement has to become a lived social, cultural and political reality. Without this acknowledgement, healing, either collectively or individually, is stymied. Healing after mass atrocity is as much about political action (addressing inequalities and racism) as an act of re-imaging created through constant and contested re-writing. 

 [Download]

Truth Commission for Colombia Dialogue

A dialogue was held on 16 December 2020 hosted by the Truth Commission for Colombia entitled "Let's talk about coexistence and reconciliation". This reflexive dialogue focused on the mandate of the Commission to promote coexistence and reconciliation. The dialogue sought to learn from international experience to overcome challenges and help to strengthen the work of the Commission and its legacy in Colombia. 

The dialogue was an online discussion between panelists. The participants, based on their experiences, responded to guiding questions put forward by the moderator. Participants included Brandon Hamber (Northern Ireland); Sergio Jaramillo (Colombia); John Paul Lederach (USA); Elizabeth Lira (Chile) and Kimberly Theidon (USA, Colombia). 

In my input I stressed how despite significant investment in relationship building work in Northern Ireland from the EU, IFI and Atlantic Philanthropies that has strengthened community relationships, opportunities have not always been maximised. This he argued was because community and political processes have been treated separately. Ongoing political division at the leadership level undermines community interventions. In addition, the vision for reconciliation has focused on limited co-existence that accepts social, educational and residential divisions or changing these issue marginally, rather than a more transformative approach. The has created a negative rather than positive peace in Northern Ireland.

The panel discussion can be viewed below:

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. 

Irish Association Talk: Transforming Societies

I will be speaking at the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations autumn lunch on Saturday 12th Sept 2015, 12.30-1.00. My topic is 'Transforming Societies After Political Violence: Reflections on Truth, Reconciliation and Healing in South Africa and N Ireland'. Using personal experience from engagement with victims and survivors during the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, and peacebuilding work in Northern Ireland, the lecture will delve into the complex interplay between individual psychological processes and macro-political interventions such as truth commissions. Specifically the lecture will explore issues such as reparations, “doing justice”, the power of ambivalence, and concepts such as closure, trauma and reconciliation setting out the role of transitional justice, human rights and mental health practitioners in helping survivors move beyond the toxic past without covering it up or becoming mired. The lecture will take place at Stephen's Green-Hibernian Club, 9 Stephen's Grn, Dublin 2. For Details, click here.

South African TRC Report Online

I was going through my old blogs and noticed that back in 2004, and several times thereafter, that I complained about the fact that the South African TRC report was not available freely. At the time there was a problem with the publisher who the TRC sold the rights to. However, I am happy to report now that the TRC report is available online via the Department of Justice. On the site you can review its contents.

I have created a handy zip file with the entire report in it, download the full SA TRC Report (18MB, zip, pdf).

Truth Commissions Online Resources

General Databases

Truth Commissions.Org
USIP Truth Commission Database

Country Specific Truth Commission Final Reports

• Argentina
• Chile
• East Timor 
• El Salvador
• Ghana
• Guatemala
• Liberia
• Morocco (English Summary)
• Peru 
• Sierra Leone 
• South Africa

Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland

Today I attended a Transitional Justice Institute workshop looking at dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. Main question asked: where to now. In short, the key point emerging was that the dealing with the past question has not gone away, and there is a need to have some organised way of addressing it. However, a lack of leadership and commitment locally and by the two governments stymies things moving forward. While this goes on victims continue to be frustrated by the plethora of mechanisms out there, none of which are meeting their needs in entirety, in fact making many feel they have to repeat themselves in multiple forums. There is also a growing resentment by some victims of their cases being called "historical" or "legacy issue" implying the concerns about truth and justice are not contemporary. Denis Bradley spoke at the event, and although does not see much progress, said he felt that the Consultative Group on the Past report has not been entirely binned and may return, as it is the only viable option on the table.

Also see my collection of resources and website on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.

My book launch in New York

My book launch in New York on 11 November 2009 went really well in New York. A "conversation" about the book with about 50 people. Also inputs from Graeme Simpson, Ruti Teitel, Alastair Ager. Chaired and organised by Jack Saul (thanks Jack). Great to also see some CSVR people.

The ghost of Jeffrey Benzien lives

One of the most chilling moments during the South African Truth and Reconciliation process was when Jeffrey Benzien, an apartheid era torturer, was asked by one of his victims to re-enact, without doing harm, the torture he had administered. The image of Benzien clutching a bag over the volunteer’s face while sitting on his back will stick in my mind forever.

Benzien, who eventually received amnesty, was the infamous master of the ‘wet bag’ torture technique. This form of torture involves placing a wet bag over a victim’s head, which results in suffocation and the sensation of drowning. Benzien claimed he could break most prisoners in 30 minutes.

Disturbingly, variations of this technique, euphemistically called ‘waterboarding’, have been used in Iraq and in Guantanamo Bay by the US military. It was, at least in part, the condemnation of the practice of waterboarding that led me to take part in my first protest on US soil.

In August, while at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference, in Boston, I joined fellow psychologists to protest against the APA’s current refusal to ban its members from participating in or observing interrogations in any capacity whatsoever.

So how does this relate to waterboarding?

To cut a long story short, two years ago, the International Committee of the Red Cross raised the alarm about the involvement of health professionals in US interrogations. The APA set up a committee to investigate this. The committee endorsed the use of psychologists “in consultative roles” in interrogation processes “for national security-related purposes”. It transpired that six of the nine members of the committee were military psychologists.

This caused an outcry. In late 2007, the APA issued a statement condemning the role of psychologists in torture and said it was unethical to participate in 19 coercive procedures, including waterboarding. However, the APA did not forbid psychologists from being involved in interrogations; rather it felt their presence could ensure ethical interrogations took place, safeguarding the welfare of detainees.

But is it possible to be an ethical observer in an interrogation? Why are ‘safety officers’ needed, in the first place? Clearly, there is a systematic problem in the US military if they are worried about potential torture.

Apathy clearly runs rife. At the APA protest, there were only 200 people out of the possible 14 000 delegates attending the conference. Most psychologists do not seem bothered that their profession is being associated with torture, or that individuals may be harmed.

This links to a second point: why and how certain sectors been vested with so much power? And why, when the mantra of national security or a threat against the country is touted, whether in the US or any country, for that matter, it seems that most of us just sit back and let governments do the thinking for us? Or we end up debating technicalities rather than taking action.

For example, in the APA case, is the bigger issue not the condemnation of centres such as Guantanamo Bay, not to mention the disciplining of psychologists who have participated in torture so far?

The sad truth is that torture and abuse are happening around us all the time, and should never be tolerated.

Every day, across Europe and Africa, immigrants are abused and robbed of rights, often detained in asylum centres, prisons or worse. Torture of criminal suspects still happens routinely in South Africa. So-called terrorists continue to be kept in hidden ‘black sites’ across the world by the US with the tacit agreement of other governments.

We all seem to have explanations for such abuses. After all, asylum seekers need to be properly vetted. Criminals and terrorists will ultimately reap what they sow. Or a psychologist being present during an interrogation is ethical. But these are fantasies, and each time we think such thoughts, another part of our humanity dies and with that another Jeffrey Benzien is born.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 5 September 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Report on the Commission of Truth and Friendship

ICTJ recently released the publication of “Too Much Friendship, Too Little Truth: Monitoring Report on the Commission of Truth and Friendship in Indonesia and Timor-Leste”. The report focuses on the Commission of Truth and Friendship.

The report reveals according to ICTJ:

• The CTF was created not with truth-telling and interpersonal reconciliation in mind, but as a means to ignore calls for international criminal justice already made by the UN and the international community.
• The process for creating the Commission was insufficiently transparent and consultative, resulting in a body that has failed to reflect international best practices and the views of Timorese victims and communities.
• The CTF’s Terms of Reference are fundamentally flawed, and included a mechanism for recommendations of amnesty while prohibiting recommendations for new judicial processes;
• The Commission’s public hearings failed as a truth-telling activity. Most took place in Indonesia and gave accused perpetrators of serious crimes in Timor-Leste opportunities to provide self-serving accounts that charged the UN with responsibility for the mass violations and promoted factually incorrect versions of events. The UN Secretary General made a decision not to cooperate with the Commission due to its flawed mandate, so UN personnel were not able to respond to the serious allegations made against themselves and the organization in the public hearings.

The ICTJ adds thar "the Commission’s final report will be the final opportunity for the Commission to achieve some level of international credibility, which has been seriously compromised. This can only be achieved if the report places the principles of truth and justice ahead of the political factors which have marred the process to date". To download the publication click here.

Truth a stranger, fiction the norm

For South Africans, what happens in Northern Ireland probably seems tangential to everyday life. However, living in Belfast means that I cannot escape it. Currently, as the new power-sharing government beds down, the issue of dealing with the past is taking up much media space. This marks a major shift. A few years ago, the question was off limits.

That said, exactly how society should deal with its past remains unclear. Some still favour ‘drawing a line’ under it. There is much talk of the South African approach, but few takers.

Last year, the British government set up a Consultative Panel on the Past to provide a way forward. The fact that it was a panel appointed by the British government, which is a player in the conflict, means that some people question whether it is the best vehicle to chart a way forward. Nonetheless, work has begun, with most adopting a ‘wait and see’ attitude.

Recently, the panel burst into public view with controversies about whether amnesty should be granted and whether the conflicts of the past should be labelled a ‘war’ or not. To South Africans, this might sound strange. Although this is an odd place for the discussion to start, it belies wider questions familiar to South Africans. In terms of amnesty, what compromises will be needed to deal with the past? As regards the ‘war’ question, this is significant in terms of acknowledging the extent of the conflict, and determining whose actions were legitimate.

South Africa was forced to confront these questions, given the scale of deaths, but in Northern Ireland, where 3 600 people lost their lives, it seems as if people think confronting the past is a choice. That said, the population is only 1,5-million, so 3 600 deaths is proportionally close to the number (roughly 25 000) of those who died in South Africa from political violence.

It seems, however, as if Northern Ireland has not reached first base. One critical question needs to be answered at this stage: is truth about past violations a right? Do we think knowing about the past from all sides is important, in principle? If so, then the next step is not to list all the reasons why this will never be possible, but rather to ask how society can ensure truth can be delivered. This needs political and social backing, independence and integrity.

South Africa, at least at political level, opted for the idea of truth as non-negotiable. This resulted in the truth commission. However, as I write, I am struck by the fact that much business related to the past is still not finished in South Africa. For example, those who failed to take the opportunity to apply for amnesty during the life of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have not been prosecuted for crimes such as murder and torture, or told the truth. For most victims, truth and justice remain elusive. Most continue to live in poverty.

So, as Northern Ireland confronts the question whether it should engage in truth recovery for the first time, perhaps, South Africans have to ask the question for a second time. Some of you reading this will roll your eyes at such a suggestion, but, if we think truth is a principle our young democracy should embody, have we done enough about uncovering and addressing the horrors of the past?

In turn, is the lack of a principled and unrelenting quest for the truth about the past emblematic of how we pursue truth in the present? It seems that when we suspect a cover-up, we establish a commission with much fanfare and promises of truth recovery and justice, but over time such endeavours lose focus and grind to a halt. Remember, to paraphrase writer HL Mencken, truth would cease to be stranger than fiction, if we were as used to it as to lies.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 1 February 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Handbook on Reparations launched

I have been meaning to post this for ages but last year (or maybe the year before), the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) launched its Handbook on Reparations edited by Pablo de Greiff. The ICTJ press statement "announced its global launch of The Handbook of Reparations, a groundbreaking collection of essays analyzing massive reparations programs for victims of human rights violations published by Oxford University Press. Over the coming month, events in The Hague, Brussels, Geneva, and New York will publicize and celebrate this tremendous accomplishment, reaffirming the Center’s deep commitment to working on reparations programs all over the world as an integral part of its holistic approach to transitional justice. At more than 1000 pages, this comprehensive study is the result of more than three years of intensive international and interdisciplinary research and the collaborative work of 27 authors from 14 countries. Written from a transitional justice perspective, the book employs a unique approach in examining national reparations programs by analyzing the experiences, needs, and impacts on victims". To read my chapter Narrowing the Micro and Macro: A Psychological Perspective on Reparations in Societies in Transition, email me and I will send you a copy. To find out more on the book click here, US or UK.

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.

Exporting hope or foolish dreams?

Since the end of apartheid, South Africa has been exporting many things to other African countries it never exported before. South Africa’s DStv dominates the airwaves across the continent. It is not unusual to meet Africans thousands of miles away from Johannesburg who have an intimate knowledge of Egoli, the South African soap opera. Security companies run by South Africans are major players in the private security market. On an unsavoury note, South African mercenaries can also be found peddling the destructive skills they learned during apartheid. At the same time, South Africa is also exporting another commodity which stands in stark contrast to this, namely the promise of a peaceful transition. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is core to this. The concept is a benchmark of how to build peace in many countries. Liberia is one of the more recent recruits to the methodology, following Sierra Leone, Ghana and Nigeria.

Liberia, Africa’s oldest republic, from where I write this article, has suffered terribly over the last few decades. Civil war which started in 1989 has devastated the place. Locals refer to the various bouts of fighting as World War I, II and III, and they are not far wrong. It is estimated that over 200 000 people died, out of a population of just over three-million.

Monrovia still carries the scars. Ruined and bullet-marked buildings dominate the capital.

A high number of war-disabled people are visible on the streets. The average life expectancy is just over 40. There is no mains water or electricity. This has been the case since 1990, when Charles Taylor’s rebels knocked out the electricity plant. When he became President in 1997, he vowed to restore it but, instead, more war followed. Taylor, who lost power in 2003, is now awaiting trial in the Hague for a list of offences that could stretch from Cape Town to Cairo. Since the end of Taylor’s reign, there has been some progress. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first woman head of State in Africa, was democratically elected in January. Reconciliation is high on the agenda and the South African model is the talk of the town. Liberian truth commissioners visited South Africa recently and are now beginning their own TRC.

But what is it about the South African model that is so alluring? The answer, despite the problems South Africa still faces, is that it offers hope.

When you drive through the streets of Monrovia, as someone not worried about where your next meal might come from, over potholes and past children playing in squalor, you, invariably, wonder what makes people continue each day. The answer is simple – they have no choice. Families must be fed. But, despite daily struggles, people also care about the bigger picture. There are over 30 newspapers and dozens of radio stations. Talk shows are dominated by discussions about hope for the future. The country wants its dignity back. The image of South Africa is of a country that achieved political peace through creating a common vision through compromise. We can debate for eternity whether this has been realised or not, but the basics are undeniable. A route was taken post 1994 that circumvented cycles of retribution. Cycles of retribution destroyed Liberia.

So whether the view of South Africa abroad is rose-tinted or not, it is hard to dismiss some lessons. Of course, part of me wants to run out on to the streets of Monrovia and proselytise about the dangers of importing goods from another country that is still in the throws of change. But, as I write, frantically hoping the generator won’t run out of fuel and crash my laptop that is probably worth more than many people’s yearly income, I just don’t have the heart. And, after all, surely hope and the virtues of a compromised peace are not the worst things to be selling.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 1 September 2006 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report

The Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission (GTRC) released its final report on 25 May 2006. According to ICTJ, "The Commission—a grassroots, democratic initiative and the first of its kind in the United States—found that the Greensboro Police Department had been negligent, had recklessly disregarded public safety, and had contributed to official attempts to deceive the public about the tragic events of November 3, 1979". To read the full report visit the GTRC Website.

Exporting reconciliation or reality TV

For South Africans, tuning into the BBC recently was like turning on a time machine as viewers across the UK were exposed to Archbishop Desmond Tutu facilitating dialogue between victims and those that harmed them. This time, however, the focus was on the Northern Ireland conflict, and not South Africa, and it made for riveting television as victims came face to face with those that had killed. The series, entitled Facing the Truth, has received mixed reactions. The meetings were a bold move and they may have been helpful for individual victims. They provide some hope for the future. But we have to ask what other messages the programmes convey.

The programmes are not a truth commission but a dialogue, although the central idea leans heavily on the South African experience. It draws on the idea of publicly airing grievances as a way of addressing the past as championed by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). There are differences, however. The South African TRC’s primary focus was on outlining the causes, nature and extent of the conflict. It was not about victims meeting perpetrators, although this happened on occasion. Such meetings and the TRC were part of a more extensive political process. This has left me wondering: Is Northern Ireland trying to walk before it can crawl, or are high-profile encounters needed to move the process forward? Currently, the peace process in Northern Ireland is stalled. Given this context, the programmes might get people talking and re-engaged with resolving the conflict. The courage shown by participants in the programme can demonstrate what is possible, despite the dense fog of political dilly-dallying.

However, focusing on the victims can also inadvertently suggest that it is the responsibility of victims to reconcile, rather than wider society, as the first step to change, thus burdening victims with another liability. Some victims could feel pressured to forgive or perpetrators feel coerced into expressing remorse they don’t really feel. Airing the programmes in a political vacuum has other problems. The programmes’ focus is the stories of those directly affected or acting in the conflict. There is no context provided or debate about the causes of the conflict. Emotive television of this type also invariably draws one to the plight of the victims. This is important, but conflict resolution is not only about feeling the hurt of victims and sympathising with them. It demands that everyone across society recognise their own capacity for wrongdoing at the same time. Some in South Africa and Northern Ireland still feel self-righteous because they never acted violently. But political conflict is caused not merely by gunmen, but by political contexts that foster this behaviour. This does not exonerate indivi-dual responsibility or mean that all are equally responsible, but it demands that we ask how we supported the situation including tacit acceptance of violence, turning a blind eye to the pain of the other or through continuing to vote along ethnic, religious or racial lines. No one is uninvolved or neutral in protracted political conflict. Resolving conflict requires a public debate on levels of complicity and guilt, not only recognition of the hurt caused or confessions from direct actors. In South Africa we are still grappling with this.The media can foster this complicated debate, but this demands something more subtle than eerie music and darkly lit forums where victims and perpetrators meet. Let’s hope these programmes are a first step in this direction, or has Tutu’s noble desire to bring out the humanity of even hardened perpetrators intersected with TV producers’ ideas for lurid television leaving the international audience with a one-dimensional view of South Africa. The limited reconciliation achieved in South Africa was not a miracle nor was it only the cumulative product of important individual gestures. It was mainly the result of hard work and political compromise – a less attractive but important lesson worth exporting.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 17 March 2006 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Getting to the Truth Through Talking

Conflict-transformation expert Dr Brandon Hamber asks what messages programmes like Facing the Truth convey and what else might need to be done to deal with the past

The recent BBC series Facing the Truth, which brought victims of political violence face to face with perpetrators, has got people talking.The dialogues, facilitated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, are a stark reminder of the suffering caused by the conflict in and about Northern Ireland. It is sobering to think that the cases featured are a fragment of the thousands of stories that need to be told.

The programmes were a bold move and may have helped individual victims. They provide some hope for the future, along with the work of organisations that have fostered similar dialogues over the years, albeit behind closed doors. But we also have to ask what other messages such programmes convey and what else might need to be done to reckon with the past.

Although the programmes are not a truth commission but a dialogue, the central idea leans heavily on the South African experience. It draws on the idea of publicly airing grievances as a way of addressing the past, as championed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There are profound differences, however. The South African commission’s primary focus was on outlining the causes, nature and extent of the conflict through victim and perpetrator testimony. This testimony took place in separate victim and amnesty or perpetrator hearings. Although most amnesty hearings took place publicly, only approximately 2,000 of the 21,000 victims who gave statements to the commission gave testimony in public.

When perpetrators applied for amnesty in exchange for speaking the truth, victims or their lawyers could question perpetrators as to the veracity of their statements but this was not billed as a meeting or as necessarily reconciliatory. The South African commission was not primarily about victims meeting perpetrators and nowhere in its legal mandate does it say it was.

The BBC programmes, presented by veteran Irish reporter Fergal Keane, have now created this myth. Victim-offender meetings did happen on occasion as a result but largely outside the remit of the commission. In addition, such meetings and the commission itself were part of a more extensive political process. This leaves one wondering: Is Northern Ireland trying to walk before it can crawl or are high-profile encounters needed to move the process forward?

Photo by Chris Zhang on Unsplash

Given the stalled peace process, the programmes might get people to re-engage with resolving the conflict. The courage shown by participants can demonstrate what is possible despite the dense fog of political dilly-dallying. However, focusing on the victims can also inadvertently suggest that it is the responsibility of victims, rather than wider society, to reconcile as the first step to change, thus burdening victims with another liability. Some victims could feel pressured to forgive, or perpetrators compelled into expressing remorse they don’t really feel, especially on television.

The programmes’ focus is the stories of those directly affected by or acting in the conflict. There is no context provided or debate about the causes. There was no questioning of the statements given by offenders, thus allowing them to define the truth. Truth commissions traditionally question and try to reach forensic truth. Emotive television of this type also invariably draws one to the plight of the victims. This is important but conflict resolution is not only about sympathising with victims, important as that is. It demands that everyone across society recognises their own capacity for wrongdoing at the same time.

In the project Healing Through Remembering, a five-year-old initiative that brings together over 80 people from different political perspectives each month to wrestle with questions about the past, the issue of considering one’s own role in the past is discussed under the rubric of “reflection”. Reflecting on the past, not merely remembering it, necessitates that we consider not only victims’ suffering but also how we all supported or fuelled the conflict through direct action, our attitudes or our failure to act.

Resolving conflict requires reflection and public debate on levels of complicity and guilt, not only recognition of the hurt caused or confessions from direct actors. This process should be supported by public acknowledgment of hurts inflicted. This leaves no one untouched, and all institutions need to examine their role in the past — among others, paramilitaries, the governments, churches, the judiciary, political parties, the education system and the media.

The view of Healing Through Remembering is that there are no quick fixes and no one is neutral in protracted political conflict. A range of interrelated options for dealing with the past are required, such as a living memorial museum, a day of reflection, a network of commemoration projects, and collective storytelling. For truth recovery, an informed debate is necessary, evidenced by the misperceptions created by the recent programmes. To this end, Healing Through Remembering will shortly be launching five detailed options for truth recovery for public discussion. There is no doubt that the BBC programmes have stimulated debate on dealing with the past. Questions, however, remain as to whether the focus on victims and offenders, as in the first major media intervention on this issue, has not confounded the reconciliation discussion. It certainly has confused many as to what really happened in South Africa. A more complicated, nuanced and reflexive debate about the past is needed, with a healthy and functional political context and, of course, the media have a role in this. But in the long run, this will demand something more subtle than eerie music and darkly lit forums where victims and perpetrators meet in the glare of the camera, no matter how moving or personally transformative such meetings might be. 

Originally published by Brandon Hamber in the Daily Ireland, 14 March 2006

Dr Brandon Hamber is a conflict-transformation expert from South Africa living in Belfast and a consultant to the cross-community project Healing Through Remembering. His views do not necessarily reflect those of all the members of the project. Contact mail@brandonhamber.com. Visit the www.brandonhamber.com for more information