Riflessioni sul Perdono, sulla Dignità e sulla Riconciliazione

Groups of people and leaders of nations have grappled with this question of how to replace violence with a process based in fairness and dignity. Part of the struggle in dealing with these issues has led to trials, tribunals and truth commissions. Certain issues have arisen as a result of these different processes and perhaps there have been more questions raised than answered. Some societies emerging from collective violence such as Argentina and Rwanda have on occasion sought to prosecute those who gave orders to kill and torture, those who enacted those orders, or those who benefited from those orders. Less aggressive responses came from East Germany giving public access to previously secret police files and Czechoslovakia’s screening and removal of officials and civil servants involved in the old regime from public office. These processes satisfied people’s needs both to know what happened and to establish a clear break with the past. Other strategies where developed such as naming names of those who were implicated in human rights violations in Brazil. Eventually processes included creating truth commissions which included the victims sharing their stories and hearing the perpetrators talk about the truth of what happened and at whose hands. As these commissions evolved some countries, the most famous being South Africa began to grant amnesty or immunity from prosecution to those involved in the horrors if they told the truth about their political crimes. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission illustrates the effort to combine an investigation into what happened, a forum for victim testimony, a process for developing reparations, and a mechanism for granting amnesty for perpetrators who honestly spoke of their role in politically motivated violence.
Survivors of violence often ache for retribution against their perpetrators, and for public acknowledgement of what has happened. Some South Africans for example wanted street justice and punishment for their perpetrators. Where justice was not possible the minimal requirement for forgiveness most insisted was to be told the full, honest and unvarnished truth. Some wanted financial redress; psychological and/or spiritual healing; while others place a higher priority on moving ahead with life building or rebuilding trust across the divide and establishing or strengthening democratic institutions. Some people believe that the entire society needs to support punishing the wrong doers. Others want to just forget the past and move forward as though nothing really has happened. Given the disparities concerning what works and what doesn’t, there have been some things we learned about healing a group of people or a nation.
Developing a process that is centered on a sense of fairness and dignity requires a delicate balance between issues involving transitional justice. The difficulties are that there is a sharp clash between the need to accommodate to end the conflict and the need to punish the guilty which is very important especially for the process of psychological healing. Truth commissions such as the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission have tried to address this delicate balance in the hope that the revelation of the truth combined with amnesty will be a partially effective substitute for the quest for justice and the ensuing dangers of instability. The problem is if there is no retribution victims will continue to demonize perpetrators. Psychologically the victims need to have their losses recognized by the enemy so that their grief is validated and their self-esteem raised. Especially for new democracies and new peace agreements, there is a clear political need to show citizens that things have really changed.
With the advent of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, there have been debates concerning the role of truth telling and if truth is even necessary. Many survivors think they need to know the truth to move forward depending on the people and circumstances. They feel that without disclosure of the truth about what happened to their loved ones the actual suffering and violation of the rights of the relatives of the victims would be perpetuated. Jose Zalaquett, a Chilean lawyer and human rights activist who served on the Chilean Truth and Reconciliation Commission emphasized that official truth-telling is important in order to prevent the military or other groups or institutions responsible for past abuses to escape the judgment of history and insist on exculpatory versions of what happened. There is a need for successor democracies to present to the people a clear and unvarnished picture of the true character of the regime. Following this line of thought, truth telling facilitates national reconciliation. Yet the opposite is also true and/or that reconciliation may be affected by other factors quite apart from knowing or acknowledging the truth about past wrongs. Reconciliation depends on a clear end to the threat of further violence; a reparations program for those injured; attention to structural inequalities and basic material needs of victimized communities; the existence of natural linkages in society that bring formerly opposing parties together; or just the passage of time.“
By listening to victims stories gives victims a public voice and brings their suffering to the awareness of the broader public. This in turn can increase the publics understanding and appreciation of victims needs. For some victims this process may have a cathartic or healing effect. It is also believed that by directly confronting conflicts it is thought that these conflicts will be less likely to explode into severe violence. Yet in some cases truth telling can also increase tension especially when the truth pertains to exposing the culpability of powerful figures.
In a similar vein, many proponents of truth telling assert that forgiveness and reconciliation will result from airing the full truth. The question often asked is how can victims forgive without knowing whom to forgive and what to forgive them for? Some people argue that finding and making public the truth about abuses is an obligation of the state, and that there is an inherent right to truth held by victims and survivors, or by society as a whole. These are some compelling reasons for the undertaking of truth seeking yet because of the sensitivity and complexity of many situations this may not be the best path to follow.
People have asked, “Why reopen wounds that have been closed? ” Horacio Verbitsky, a prominent Argentine journalist answered this by saying “Because they were badly closed. First you have to cure the infection, or they will reopen themselves.” This is the argument given by those who insist on the need for digging up the past.
Unhealed wounds of society and of individual victims may continue to fester long after the fighting stops or at the end of a repressive regime. A country may need to repair torn relationships between ethnic, religious, regional or political groups, between neighbors and between political parties. Many survivors of violent political repression suffer a painful psychological and emotional hell for years. Many argue that an important function of truth commissions is helping victims heal through providing a forum for them to tell their stories. A psychological tenant is that expressing one’s feelings, especially in talking out traumatic experiences is necessary for recovery and for psychological health. Simply by giving victims and witnesses a chance to tell their stories to an official commission – especially one that is respectful, nonconfrontational, and interested in their stories – can help them regain their dignity and begin to recover.
Another psychological tenant states that past traumas do not simply go away with the passage of time. Past traumas can have emotional consequences for an individual. Repressed pain and trauma generally block emotional life, have psychologically adverse consequences and can even lead to physical ailments. Psychological healing can only happen when space is provided for survivors to feel heard and for details of the traumatic event to be re-experienced in a safe environment. Survivors of intense trauma who try to repress their feelings are more likely to experience physical and/or psychological symptoms or damage to their family or social relationships. Judith Herman, a Harvard psychiatrist who has written a great deal about trauma has stated that “remembering and telling the truth about terrible events are prerequisites both for the restoration of the social order and for the healing of individual victims.” By telling one’s story a “conspiracy of silence” that often develops around political violence is broken and the sense of isolation and loneliness begins to diminish.
Unfortunately when we think about telling one’s story as a way of healing, the assumptions that are made do not necessarily hold true for truth commissions. The healing effects happen when victims are given a safe and supportive environment to talk about their suffering. Truth commissions only offer a one-time opportunity to tell their story usually to someone they have never met before nor will they see again. Some anecdotes on the effects of victims giving testimony are very positive while others are very concerning and raise some very serious questions.
Although telling one’s story can have a therapeutic effect, what isn’t so clear is the danger of retraumatization. Victims and witnesses can be retraumatized when telling their stories to the degree that they can experience a multitude of debilitating physical and psychological disturbances which can lead to posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD. When victims and witnesses are asked to relate the details of their story in one sitting and are not given follow-up support, the emotional and psychological impact can be great.
No one can argue that there is a “right to truth.” However, truth can be painful and exposing the details of the past can be dangerous and destabilizing especially when relationships are fragile as communities begin to rebuild peace. The factor to consider involve the people most directly affected. Are they ready to face the horrors of the past and should they be obligated too? Are there reasons in someone’s history, culture, or religious beliefs that would make truth-seeking very unnerving and difficult? Two such countries, Mozambique and Cambodia both of which have seen horrific violence and both for different reasons have rejected the idea of broad-scale truth telling during their respective political transition. In Mozambique, people did not want to re-enter conflict, hatred and pain. They preferred silence over confrontation. Everyone was turning on everyone which made the conflict very complex and so the people felt to leave well enough alone. The belief in Mozambique was the more that was left alone, the more likely reconciliation could take place. There were virtually no calls on the national level for justice, accountability, punishment or banishment from office. Strangely reconciliation on a basic level of living together without ongoing conflict came quickly to Mozambique.
Although the dynamics were different in Cambodia, they too chose to remain silent instead of reopen wounds and dig up old horrors. The feelings among the Cambodians is that a broad public hearings process might be considered too confrontational or dangerous given that many former Khmer Rough members are still scattered throughout society. It is also unlikely that Cambodians, severely traumatized by unbroken decades of war and mass killings would risk playing an active role in a truth commission. There would be too much to lose and too little to gain.
Priscilla Hayner (2002) speaks of several reasons why countries would consider not getting involved in truth telling.
Fear of negative consequences. In some places violence could increase or a new war started if the past were revisited.
Lack of political interest. There is a lack of interest from those in leadership positions and a lack of support from significant nongovernmental leaders.
Other urgent priorities. Depending on the situation the country finds itself in there may be more important pressing priorities such as survival needs and a lack of basic institutional structures.
Alternative mechanisms or preferences. Mozambique is an example of this where the indigenous national characteristics make truth seeking unnecessary because of the use of traditional healers.
The discussion above indicates that there is no correct answer concerning truth seeking and
telling one’s story. These issues and what to do about them can also be a function of time, allowing countries to get more stable as they develop democratic institutions and as tensions ease. Whatever the case, although some of the circumstances may be similar, each situation has its own uniqueness and therefore people will have to make their own decisions given their situation, history, and culture and what is right for them.
There are other conditions which also lead to a sense of fairness and dignity such as the use of a third party. Third party facilitation provides a measure of justice especially to those who suffered under repressive regimes and can serve as a partial remedy for their injuries. Through the use of third party facilitation tangible facts about past crimes can be established which in turn promotes confidence in the new political arrangements and which improves chances for a transformation of relationships within society.
Other measures include specific reforms in the judiciary, armed forces, and political sector; the removal of perpetrators from active military or police duty, and measures to instill a human rights culture in society including through human rights education and a national commitment to uphold the standard of international human rights norms through ratifying international human rights treaties.