Toward reconciliation and healing in Aceh<\/p>\n
Mirza Tirta Kusuma, Yogyakarta<\/p>\n
It is obvious that the conflicts that have occurred in our
\ncountry, like in Aceh, have left very deep wounds, especially for
\nthe victims. A wound, even though it can heal, never completely
\ndisappears. And the deepest wound felt by our nation today is the
\ndemolition of humanity. So healing must be the restoration of
\ndestroyed humanity. This is real reconciliation.<\/p>\n
Forgiveness is something difficult, but important in the
\nprocess of healing wounds and for reconciliation. The problem
\noften raised is \"can it be given, and what is needed for the
\nforgiver to be able to forgive and the consequences or outcome of
\nit?\"<\/p>\n
Forgiveness is used in variety of different ways in different
\nsituations. But it should be remembered that forgiveness is not
\nan instant of reality.<\/p>\n
South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmon
\nTutu, in his memoir of his work in the truth and reconciliation
\ncommission entitled No Future Without Forgiveness, has been
\ncriticized for being too optimistic or idealistic. But there is
\nsomething fundamentally important about what he says, that if we
\nwant the future to be something different from the past, or more
\nthan the past, there have to be turning points at which we are no
\nlonger held hostage to the past.<\/p>\n
There are levels in forgiveness, interpersonal and
\nsociopolitical. At the interpersonal level, forgiveness happens
\nwhen the victim stops his\/her rage towards the wrongdoer. If this
\npsychological condition was informed to both of them (the victim
\nand the wrongdoer), forgiveness becomes part of an interpersonal
\nrelationship.<\/p>\n
When we talk about forgiveness at the socio-political level,
\nwe are dealing with the plurality of the individual and not an
\nisolated human being. Sociopolitical forgiveness can happen when
\nthe victims stop their collective outrage towards those persons
\nwho are considered the cause of their wounds.<\/p>\n
Thus, the goal of forgiveness is human healing. At the
\ninterpersonal level, it is a psychospiritual healing for the
\nvictim. At the sociopolitical level, its goal is social
\nreconstruction, social reparation. But social healing cannot
\nautomatically be done by an accumulation of interpersonal
\nhealing. Social wounds are caused by broken interpersonal
\nrelationships, especially social relationships.<\/p>\n
The short hand definition of forgiveness is becoming free from
\nmisdeeds of the past, so the misdeed no longer controls our
\nlives. But can we be free from the past? If we forgive, do we
\nwant to forget this?<\/p>\n
It is clear that forgiving is not forgetting, but remembering
\nin a different way. By forgiving, our memory will not suppress
\nour current life. There, of course, will still be pain, sorrow
\nand loss, but it is no longer toxic for us.<\/p>\n
In the reconciliation context, one should remember that
\nforgiveness does not rule out punishment. It does not entail that
\nthere is no punishment. In this case forgiveness is not the same
\nas amnesty. This understanding is important, especially in the
\nearly stages of reconciliation. Forgiveness does not mean that
\nthere is no reparation or reconstruction. Reparation is a must,
\nsymbolically, as a dead person cannot be replaced.<\/p>\n
But reconstruction does not mean reparation only; it is also a
\nmoral reconstruction of the society, so the past is not
\nrepeating. In this case, justice becomes an important issue.
\nFollowing this also, it is clear that forgiveness does not mean
\ndemolishing evil deeds, but it means how to renew the
\nrelationships between people involved in conflict, the
\nconsequences of it and for the whole community.<\/p>\n
Indeed, there are situations where forgiveness is very
\ndifficult. There are at least three difficult forgiveness
\nsituations:<\/p>\n
First, we cannot forgive because overwhelming evil fears us.<\/p>\n
Second, forgiveness could be seen as sign of weakness.<\/p>\n
Third, a fear of dishonoring the dead. \"If I forgive I do not
\nhonor those who died.\" The only way through is a warranty somehow
\nthat the dead are honored no matter what happens. There has to be
\nsomething that honors the dead. It does not bring the dead back,
\nbut there should be a memorial. Monuments might be part of the
\nstrategy.<\/p>\n
The general opinion of reconciliation is when wrongdoers
\nrepent and admit to their deeds and ask forgiveness from the
\nvictims, and the victims accept and forgive them. But this
\ndefinition is not realistic, as the perpetrators often never
\nrepent and they think that what they have done was not wrong.<\/p>\n
It can also be that the perpetrators are afraid to ask
\nforgiveness, as they do not know what the victims will do. For
\nthe victims themselves they also wonder, do they have to accept
\nor refuse an apology from a wrongdoer?<\/p>\n
Reconciliation means moral reconstruction of social order in
\nsuch a way that what has happened will not reoccur. Thus,
\nreconciliation is a restoration of the humanity of the victims.
\nThe important elements of reconciliation are moral reconstruction
\nand rebuilding what has been damaged.<\/p>\n
As stated, social reconciliation is a reconstruction of the
\nsociety. It is a complex thing. The context has to be seen
\ncarefully. What constitutes the reconstruction of society? Who
\nneeds reconciliation?<\/p>\n
First, the victims or survivors are the primary group to which
\nwe look.<\/p>\n
Second, we look at perpetrators. Are there ways to reintegrate
\nthem into a new society?<\/p>\n
Third, social setting. They are not victims but they hope to
\ntake benefit from what happened.<\/p>\n
Fourth, people who are both victims and perpetrators. They are
\nin a difficult situation.<\/p>\n
There are two kinds of reconciliation, individual and social.
\nIndividual reconciliation means restoration of the humanity of
\nthe victims.<\/p>\n
Social reconciliation means moral reconstruction of society,
\nso that what has happened never occurs again. The focus here is
\non the healing process after civil conflict. Referring to social
\nreconciliation as moral reconstruction is based on several
\npremises:<\/p>\n
First, moral reconstruction is the most important because it
\nis reconstruction and rebuilding of what has been demolished.<\/p>\n
Second, the issue of justice. Justice is essential for moral
\nreconstruction. But there are many examples where justice can
\nonly be partially realized, if justice means restoring a
\nsituation to what it was before the conflict. We have to realize
\nthat we cannot create false hope, but at least what we hope for
\nis a sign that there will be a new order.<\/p>\n
Social reconstruction is reconstruction of human society. It
\nis a restoration of humanity, and restoration of demolished
\nhumanity. Restoration never means going back to the past, as this
\nis impossible. It means going back to explore what has happened
\nand trying to transcend as far as possible all that has happened
\nin order to move to a new future.<\/p>\n
What we can do is create a safe space and place. The victims
\nwill not easily forget what has happened, so we need to create a
\npossible space. Safety means that the victims do not feel victims
\nagain, by restoring truth, or restoring demolished trust.<\/p>\n
Reconciliation needs time, just as physical wounds need time
\nto heal. But reconciliation is not suppression of memory, nor is
\nit is amnesia. Reconciliation is also not an alternative for
\njustice. Justice is a must.<\/p>\n
The writer is the director of the Center for Human Rights and
\nReligious Values, Yogyakarta. She can be reached at
\nmirzatk@yahoo.com<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/toward-reconciliation-and-healing-in-aceh-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}