Dealing with the cost of conflict: A psychological need in resolution

Dealing with the cost of conflict: A psychological need in resolution

Ignas Kleden, Center for East Indonesian Affairs, Jakarta, ceia@centrin.net.id

Conflict resolution and reconciliation faces certain contradictions. On the one hand, people deeply involved in conflict and violence, like those in Ambon, are usually unable to step back from their situation and look at it with reasonable judgment.

It is unlikely that a man whose wife and children have been murdered will think objectively. These people need outside assistance to help figure out their problems and what has caused them. On the other hand, definite conflict resolution can only be established if these people, whatever their psychological condition, are involved at every step. They should engage in the preparation, negotiation and the implementation of reconciliation. This is a minimum necessity because they are the very agents of conflict resolution.

It is important to reiterate that those who want to help people involved in conflict should be very careful not to overdo their assistance. People who are affected by violence remain the subjects of the resolution of their problems. If their responsibility in resolving the situation is removed then it only complicates matters.

People who want to help are usually inclined to take over responsibility and want to do everything needed to bring about reconciliation for those who are victimized, rather than try to help them help themselves. One should keep in mind that there is no moral right whatsoever to make other people mere objects, even an object of our own generosity and compassion. The only way to help them get out of trouble is to create conditions in which they are motivated and able to win their own self-confidence, so that they are in the position to build their life anew despite their miserable past.

Needless to say, this effort is doomed to fail for two reasons. People who have suffered so much tend, from their side, to rid themselves of responsibility to determine their own destiny, an attitude which easily stimulates outside volunteers to do everything for them. In so doing, they are not encouraged to liberate themselves, nor are they motivated to rid themselves of their problems and conflicts.

It is my impression that at a certain point, people traumatized by conflicts are put into a situation comparable to those suffering from mental illness. There is a substantial difference between people who suffer physical illness and those who are mentally ill. Whereas the first will do everything for their own recovery, the latter will do everything to remain in the situation they are in.

The temptation for volunteers to do everything for the victimized will, despite their good intentions, perpetuate the problematic situation because it meets the requirements of a neurotic symbiotic relationship. Volunteers feel happy because they believe they have done their best to help, whereas the victimized feel relieved because they can remain in their situation in which they are free from taking responsibility for their own future.

This has happened to political refugees from East Timor, who became a real burden for people in West Timor, who were their hosts. The aid provided by various international institutions did not strengthen the refugees to help themselves, but rather make them all the more dependent upon the aid. After the end of the rescue action, which involved a substantial amount of material and financial support, these refugees have had to rely on the capacity and hospitality of their hosts, who have much less material and financial means. The resentment between both sides originates in the fact that, whereas the refugees do not reduce their demands for material and financial help, the hosts cannot do more than what they usually do for their own people.

In another context, this might happen to people who are have been stranded for too long in protracted conflicts. For a period of time they have had to think only of themselves and their security and do not care about the conditions of other people, except the possibility of destroying their opponents. Now that reconciliation and conflict resolution has become a political necessity, they have to change their whole mind-set by trying to think also of the requirements and the interests of the other party.

However, this attitude should grow from within the consciousness of the people concerned. To a certain extent, this can become a bitter experience because, while avoiding one's habit of avoiding responsibility, taking other people into consideration presupposes a sense of responsibility, which is in itself another burden. If this sensitive psychic condition is disturbed from outside by a hastily superimposed demand for reconciliation, than those who are still trying to recover from the old situation will easily choose to fall back into the old illusion of security of having no responsibility at all.

In that situation, any effort to establish reconciliation without involving the participation of victims cannot last long, because no body in such a situation can be forced to take responsibility that appears burdensome and troublesome. It is extraordinarily difficult to ask people to go back to their homes and live together under the same roof with their former foes. To let these people participate in the whole process of reconciliation will require a lot of time, patience, energy, but there is no other way that could promise a lasting peace. It took three years to bring Ambon to a state of almost total ruin, and we have to reckon with many more years to restore peace and beauty to this island.