Toward reconciliation and healing in Aceh

Toward reconciliation and healing in Aceh

Mirza Tirta Kusuma, Yogyakarta

It is obvious that the conflicts that have occurred in our
country, like in Aceh, have left very deep wounds, especially for
the victims. A wound, even though it can heal, never completely
disappears. And the deepest wound felt by our nation today is the
demolition of humanity. So healing must be the restoration of
destroyed humanity. This is real reconciliation.

Forgiveness is something difficult, but important in the
process of healing wounds and for reconciliation. The problem
often raised is "can it be given, and what is needed for the
forgiver to be able to forgive and the consequences or outcome of
it?"

Forgiveness is used in variety of different ways in different
situations. But it should be remembered that forgiveness is not
an instant of reality.

South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmon
Tutu, in his memoir of his work in the truth and reconciliation
commission entitled No Future Without Forgiveness, has been
criticized for being too optimistic or idealistic. But there is
something fundamentally important about what he says, that if we
want the future to be something different from the past, or more
than the past, there have to be turning points at which we are no
longer held hostage to the past.

There are levels in forgiveness, interpersonal and
sociopolitical. At the interpersonal level, forgiveness happens
when the victim stops his/her rage towards the wrongdoer. If this
psychological condition was informed to both of them (the victim
and the wrongdoer), forgiveness becomes part of an interpersonal
relationship.

When we talk about forgiveness at the socio-political level,
we are dealing with the plurality of the individual and not an
isolated human being. Sociopolitical forgiveness can happen when
the victims stop their collective outrage towards those persons
who are considered the cause of their wounds.

Thus, the goal of forgiveness is human healing. At the
interpersonal level, it is a psychospiritual healing for the
victim. At the sociopolitical level, its goal is social
reconstruction, social reparation. But social healing cannot
automatically be done by an accumulation of interpersonal
healing. Social wounds are caused by broken interpersonal
relationships, especially social relationships.

The short hand definition of forgiveness is becoming free from
misdeeds of the past, so the misdeed no longer controls our
lives. But can we be free from the past? If we forgive, do we
want to forget this?

It is clear that forgiving is not forgetting, but remembering
in a different way. By forgiving, our memory will not suppress
our current life. There, of course, will still be pain, sorrow
and loss, but it is no longer toxic for us.

In the reconciliation context, one should remember that
forgiveness does not rule out punishment. It does not entail that
there is no punishment. In this case forgiveness is not the same
as amnesty. This understanding is important, especially in the
early stages of reconciliation. Forgiveness does not mean that
there is no reparation or reconstruction. Reparation is a must,
symbolically, as a dead person cannot be replaced.

But reconstruction does not mean reparation only; it is also a
moral reconstruction of the society, so the past is not
repeating. In this case, justice becomes an important issue.
Following this also, it is clear that forgiveness does not mean
demolishing evil deeds, but it means how to renew the
relationships between people involved in conflict, the
consequences of it and for the whole community.

Indeed, there are situations where forgiveness is very
difficult. There are at least three difficult forgiveness
situations:

First, we cannot forgive because overwhelming evil fears us.

Second, forgiveness could be seen as sign of weakness.

Third, a fear of dishonoring the dead. "If I forgive I do not
honor those who died." The only way through is a warranty somehow
that the dead are honored no matter what happens. There has to be
something that honors the dead. It does not bring the dead back,
but there should be a memorial. Monuments might be part of the
strategy.

The general opinion of reconciliation is when wrongdoers
repent and admit to their deeds and ask forgiveness from the
victims, and the victims accept and forgive them. But this
definition is not realistic, as the perpetrators often never
repent and they think that what they have done was not wrong.

It can also be that the perpetrators are afraid to ask
forgiveness, as they do not know what the victims will do. For
the victims themselves they also wonder, do they have to accept
or refuse an apology from a wrongdoer?

Reconciliation means moral reconstruction of social order in
such a way that what has happened will not reoccur. Thus,
reconciliation is a restoration of the humanity of the victims.
The important elements of reconciliation are moral reconstruction
and rebuilding what has been damaged.

As stated, social reconciliation is a reconstruction of the
society. It is a complex thing. The context has to be seen
carefully. What constitutes the reconstruction of society? Who
needs reconciliation?

First, the victims or survivors are the primary group to which
we look.

Second, we look at perpetrators. Are there ways to reintegrate
them into a new society?

Third, social setting. They are not victims but they hope to
take benefit from what happened.

Fourth, people who are both victims and perpetrators. They are
in a difficult situation.

There are two kinds of reconciliation, individual and social.
Individual reconciliation means restoration of the humanity of
the victims.

Social reconciliation means moral reconstruction of society,
so that what has happened never occurs again. The focus here is
on the healing process after civil conflict. Referring to social
reconciliation as moral reconstruction is based on several
premises:

First, moral reconstruction is the most important because it
is reconstruction and rebuilding of what has been demolished.

Second, the issue of justice. Justice is essential for moral
reconstruction. But there are many examples where justice can
only be partially realized, if justice means restoring a
situation to what it was before the conflict. We have to realize
that we cannot create false hope, but at least what we hope for
is a sign that there will be a new order.

Social reconstruction is reconstruction of human society. It
is a restoration of humanity, and restoration of demolished
humanity. Restoration never means going back to the past, as this
is impossible. It means going back to explore what has happened
and trying to transcend as far as possible all that has happened
in order to move to a new future.

What we can do is create a safe space and place. The victims
will not easily forget what has happened, so we need to create a
possible space. Safety means that the victims do not feel victims
again, by restoring truth, or restoring demolished trust.

Reconciliation needs time, just as physical wounds need time
to heal. But reconciliation is not suppression of memory, nor is
it is amnesia. Reconciliation is also not an alternative for
justice. Justice is a must.

The writer is the director of the Center for Human Rights and
Religious Values, Yogyakarta. She can be reached at
mirzatk@yahoo.com