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