The Healing Function in Political Conflict Resolution

By Joseph V. Montville
Ethnic and religious conflicts are the most resistant to management by traditional
means of negotiation and mediation, largely due to the painful losses that people
experience in the course of their escalation. After many years of work in the field of
conflict management, the author came to believe that "healing and reconciliation in
violent ethnic and religious conflicts depend on a process of transactional contrition
and forgiveness between aggressor and victims" (p. 112). This process involves
examination of the conflict history, acknowledgment of injustices and losses, and
taking moral responsibility for them.

Victimhood and the persistence of conflict

The author presents three components that define victimhood: "a history of violent,
traumatic aggression and loss" (p. 113); a belief in its unjust nature; and a fear of its
repetition. To make things worse, usually both parties in conflict have similar feelings
of victimhood. Some examples are Serbs and Croats, Arabs and Israelis, Armenians
and Turks in Azerbaijan, and Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

From victimhood to healing: The beginning of a process

When the parties are in the middle of fighting, third party mediation is not usually
effective. Before moving toward conflict resolution, the parties need to be separated
and have some time to cool down. A cease-fire supported by peace-keeping forces
is the most appropriate strategy at this point. After the parties' withdrawal from the
fight, the conflict resolution process can proceed. The goal of third party
communication facilitation should be to delegitimize negative stereotypes that the
opponents have about each other. The problem-solving workshop held in 1980 for
Egyptians and Israelis is an example. An Egyptian journalist, workshop participant,
said that his image of Israelis was transformed from one of heartless fighters to
people who can experience a sense of fear. Thus, the workshop created a more
human image of the opponent. The most difficult task is to encourage such
transformed images in a whole nation.

The problem-solving workshop

The problem-solving workshops started by John W. Burton aim at changing people's

negative perceptions about an adversary and re-establishing trust. The process
which takes place during the workshops can be described by the concept of
"confirming". To confirm means "to remove doubt" (p. 115). Through dialogue,
people confirm each others' humanity and recognize beliefs and values of the other
person. Conflicting groups are usually represented by three to seven people; the
third party facilitators consist of two to five people.

The conflict resolution strategy: Taking a history

The first stage that the parties go through at the problem-solving workshop is the
examination of conflict history. By looking at the history of their relationships, the
parties get a chance to present grievances that have not been acknowledged by the
other side. The author describes several seminars where he witnessed this type of
exchange between adversaries.

Accepting responsibility, contrition, and forgiveness

The author presents examples that demonstrate the importance of historical

analysis, including sharing of grievances and their recognition by the opponents, for
encouraging transformation in the parties' relationships. He discusses the
contribution made by psychological research in identifying "the role of contrition and
forgiveness in the resolution of conflict" (p. 118). He draws the conclusion that in
political conflict resolution, the act of unilateral forgiveness does not constitute
transformation. There should be a reciprocal process of acknowledgment of
injustices committed and forgiveness through dialogue between the adversaries.
Transformation also requires negotiations on the future relationships of the former
enemies.

Public rituals of contrition and forgiveness

The author notices that even though it is hard to find scholarly works that analyze
contrition/forgiveness theory, in reality the cases of such dialogues between
representatives of groups and nations are much more common. They usually involve
victims and aggressors who review their history and take responsibility and
apologize for past injustices. Montville offers a few of such examples that involved
French and Germans, Germans and Poles, Russians and Poles, and Jews and
Poles.

Transforming public consciousness

Values and beliefs rooted in the history of parties' relationships and reinforced by a
sense of victimization are resistant to change. But empirical evidence shows that
new information from reliable sources can alter the parties' beliefs, even if this
information contradicts past perceptions. The success of cognitive therapy (used to
treat low self-esteem and aimed at altering distorted thinking) provides
encouragement for this approach. The task of changing public opinion is more
complicated than changing a single person. It has been proven that there are many
barriers in the way of its transformation: social factors such as social networks or
political leaders, and psychological factors such as family and friends who reinforce
negative stereotypes. However, these barriers can be susceptible to new
information, if it comes from reliable sources and is disseminated in various ways
through mass media and personal networks, and includes both sides of the issue.
Research in communication suggests that mass media is successful in "creating
knowledge of new ideas", but it fails in persuading people to accept them (p. 124).
Personal communication networks play a bigger role in altering people's attitudes.
The change should start from altering perceptions of the leaders and those who
surround them. If new attitudes are adopted by 15-20%% of the population, this can
start a diffusion process to the remaining population.
Experimental strategies for changing negative belief systems in Northern Ireland
and the Middle East

The author describes two projects that are based on the ideas presented above. One
project is directed at the exploring the concept of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
Another project brings together Muslim, Jewish and Christian scholars and
theologians to study and comment "on sacred writing which support the concept of
diversity in community and tolerance of all religions, tribes and nations..." (P. 125).
The project will result in a book published in different languages covered by the
media world wide. Both projects will rely on credible sources of information that can
alter the attitudes of the parties about each other toward recognizing common
values. Mass media will be used to make the new information known. But the main
strategy is based on the participation of the respected leaders who will learn the new
information and make the new ideas known to their constituencies. If the projects are
successful, they might generate public opinion supporting peaceful resolution of the
conflicts, by adopting a belief system of common humanity with the adversary.

Despite such caveats, one can say that the timing of the act of forgiveness or apology-seeking, the
intention and will of the parties offering or seeking it and the extent to which a personal touch
has been brought into the whole process can have positive implications for conflict resolution and
reconciliation. Offering and seeking forgiveness can take place on the part of individuals as well
as collectivities. For example, the joint statement of forgiveness by the Archbishop of Canterbury
and Cardinal Daly, former Archbishop of Armagh, Northern Ireland, played a key role in the
reconciliation process in Northern Ireland.
Forgiveness is often treated as a sub-process of conflict resolution and reconciliation, and should
and can be intentionally integrated into the resolution process of deep-rooted conflicts. It is not a
one shot process or act. It could be part of an ongoing process or the culmination of a process of
previous attempts at reconciliation. Its value to break the cycle of violence, hate and despair is
particularly pronounced in protracted conflicts.
Forgiveness can work not only towards conflict resolution, but also for post-settlement peace
building. It plays a connecting role in transforming transitional societies emerging from conflict.
The plea for forgiveness may be perceived as an act of humiliation and subsequently hurt the
pleading party’s status.
Often, however, victims and their families are forced to carry on with the tasks of everyday living
without benefit of reflection on the past. These people may consciously remember nothing of past
events, because the daily trauma they continue to experience may simply have become
normalised; or else they have made a conscious decision to reject the truth surrounding the past,
as witnessed in denial and revisionism eg. M0ost people who experienced the partition riots in
the Indian subcontinent often wanted not to revive memories of such trauma and created a form
of forgetfulness as a defensive strategy.
Conclusion
The ultimate purpose of forgiveness is restoration of relationships and the reestablishment of
connections with the community. Public apologies and seeking and granting of forgiveness create
a new dimension to repairing fractured relationships. Apologies when made at the appropriate
time are useful. The sincerity of such apologies also should be felt by the victims. Forgiveness
remains the only hope in situations where traditional conflict resolution ideas mainly built on
rational choice assumptions are insufficient guides to reconciliation. We need to stir the
conscience of the people through reviving their stories and go through a process of social healing.
In sum, the centring of a politics of memory, regret, apology, forgiveness, and reparation has
deeper implications for conflict resolution and post-conflict peace building. This does not mean
that forgiveness and acts of contrition in themselves can serve as substitutes for real negotiations
or dialogue. Instead, they can provide an ideal setting in which negotiations can take place devoid
of power considerations, devoid of bargaining, where the power of reason is supplemented by the
power of heart or compassion. The manner in which these less utilised human faculties are
exercised in individual cultural contexts may vary.
A culture of forgiveness or the development of habits of heart should also constitute an essential
element of a culture of peace and one of the goals of peace education and nonviolence training.
The recent shift in emphasis from conflict resolution to conflict transformation is certainly a
welcome development in that it seeks to incorporate forgiveness and apology as key elements of
reconciliation. However, forgiveness and associated values cannot be foisted on societies from
elsewhere. As Lederach says, ‘understanding conflict and developing appropriate models of
handling it will necessarily be rooted in, and must respect and draw from, the cultural knowledge
of a people.’