Governments and a war past: the politics of reconciliation

The concept of reconciliation has been researched often by scholars. Reconciliation is part of the post-conflict reconstruction strategy and the process is mostly seen by scholars as a relevant and wanted process. However, is that the case in reality? The question researched here is: why do governments engage in national post-conflict reconciliation strategies? This study reviews two post-conflict situations where a reconciliation process was initiated; Rwanda and Sierra Leone. We aim to determine on what factors governments base their choices regarding reconciliation. The cases are examined from a legalist and pragmatist approach. Legalists argue that states choose reconciliation and justice because they believe in the international norms it represents, because they believe in the preventive and deterrent effect of justice and the educational example it can be. Pragmatists however, argue that states choose reconciliation on the basis of self-interest and the distribution of...Show moreThe concept of reconciliation has been researched often by scholars. Reconciliation is part of the post-conflict reconstruction strategy and the process is mostly seen by scholars as a relevant and wanted process. However, is that the case in reality? The question researched here is: why do governments engage in national post-conflict reconciliation strategies? This study reviews two post-conflict situations where a reconciliation process was initiated; Rwanda and Sierra Leone. We aim to determine on what factors governments base their choices regarding reconciliation. The cases are examined from a legalist and pragmatist approach. Legalists argue that states choose reconciliation and justice because they believe in the international norms it represents, because they believe in the preventive and deterrent effect of justice and the educational example it can be. Pragmatists however, argue that states choose reconciliation on the basis of self-interest and the distribution of political power. They also argue that states not always believe in the necessity of reconciliation and acknowledge the usefulness of amnesties. The cases of Rwanda and Sierra Leone demonstrate that the choice for reconciliation cannot be fully explained from the legalist approach but are better understood from the pragmatist point of view. Both situations show that the choice of a state for reconciliation is based on different factors that can be summarized as the concept ´the politics of reconciliation´. The government of Rwanda uses the fear of the population for a future genocide in order to keep tight control over the country. The reconciliation initiatives are used to keep track of anything that is going on in society that could be a potential threat and to teach the RPF ideology in order to keep a firm grip on political power. Sierra Leone is influenced by the international community that demands post-conflict reconciliation. It has been argued that one of the origins of the Sierra Leone conflict was poverty and the country has the desire to reconstruct its economy for which a high amount of external investment is needed. These reasons fit within the idea of pragmatists, that actors base their choices upon self-interests, in these cases ensuring political power and attracting external investment.Show less

Leiden University Student Repository

Documents

In Collections

Governments and a war past: the politics of reconciliation