I was fortunate to cross paths with Fr Bennett a few weeks ago in Maynooth, as he was back visiting his native Ireland on a break from his work as a parish priest in South Africa. Previously Fr Bennett worked in Zimbabwe, but he is unable to return, as Africa magazine puts it, ‘because of his work for justice and peace.’

Fr Bennett completed our Master’s in Reconciliation Studies the year before Tarusarira began his studies with us. In his article, Bennett picks up on many of the themes raised yesterday by Tarusarira.

Tarusarira writes of ‘the multi-faceted character of reconciliation which we had discussed in the classroom,’ particularly in Dr David Tombs’ Dynamics of Reconciliation module.

Similarly, reconciliation’s multi-faceted character is reflected in Bennett’s description of reconciliation as an ‘umbrella’ concept:

Reconciliation is an ‘umbrella’ concept: underneath the umbrella are many different terms including justice, truth, mercy, forgiveness, apology and healing. These different terms could indeed be further sub-divided. For example, justice can focus on the need for: a) punishment (retributive justice); b) restoring wholeness of both victims and perpetrators in a community context (restorative justice), or c) monetary compensation (reparative/restitutive justice).

Bennett also discusses various ways in which truth can be approached in post-violence contexts:

Truth can relate to: a) cold bare facts (factual truth); b) the emotional perceptions of someone giving their version of an event (narrative truth); c) what emerges from dialogue between different parties to a dispute (dialogical truth); d) what is agreed and shared by different communities (historical truth). Historical truth finds its way into history books and school curricula but it requires the passage of time and emotional distance from events.

These two short paragraphs from Bennett’s article provide some glimpse into the complexity of reconciliation processes. Bennett’s sub-division of the terms justice and truth demonstrates that these words can be approached and defined in very different ways.

For me, this underlines the need for post-violence societies to engage in meaningful public debate about what kind of justice, truth, and ultimately reconciliation they wish to pursue.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ve seen a high enough level of debate around that in Zimbabwe – the context with which Bennett and Tarusarira are so familiar – or here in Northern Ireland.

It is a short article, but Bennett also makes a brief, specifically Christian case for putting reconciliation on the agenda. Bennett’s call to Christians should be especially relevant in societies in which the Christian churches are socially prominent and might be expected to play a public role in post-violence transitions.

Of course, Christian churches must be sensitive about the language they use in the public sphere, even and especially when it is about reconciliation. For example, one of the criticisms of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been that its chair, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, was too enthusiastic in his application of the Christian ideal of reconciliation, which alienated people of other faiths and put unnecessary pressure on Christian victims to forgive perpetrators.

Be that as it may, I’ll conclude with a quote from Bennett’s article – one which alludes to the passage of scripture (Ephesians 2:14-15) that inspired the tagline for this blog, Building a Church Without Walls:

Reconciliation is a major Christian task. Jesus refers to the need for reconciliation continually in his parables and makes forgiveness central to the ‘Our Father’ which he teaches us to pray. The great reconciling event of cross and resurrection means that Christ has broken down the walls that divide us. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). If St Paul were compiling his list today he might say that there is neither nationalist nor unionist, republican nor loyalist, black nor white, Jew nor Arab, Serb nor Croat, Kikuyu nor Kalenjin (Kenya), Shona nor Ndebele (Zimbabwe).

Christians have died to all that is life-denying – fear, division and hatred, and have risen to all that is life-embracing – truth, integrity and justice. Paul reminds us that we are a “new creation”, that we have become “ambassadors” for Christ, and that God has “committed to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:17-20a).

What’s a message of reconciliation that will resonate – both here in Northern Ireland and further afield in places like Zimbabwe? And are our churches up to communicating it?

(Image Michael Bennett and Gladys Ganiel in Maynooth)

During one of the final sessions of the summer school, a participant noted that her impression of peace and conflict resolution studies is that a lot of time is devoted to the analysis of the causes of conflict, but not as much study is devoted to what happens after the fighting stops. She had completed a master’s in another European university in the conflict resolution field, and said she was disappointed that her programme had not included deeper analysis of the possibilities and dynamics of social and political reconciliation.

This exchange prompted Tarusarira, now a doctoral candidate in African Studies at the University of Leipzig, to reflect on his experience as a student with us at Trinity College Dublin at Belfast (the Irish School of Ecumenics).

Tarusarira shares his thoughts below, explaining how our Master’s programme in Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation and its specific focus on post-conflict transitions has been an asset to him in his work and study.

Reconciliation – The Missing Ingredient in Conflict Resolution Studies? Guest Post by Joram Tarusarira

It is almost two years since I completed my degree in Reconciliation Studies at Trinity College Dublin’s Irish School of Ecumenics, at the Belfast campus.

I began my studies in September 2008 and that was only about two weeks after the Global Political Agreement in Zimbabwe which ushered in the inclusive government composed of ZANU PF and the MDC. This development did not only come in handy as a relevant context within which to locate my studies but also for actual application upon completion of what I learnt.

When I began my studies I thought I would carry with me back to Zimbabwe a manual or recipe book on how to facilitate reconciliation processes.

But upon completion of the studies I realised that there was no such thing like a recipe book or manual to carry with me because reconciliation is complex.

The dynamics of reconciliation are so intricate and there is no particular prescription to it. It is as we discussed in our Dynamics of Reconciliation module with Dr David Tombs: complicated, paradoxical, unclear, and contested. Reconciliation happens at many levels, and cannot simply be transplanted from one context to the other. At the end one has to be guided by the context.

Upon completion of the Master’s in Reconciliation Studies I returned to Zimbabwe and worked on a few reconciliation initiatives. But as I began to work on one aspect of reconciliation, another called for attention.

This underlined for me the multi-faceted character of reconciliation which we had discussed in the classroom, and which I also experienced first-hand due to my experience of living in Belfast, and participating in a community based learning programme organised by Dr Gladys Ganiel.

For the community based learning programme I was attached to the Clonard Monastery Unity Pilgrims. Since my year in Belfast I have also attended workshops and conferences on reconciliation and have appreciated the efforts of the organisers and participants in their attempts to crack into the ever elusive core of reconciliation.

The more I participated in such like activities, the more I realised that I had been privileged to attend ISE.

ISE is truly at the cutting edge of analysing the practice of reconciliation and the theory behind it. As a student I learned not only from lecturers but also my fellow students, appreciating their insights and inputs.

The fields of peace and conflict resolution studies sometimes suffer from reductionism, and scholars and practitioners need to watch out for this. There is a tendency to emphasise the big, macro causes of conflicts, and to focus excessively on negotiations and peace accords.

While these are important, it is just as vital to include reconciliation processes in the mix.

And when we do so, we must be careful not to reduce the concept of reconciliation to one particular aspect, for example, by reducing it to forgiveness. We also mustn’t ignore the idea that reconciliation needs to occur at both the micro social level and the macro political level.

– Joram Tarusarira

I of course appreciate Joram’s comments– and indeed, I think he is right to highlight our emphasis on post-conflict transitions, especially reconciliation, as what is unique and sets us apart from other programmes.

I also think what he identifies as a disproportionate focus on political negotiations and the content of peace agreements is reflected in media coverage and political policy worldwide. It seems that agreements are viewed as the be-all and end-all of conflict resolution, and that often the hard work of healing a wounded society is neglected by policy makers once they take power in the new ‘peaceful’ era begins.

This happens even in societies that choose to establish truth commissions as a mechanism for dealing with the past (here, see Dr David Tombs’ module, Post Conflict Justice and Truth Commissions).

I think reconciliation is being neglected in Zimbabwe with the Global Political Agreement. Although provision has been made for a national organisation on healing and reconciliation,  politicians have lacked either the will or the resources (or both) to enable it to engage in meaningful work.

It’s the task of practitioners and academics working in the fields of peace and conflict resolution to advocate for the inclusion of intentional, reconciliatory processes – especially after the fighting stops.

(Image: Gladys Ganiel, Brian O’Neill and Joram Tarusarira at the Jena Summer School on Societies in Transition)

Between students and the plenary speakers there were about 30 people there, from, I think, 18 different countries. My presentation was on ‘Zimbabwe: Exploring Reconstruction and Reconciliation.’ Other speakers focused on South Africa, Namibia, the Great Lakes Region, Uganda, Ethiopia, the Ivory Coast, Darfur and the Niger Delta.

I don’t have anywhere near expert knowledge on most of those contexts, but was grateful for the opportunity to hear from people who do.

Comparing different contexts should ideally shake us out of any temptation towards navel-gazing, lethargy, or defeatism about the contexts with which we are most familiar or most immersed.

As readers of this blog will know, my research focuses mainly on Northern Ireland, Zimbabwe, the Republic of Ireland and South Africa. Living in Belfast means that I live in a place where many of the debates raised at this comparative summer school on Africa – such as how to deal with the past, or how to help victims of conflict recover from trauma – are very much alive.

At one level I find the comparative perspectives comforting. Seeing how difficult it is to come to terms with the past in so many different contexts, not just Northern Ireland, heightens my appreciation for how much healing and reconciliation really do tax and try the human spirit.

In I admit a rather sad way, it comforts me that other societies also find it so difficult to deal with their violent pasts. Northern Ireland is not alone in finding dealing with the past a massive challenge. In that, perhaps, we are ‘normal.’

I am also encouraged that other societies have been willing to make the difficult choice of establishing truth commissions. Of course, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the most touted example of this.

The South African TRC has had its critics. For example, questions have been raised about the genuineness of the ‘forgiveness’ offered at its public hearings, its offer of amnesty for perpetrators has been deemed ‘unjust’, and the failure of the Government to follow through on promised reparations has been devastating for the victims, many of whom continue to suffer psychological trauma.

But for me the most important aspect of the South African TRC was that it was a public platform on which the suffering of victims was acknowledged. National and international media reported on it extensively. People were able, in many cases, to find out exactly what happened to their loved ones.

In some ways it was like society saying to people: ‘what happened to you was wrong.’

Post-conflict societies are of course complex, and it takes more than ‘acknowledgement’ to progress towards what we here in Northern Ireland sometimes call a ‘shared future.’

My colleague on our Master’s in Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation, Dr David Tombs, teaches a module called ‘Dynamics of Reconciliation.’ This module delves much more into the complexities of what happens ‘between conflict and transition,’ with sessions on (just to name a few):

• Components of Reconciliation
• Victims and Survivors
• Combatants, Beneficiaries and Bystanders
• Healing: Trauma and Trust
• Justice: Retributive, Restorative, Distributive
• Acknowledgement: Apology, Contrition, Forgiveness, Reparation

Speaking at the launch of our Master’s programme in October 2010, Dame Nuala O’Loan said that on average, peace agreements hold for about 15 years before significant violence resumes again. For there to be a sustainable transition to peace, the past must be ‘dealt with’ in sensitive and comprehensive way.

It has been more than 13 years since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and Northern Ireland still has not begun to deal with its past in a sensitive and comprehensive way. Many options have been discussed, some of them even informed by the comparative perspectives and the nuanced scholarship (like that explored in Dr Tombs’ module) that I have mentioned so briefly in this post.

But for Northern Ireland or anywhere else, forgetting the past is not a realistic option. What I learned at the summer school reminded me of that once again.

Image: Trinity College-associated participants at the summer school (left to right): Franka Winter from Germany, doctoral candidate in the Irish School of Ecumenics (political sociology) TCD, Gavin Glynn from Ireland, graduate of the MPhil in Reconciliation Studies and a doctoral candidate in Global Health in TCD, Gladys Ganiel, Lecturer in Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation at TCD, and Joram Tarusarira from Zimbabwe, graduate of the MPhil in Reconciliation Studies and a doctoral candidate in African Studies at the University of Leipzig.

An earlier post I wrote about the documentary, Zimbabwe’s Forgotten Children, has also been picked up by the news website Bulawayo24.

Next week I’ll be lecturing about religion and reconciliation in Zimbabwe at a summer school in Jena, Germany titled “Societies in Transition – Sub-Saharan Africa between Conflict and Reconciliation”.

Bennett, a priest with St Patrick’s Missionary Society, is currently serving in Limpopo Province, South Africa, and is a graduate of our Master’s in Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation Studies.

(Image from the Religion in Zimbabwe website, A Chapel at Mbizi Park and Lodges by the Harare Airport)

Tarusarira, now a doctoral candidate at the University of Leipzig, is a graduate of our Master’s in Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation Studies.

The site features news items, academic resources, and information about religion in Zimbabwe. It also includes a blog, for which I’ve just written the first entry, ‘Christianity, Violence and Elections: On the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops Conference’s Pastoral Letter, “Let us Work for the Common Good.”’

Religion in Zimbabwe describes itself as:

a forum for sharing of information and thoughts regarding religious issues in Zimbabwe. This only can be done if members of various religious groups active in Zimbabwe contribute to the site.

It welcomes comments, corrections, additions and photos, and is seeking as wide a participation as possible. Please visit the site for more information and to get the conversation started!

That’s a question that has been articulated in what remains of Zimbabwe’s independent media, as illustrated in a column by political science professor and human rights campaigner John Makumbe, which appeared online yesterday in the Zimbabwean.

Writing under the headline, ‘Is Egypt Possible in Zimbabwe?’, Makumbe says:

My personal view on this matter is that what the world has been watching on most international TV channels for the past three weeks is quite possible in Zimbabwe. We must not forget that in 1998 Zimbabwe experienced some serious riots in most urban centres, resulting in the Zanu (PF) capitulating on certain policies proposals. Recent outbursts of unprovoked violence perpetrated against innocent Zimbabweans are very likely to eventually result in the people of this country mobilizing themselves to become the change they would like to see.

Fr Michael Bennett, a priest with St Patrick’s Missionary Society in Kiltegan, ministered for more than a decade in Zimbabwe and is currently posted in South Africa, where he works alongside Zimbabwean refugees.

Fr Bennett has previously contributed guest posts on this blog. Below, he compares and contrasts the situations in Egypt and Zimbabwe. Like Makumbe, he argues that:

The Days of Despots are Numbered

I have been watching with great interest developments in Egypt. Quite extraordinary. Mass protests over 18 days, a people’s revolution. And they have succeeded. A state president, viewed by the US as an ally and by the masses on the street as a dictator who was thirty years in power, has resigned.

President Mubarak was appointed as vice-president by his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, and on  Sadat’s assasination in 1981, succeeded him as president. He was never elected by the people.  The ordinary citizens never stopped hungering for genuine democracy. In recent weeks they have succeeded in overcoming the fear that had crippled them for thirty years.  There is still a long way to go but they have set out their agenda and will not settle for pseudo-democracy. The Egyptian masses have brought about profound change in the Arab world and have affected the world order. The days of despots are numbered.

As I watched I thought continually about Zimbabwe. There are similarities and differences.

• Parallels at the top level of political leadership are obvious. The former Egyptian president, as well as those in his immediate circle, were all old men, in their eighties – as is largely the case in Zimbabwe.
• Control of the secret police by the status quo in Egypt was also obvious, as is the case in Zimbabwe. In Egypt 300 demonstrators were killed in recent days. In Zimbabwe militia groups loyal to the status quo have shown that they are capable of creating mayhem and violence, the only tactics they seem to know.
• Control of the media by the status quo in Egypt paralleled the situation in Zimbabwe. Large banners in Tahrir Square read: ‘Yes to Al Jazeera, No to state media’. How much news of Egypt was allowed to feature on Zimbabwe TV and radio? What slant was given to the unfolding events?

The role of the army in Egypt was crucial. It took the generals some time to accede to the demands of the peaceful revolutionary protesters, but eventually they read the signs of the times and complied. Presidential powers have now been handed over to a military council who are to usher in elections. The role of the youth who started off the protests was also significant. The role of the army and police in Zimbabwe seems different to Egypt. The military and police in Zimbabwe seem largely to be compromised and in support of the status quo.

Egypt, an Arab country, with a population of 80 million people, contrasts with Zimbabwe’s 10 or 11 million from a different cultural context. There is a fairly vibrant civil society in Zimbabwe which desires to occupy more and more public space – even if they are being continually blocked.

The status quo in Zimbabwe pays lip service to reconciling with past history and past issues, even the most recent past. People in Zimbabwe do not wish to undertake a witch-hunt but they do want some process of restorative justice. Talk of further elections in 2011 is dishonest when the violence of 2008, and previous violence, has not been nationally addressed.

There is no constitutional basis and no independent electoral commission, two vital ingredients for democratic elections and genuine democratic change. Further elections seem to be just a recipe for more of the same.

Is mass protest in Zimbabwe possible, as in Egypt?

A very appropriate time for mass protest in Zimbabwe was 2005, during and after ‘murambatsvina’. (Operation Murambatsvina was the systematic demolition of the homes of people in areas that had voted for the Movement for Democratic Change.) It never happened. Efforts in the early part of the last decade to get people to publicly protest over the economy largely failed. What strategy now remains?

One aspect of events in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world, was the use of social media (face-book, twitter) to get messages across. What are the possibilities for an increasing use of the internet in Zimbabwe where media controls of radio and TV remain tight?

For example, should human rights groups not be collating information (names, family members, roles) of those who have been involved in human rights abuses, or policies that have violated the lives of so many people (e.g. Murambatsvina, etc.)? Should this information not be available on the internet? It might temper further abusive intentions.

Dictators are falling in the Arab world. The time is short for the few that remain in the rest of the world. Human rights activists are advancing the day of their fall, and the fall of dictatorial regimes. It is extremely important to be vigilant as to who and what will replace them. Changing the rulers but not changing the rules is futile.

Take heart. Change is not some future event. The process of change is ongoing. It begins anew each day. Tiny seeds are planted daily which will bear fruit. These seeds create knowledge, build hope, cement courage and remove fear. When Zimbabaweans find the courage to overcome the fears that have crippled them for many years, radical change will ensue.

But there are probably more important matters to be thinking about on the Feast of the Epiphany. At the danger of creating an over-spiritualized impression of myself, a document I received recently resonated with the scripture readings for the Feast of the Epiphany (Matthew 2) – where Joseph, Mary and Jesus flee to Egypt after the visit from the Magi. It brought my focus on the plight of refugees.

Fr Michael Bennett of St Patrick’s Missionary Society Kiltegan, Wicklow, is currently working in South Africa. He sent me a document he co-authored with Gertrude Chimange of the Catholic Commission on Justice and Peace in Mutare, Zimbabwe. A View from the Other Side: Zimbabwean Migrant Workers in a Limpopo Village, details the hardship faced by Zimbabweans who have made it over the border into South Africa.

Chimange and Bennett’s document highlights myriad difficulties for the refugees: most are ‘illegally’ living in South Africa, and any work that they can find is intermittent, poorly-paid ‘piece work.’ They interviewed a number of women, many of whom are widows and the only bread-winners for dependents.

They briefly profile the experiences of 14 women. Here are just two examples (names are changed to protect identities:

• Martha, aged 28, has five children in Zimbabwe. Her husband is deceased. She came to South Africa on foot through the vast expanse of the Kruger National Park in Oct. 2008, one of about eighty Zimbabweans grouped together for safety’s sake. It took them five days to cross the Park. Their main fear was the threat of lions. She told us about Zimbabweans who had been eaten by lions in their attempt to cross the Park.
• Chipo has one child. She was abandoned by her husband who had taken another woman. She came to South Africa in August 2007, crossing the dangerous Limpopo River near Beit Bridge in the process. (Most cross where the water is low and cut through the fencing wire on the South African side. Despite this, a number of Zimbabweans are known to have drowned in crossing. Some have been eaten by crocodiles.) She reported that at that time there was a barrier across the river at one point which acted as a mesh for trapping any material carried by the waters. This was regularly checked for bodies of dead Zimbabweans. Because the bodies lack identity they usually receive a pauper’s burial.

They then compare the lives of these women with the lives of some Zimbabwean government officials and their wives, who have amassed great wealth through a system of corrupt patronage. Chimange and Bennett call this a ‘moral crisis’ and call on those with power to change their ways:

The Catholic bishops of Zimbabwe have, on different occasions, referred to the ongoing crisis as being as much about morality as about politics or economics. They speak the truth. While there are exceptions, the general absence of a moral sense on the part of the minority who are in positions of power and privilege continues to make life very difficult for the majority, at times causing them untold suffering. Little will change until a moral sense is awakened in individuals who have access to privilege and power. There is as much need for spiritual and moral regeneration in Zimbabwe as there is for social and economic regeneration. The two ‘regenerations’ are not inimical to each other; they complement each other; they go hand in hand. We need:

• a regard for the values and principles that respect and promote human dignity,
• a sense of genuine compassion for those in need,
• relative simplicity in one’s style of life,
• moderation in all things,
• a willingness to respectfully listen to others whose perceptions differ from one’s own

The people that Chimange and Bennett work with and write about must often feel abandoned and disempowered. Chimange and Bennett are concerned that the suffering these people endure just does not register on the consciences of those who have the political and social power to improve their plight.

They call for engagement with ‘those who misuse their power in a system of control and exploitation.’ But I fear that gaining genuine engagement and empathy from the powers-that-be may be just as difficult as turning the heart of King Herod, whose policies prompted Joseph, Mary and Jesus’ to flee to Egypt in the first place.

Even so, just remembering that Jesus himself was a refugee should give Christians some pause for thought about what can be done to alleviate the suffering of those who find themselves in that position, usually through no fault of their own. This problem is not confined to Zimbabwe and South Africa, as articles in Tuesday’s Irish Times by Bishop Raymond Field and Patsy McGarry attest.

Click here to read A View from the Other Side in full.