The space of memory in post-conflict societies: the influence of amnesty laws

The space of memory in post-conflict societies: the

influence of amnesty laws

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT. PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR CIRCULATE WITHOUT THE

PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR. COMMENTS ARE WELCOME.

Natália da Costa Pereira Bueno Ph.D. Candidate

University of Coimbra

Pécs, Hungary

[email protected]

Paper to be presented at “Social Representations of History: Social psychological and

historical approaches to their antecedents, evolution, and role in influencing identities

and intergroup relations”, COST Action IS1205 Conference, University of Pécs, Hungary,

9th and 10th April 2015.

Natália da Costa Pereira Bueno The space of memory in post-conflict societies

1

The space of memory in post-conflict societies: the influence of Amnesty laws

Natália da Costa Pereira Bueno1

Abstract

The behaviour that opposing groups adopt is not simply reactive. They are based on memories of past events, as well as on expectation of what will happen in the future. To put it simply, through memory, past, present and future are linked, outlining the relationships of individuals belonging to post-conflict societies, regardless of being victims, perpetrators or bystanders, and, mostly importantly, regardless of having lived or not during the violent conflict. Based on the idea of the transmission of memory through generations, the present paper calls attention for the spaces that memories occupy within reconciliation processes of post-conflict societies. Particularly, it connects internal violent conflict to memory in order to understand the grand debate between “forgetting and remembering” with regard to amnesty laws. Therefore, considering memory a key element in reconciliation processes, this presentation focuses on amnesty laws, as a mechanism of reconciliation, and questions how the political choice for this mechanism has shaped civil war memories, influencing the reconciliation processes of post-conflict societies. In particular, it aims to contribute to the debate about whether or not amnesty facilitates the oblivion of civil war memories. The case of Mozambique serves to illustrate the present paper. Keywords: Memory; Reconciliation, Amnesty; Mozambique.

1 Natália da Costa Pereira Bueno is currently a PhD Candidate on International Politics and Conflict Resolution at University of Coimbra in partnership with the Centre of Social Studies (CES). Her PhD studies are financed by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) - SFRH/BD/96941/2013. Email: [email protected].


2

1. Introduction

After 16 long years of conflict that left the country with more than a million dead

and devastated the most intimate relations of entire communities in Mozambique, the

answer to the question – how will we deal with the past? - would not be simple. During

the civil war, in mid-1982, Samora Machel called the population’s attention to the

importance of the past. In his words,

Others used to say that past was past; that there was no need to remember it. But, only by reviewing the past, we will understand the present. Only by knowing the present, we have the prospect of the future. There are three fundamental elements of a society: the past, the present and the future. They are pages of history, against which we cannot go2. (Samora Machel speech, 1982)

Referring to the past, Machel was essentially alluding to the Mozambican colonial

past and not to the past of the still ongoing conflict between Frelimo and Renamo. The

relevance of his proposition, however, cannot be ignored. It is the opportunity to live the

present while looking back and facing the past and, as a consequence, being able to

foresee the future.

In 1992, after the end of the civil war, the political choice of the political leaders

did not reflect the announcement of the ex-president Machel. The political elite justified

their decision in favour of the amnesty as an intent to promote the reintegration of

former combatants into the civilian life without fear of being punished (Bartoli, 2001:

378). Since the memories of past acts could engender new conflicts, forgetting would be

a cultural achievement and a way to avoid the recurrence of violent acts (Meier, 2001

2 Translation done by the author herself.


3

apud Schwab 2012: 53). In this sense, forgetting would be instrumental to the

achievement of peace (Igreja, 2008: 539), consolidating the official choice for the

amnesty law as a way to silence the past and leave it behind.

Overall, the call for amnesty is part of the debate “remembering versus

forgetting”, which permeates the reconciliation field. In order to contribute to this

discussion, the present article focus on the influence of amnesty law and on whether it

has facilitated oblivion or remembrance. In particular, it concentrates on the case of

Mozambique and on whether the country’s amnesty laws has contributed or not to the

oblivion of its civil war memories.

The present article has five sections. The second part presents the theoretical

framework in order to situate amnesty in terms of reconciliation and memory. The third

section is dedicated to present a brief description of the conflict and of the peace

agreement. The encounter between the theoretical debate and the case in itself takes

place in the fourth section. Lastly, the fifth part is devoted to the final remarks.

2. Theoretical Debate

The need and importance of reconciliation is especially emphasized in societies

permeated by protracted violent conflicts (Lederach, 1997; Bloomfield et al., 2003).

These types of conflicts are marked, among others, “by a loss of trust, intergenerational

transmission of trauma and grievances, and negative interdependence (as the assertion

of each group’s identity is seen as requiring the negation of the other group’s identity)

[…]” (Fischer, 2011: 415). Despite considerable development, the debate on

reconciliation is not only new, but it also requires further research to fill out the

remaining gaps. Even major theorists, such as Johan Galtung, recognize the difficulty of

defining it: "Reconciliation is a theme with deep psychological, sociological, theological,

philosophical, and profoundly human roots - and nobody really knows how to

successfully achieve it" (2001: 4 apud Bloomfield, 2006: 4).


4

For some authors (Lederach, 2001; Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004), reconciliation is

revealed as a process. John Paul Lederach argues that reconciliation should change and

redefine the relationships among people. In his perspective, reconciliation is a dynamic

process with the purpose of building and healing (2001: 842). Distinctively, Daniel Bar-

Tal and Gemma Bennick, despite recognizing the progression character of reconciliation,

emphasize that reconciliation is a final state, a final order. They characterize it as a

situation in which there is, among others, recognition and mutual acceptance, positive

attitudes, and sensitivity to the needs and interests of each other (Bar-Tal and Bennick,

2004: 15).

It is also important to note that reconciliation can cover different levels: from

the most superficial and restricted levels to the deepest and extended ones. While the

former refers strictly to peace-making and coexistence (Bloomfield et al., 2003), the

second shows the significance of transforming destructive attitudes and behaviours into

constructive ones likely to achieve more than mere tolerance and coexistence

(Kriesberg, 1998; Brounéus, 2008). Ernesto Verdeja (2009), for instance, further

contributes to the theoretical understanding of reconciliation. According to him,

reconciliation is a multilevel process that operates at four stages: political, institutional,

social – in terms of civil society - and interpersonal levels (2009: 20). The institutional

platform is of particular interest to this paper because it encompasses the institutional

mechanisms such as tribunals, truth commissions and amnesties, altogether assembled

to address the wrongdoings of the past and to foster societal reconciliation. Following

this path, the interrogation whether and under which conditions amnesty laws can be

helpful in dealing with past atrocities must be addressed (Theissein, 2004). In

comparative terms, this paper also presents arguments in favour and against criminal

tribunals and truth commissions.

The search for truth in countries that experienced authoritarian regimes or

violent conflicts has gained attention in the international sphere. In 1997, the United

Nations Special Rapporteur, Louis Joinet, asserted:


5

A people’s knowledge of the history of their oppression is part of their heritage and, as such, shall be preserved by appropriate measures in fulfillment of the State’s duty to remember. Such measures shall be aimed at preserving the collective memory from extinction and, in particular, at guarding against the development of revisionist and negationist arguments.

Part of everyone’s history – victims, perpetrators or bystanders – the

wrongdoings and crimes should be revealed and brought to light in order to facilitate

reconciliation among all.

To recognize the importance of searching for truth does not mean, however, that

it should be pursued at all costs. The motto “truth always” deserves consideration and

reflection, since digging the past can not only be dangerous, but it can also be very

destabilizing in specific post-conflict contexts. Truth can be painful for everyone, victims

or not, and to disclose every single detail of past crimes and wrongdoings can shake

recently restored relations of communities just gone out of wars (Hayner, 2000: 185).

Besides the search for truth, one identifies arguments favouring prosecutions

and trials. The first is victim-oriented and highlights the moral obligation post-conflict

societies have to prosecute and punish perpetrators. According to this point of view,

prosecutions and trials are a way to secure that victims are not only acknowledged, but

also that they have their needs of retribution fulfilled (Huyse; Salter, 2008: 3; Verdeja,

2009). The second argument supporting the relevance of institutional prosecutions

refers to their capability of securing peace and political stability. According to this view,

the institutional prosecution of perpetrators prevent victims from privatizing justice and

seeking for revenge. The final goal is to avert the emergence of a spiral of violence

transforming victims into perpetrators and vice versa (Huyse; Salter, 2008: 4). Further,

the call for trials and prosecutions corresponds mainly to the debate on accountability.

Defenders of trials and prosecutions argue that perpetrators must be identified, held

responsible for past abuses and be appropriately punished (Verdeja, 2009).


6

Contrary to these ideas, trials and prosecutions can have destabilizing effects.

Post-violent conflict societies – generally characterized by fragile peace settlement and

delicate shift to democracy - can have their precarious stability undermined in case trials

are pursued in the wrong direction. In the words of Verdeja, “trials and demands for

punishment undoubtedly antagonize accused elites, who may threaten renewed

violence” (2009: 45). The fragility of the new regime, as it is argued, can be put at stake.

The puzzling question that emerges is: is it an option to privilege stability over

accountability? Whenever amnesties are placed side by side to trials and prosecutions,

arguments in favour of the former arise. One argues that amnesty laws are helpful

mechanisms that will not only enable individuals to share once again the same societal

space, but will also promote the reintegration of ex-combatants in this same space. For

instance, in the case of South Africa “[…] amnesty is transformed into a tool of social

regeneration, blunting the call for destructive vengeance” (Verdeja, 2009: 108). Yet, this

argument leaves space for doubts. The other side of the same coin questions whether

amnesties contribute de facto to reconciliation in the long term. According to this view,

“accountability, the rule of law, and victim recognition are cast aside in favour of

securing some degree of peace” (Verdeja, 2009: 108). In this perspective, the interests

of victims are sacrificed in favour of stability as a common good.

In addition, it is fundamental to complement that the idea of forgetfulness

usually comes together with amnesties. Phrases, such as “let us bury the past and begin

a new future” or “let us leave all behind us and glimpse together a different future”

(Cobban, 2009), emerge as mottos, justifying the lack of search for truth. Behind these

claims, it is the institutionalization of forgetfulness; or, in other words, by passing an

amnesty law, leaders may be perceived as promoting not only silence, but also the

complete erasure of the past. This assertion provokes further questions: is it possible to

bury the past? Does forgetfulness lead to reconciliation?

On a superficial level, the link between memory and reconciliation may not seem

evident. It is, however, crucial. The way memories are transmitted and redefined has


7

great influence on the reconciliation process, and systemically, the reconciliation

process delineates memories, contributing to their renewal and re-signification (Mill,

2004). According to Carlos Martín Beristain, “collective memory is the result of members

of a group rebuilding their past based on their interests and references in the present”

(2006: 165); or, in other words, through memory, present and past are linked, outlining

the relationships of people belonging to violent post-conflict societies, regardless of

being victims, perpetrators or bystanders.

During the last decades, the research on memory suffered a boom, increasing its

recognition and importance in many fields such as cultural and psychological studies.

However, as regards international relations and more specifically peace studies and

reconciliation, the subject still lags behind, requiring further knowledge. According to

Martina Fischer, “it is still an open question how deeply divided societies can manage to

create a common memory that can be acknowledged by those who created war or unjust

systems, those who opposed and those who were bystanders” (2011: 421).

Hugh Miall (2004: 8), for instance, highlights the importance of memory in

reconciliation processes. According to the author’s view, memories permeate the

interpretations of the situations socially constructed by each group and are outlined by

culture, education, speeches and beliefs. The way groups remember and construct their

past is often critical to the mobilization of conflict. In this sense, one can also infer the

reverse: memories also influence reconciliation processes. In the same way, Lederach

(1997: 31) emphasizes that the process of reconciliation is understood as a meeting

place, a space of recognition of the past and of perception of the future as a key element

for reframing and restating the present. It is undeniable the importance that Lederach

attributes to memory.

In a different way, some authors favour forgetfulness, arguing that the past

should be left behind. The main idea behind their argument is that to look back will only

re-traumatize fragile societies, allowing for the re-emergence of animosity and anger

(Verdeja, 2009: 8). For instance, Karen Brounéus (2008) contradicts the argument that


8

the practice of truth-telling – to remember and to talk about the past – in truth and

reconciliation commissions are cathartic or healing and, as a consequence, a progression

to reconciliation. According to her, the psychological effects can be rather the contrary;

traumatisation, ill-health and isolation can be observed after truth-telling experiences

(2008: 57).

Yet, Verdeja calls attention for some questions that remain answered: “if

forgetting requires burying awful experiences and behaving as if nothing had happened,

what kind of reconciliation is this?” (2009: 8). Who is reconciled? Without some

understanding of what happened, it is difficult to see how people could be reconciled

with one another— to know whom to reconcile with means knowing who did what and

who suffered what (Verdeja, 2009: 8).

Two main principles gives foundation to a reconciliation process. While on the

one hand, victims need to have their suffering acknowledged, on the other hand,

perpetrators need to admit their wrongdoings. As Lederach remarks, people need the

opportunity and the space to express and share with one another their trauma, their

grief, and the memory of injustices that were experienced (1998: 26). In this way, both

victims and perpetrators have the opportunity to encounter each other, addressing their

common past.

Following this path, the studies developed in the field of cultural memory are

central to this paper. In “The Generation of Postmemory”, Marianne Hirsch coins the

term postmemory to define the transmission of memory between generations.

According to her view, postmemory reveals the relationship that later generations of

those who experienced cultural or collective trauma have with the experiences of their

ancestors. These experiences are “remembered” by the new generation through stories,

images, and behaviours that make up the context in which they were created. It is

important to note that the experiences of the former generation are so deeply and

intensively transmitted to the next generation that they are perceived as if they were

memories of their own (2008: 106-107).


9

Paul Connerton (2008: 68) also helps to understand the relationship between

reconciliation and memory. He draws attention to the difference between silence and

oblivion. According to the author’s view, it is not possible to infer the latter from the

former. He suggests, however, that some acts of silence may be an attempt to bury issues

and facts, excluding them from the scope of memory and public expression.

In this sense, taking into consideration the encounter between cultural memory

and reconciliation, this article aims to contribute to the current debate on reconciliation,

adding to it a new view on how amnesties has influenced Mozambican civil war

memories, fostering forgetfulness or recollection after the country’s violent conflict.

3. The Mozambican case: The conflict and the Peace Agreement in a glance

The violent conflict between Renamo and Frelimo ended in 1992 and left the

country with deep-rooted marks. There is no consensus not only between Frelimo and

Renamo, but also among scholars about the true origins of the internal conflict. In

particular, the discussions are permeated by different opinions ranging from the

importance each one attach to the nature of the factors: domestic or international ones.

While on the one hand, Renamo emphasizes the internal element, including issues

triggered by the post-independence authoritarian Frelimo government and its repressive

policies, on the other hand, Frelimo authorities understand that the civil war was an

extension of the foreign aggression war, initially led by Rhodesia, and then continued by

the apartheid regime of South Africa. Moreover, a third group argue that the explanation

lies in the combination of both internal and external factors (Igreja and Dias-Lambranca,

2008: 62).

Leaving the causes of the conflict apart, the Mozambican civil war was one of the

bloodiest conflicts in Africa - with more than a million casualties -, and left traces of

destruction not only in material, but particularly in human and social terms. Entire

families and communities were put against each other, bringing the conflict to the


10

innermost circles of the social sphere. Renamo’s reputation of ritualistically using

violence to spread immobilizing fear in rural communities was wide spread. These kind

of tactics caused severe disruptions in the social fabric and undermined the legitimacy

of the government who was accused of not protecting large areas of the country

(Honwana, 1998: 75). In contrast, it is also important to point out that, despite the silence

around them, Frelimo’s government also committed atrocities during the civil war

(Igreja, 2008: 543).

Both opposition groups, Frelimo and Renamo, compulsorily recruited young

people to participate in the civil war. By force and under menace, these individuals

destroyed their own villages and killed familiar members. Forced to constantly spy on

each other, many people ended up being tortured and murdered by their own relatives.

Peaceful coexistence slowly torn apart, leading to a culture of war. Trustworthy

relationships, reciprocity, cooperation and solidarity - the foundational elements of

social capital was severely corroded (Igreja and Dias-Lambranca, 2008: 63).

In this context, the transformation of the Mozambican state is considered a role

model case and one of most success in Africa (Bartoli et al., 2009: 153). The General

Peace Agreement (GPA) was signed on 4 October 1992, putting an end to the violent

conflict. In particular, the Community of Sant’Egidio delineated the signature of the GPA,

contributing to a major step in the reconciliation process. The uniqueness of the case

refers to the fact that the Sant’Egidio Community provided greater flexibility and ensured

greater local participation than traditional types of mediation, in principle, would have.

Sant’Egidio Community participation is particularly emphasized for two main reasons:

the ripeness of conflicts and the conflict mediation known as track-and-one-half

diplomacy. What regard the first, the conflict in Mozambique was in a deadlock. The

hope for a military victory on both parties had already faded, neither Renamo nor

Frelimo was able to guarantee international support to expand their military power and

neither disputants were capable of reducing each other’s warring capacity (Aall et al.,

2007: 39). In other words, neither Frelimo nor Renamo had strength or resources to


11

maintain the war. They had reached "the ripeness condition" and to negotiate was their

sole possible action.

Second, States or international organizations representatives had dedicated

themselves to uphold the so-called track-one-diplomacy conflict resolution negotiations

over the previous years, but without success. The successful mediation in Mozambique

followed a less traditional style known as the track-and-one-half mediation, a

combination of the formal and the informal mediations (Böhmelt, 2010: 170). In

particular, Sant’Egidio Community implemented the track-and-one-half mediation, but,

afterwards, it also received the support from the more traditional actors such as Italy,

USA, Portugal, France and the United Nations. Sant’Egidio Community seemed ideal for

both belligerent parts because “the Roman forum was formal enough for Renamo but

informal enough for the government” (Bartoli, 2001: 373). At the time, Renamo was

seeking international recognition, while Frelimo was afraid of a mediator too

authoritarian. In this context, the Community of Sant'Egidio presented itself as the

mediator most capable of satisfying both sides. In addition, Sant’Egidio Community had

a more flexible posture, which, at the end, enabled both authors to change their initial

approaches, ensuring local ownership.

Sant’Egidio was able to succeed as a conduit of negotiation because of the very weakness that made it such an unlikely leader – its lack of international prestige and power, which prevented it from being cast into and constricted by the formalities of more traditional efforts. (Bartoli, 1999: 248)

Frelimo’s leadership abandoned their litigation perspective and assumed a more

welcoming and friendlier position. Additionally, this change allowed for the

transformation of Renamo from a military group into a political party (Bartoli et al., 2009:

146). After such significant movements and changes, the possibility to communication

arose and Sant’Egidio Community facilitated the implementation of the rounds of talks


12

and negotiations, easing the encounter between the two main actors: Frelimo’s

President Chissano and Renamo’s leader Afonso Dhlakama. This transformation had

profound consequences, since it changed the perception of the entire population about

Renamo. The group was finally able to reintegrate itself into the Mozambican political

life.

4. Reconciliation, Memory and Amnesties in Mozambique

Even though the signing of the peace agreement provided immense relief to the

victims, in terms of transitional justice, the Mozambican authorities did not develop any

specific policy to deal with the crimes and atrocities committed during civil war. After

suffering major abuses, the victims were encouraged to forgive and forget, leaving

behind the terror of the past as part of the peace-building and reconciliation processes

in the country (Igreja and Dias-Lambranca, 2008: 61). There was a general acceptance,

despite its implicitness, of the belief that “the less we hold on to the past, more

reconciled we will be” (Hayner, 2001: 186). In this sense, the search for accountability

for past crimes was practically nil at the national level, as well as were practically absent

the search for justice, punishment or exclusion of wrongdoers from the country’s

political life (Hayner, 2001: 187).

In this context, although the case of Mozambique is considered a role model for

state transformation, critics from Human Rights defenders with regard to the political

choice of amnesty abound. The political elite rejected the establishment of a truth

commission as in its neighbouring country South Africa and opted for the signing of Law

No. 15/92, which established the general amnesty for crimes committed between 1979

and 1992. The ratification of the Amnesty Law took place on the 14th of 1992, just ten

days after the signing of the General Peace Agreement and was characterized by the

absence of public debates about its moral implications. The lack of public statements

reflected the non-exploration of the potential use of truth and justice to correct past


13

mistakes, as well as the no official public demand for apology, as a way of recognizing

the suffering caused to victims, was required. Instead, the general call was for

forgiveness and for forgetting the past, reflecting the Christian thinking of forgiveness

and reconciliation distinctive of the religious leaders involved in the conflict resolution

process. But most importantly, the choice for amnesty corresponded to the interests of

the political elites who chose to leave the past in the past.

Martha Minow (2002) calls attention to the danger of lack of answers. Based on

Holocaust expert Lawrence Langer’s declaration that “the logic of law will never make

sense of the illogic of genocide”, Minow argues that legal answers are not more suitable

than any other, but that inaction, however, is worse. In the author’s words,

In the absence of a collective response to mass atrocity, victims lack the basic acknowledgment of what happened that is essential for mental health and political integrity. In the absence of a collective response, the dehumanization preceding and accompanying the violence is left uncondemned and uncorrected. In the absence of collective responses, individuals are left with what some describe as either too much memory or too much forgetting. (Minow, 2002: 16)

In the Mozambican case, the political choice for amnesty resulted in the absence

of answers in terms of justice, preventing victims from declaring their suffering and

restoring their integrity. Still, it constituted the attempt to “bury the past”. In other

words, a politics of forgetfulness and silencing was portrayed, which was tacitly accepted

by the population:

No, we do not want to reenter into this morass of conflict, hatred, and pain. We want to focus on the future. For now, the past is too much part of the present for us to examine its details. For now, we prefer silence over confrontation, over renewed pain. While we cannot forget, we would like


14

to pretend that we can […] I know South Africa’s process is called the ‘truth and reconciliation commission,’ but that has a different meaning. Here, reconciliation meant ‘let’s not dig up the past. (Hayner, 2001: 185, 191)

At the centre stage of these statements, memories are not fixed or given; besides

being created, they flow over time. In this sense, Nancy Rosenblum denotes that the

choice is rarely between recollection and forgetfulness, but between memories that fight

and interchange among themselves. Public and private settings, such as religious groups,

political associations, judicial courts, etc., are not only arenas in which memories are

expressed, but formed. They delineate what and how memories should be considered,

since they define which facts are to be considered relevant, which constitutes an offense

and which should serve as a legal and historical evidence or not (Rosenblum, 2002: 4). In

Mozambique, the lack of other mechanisms at the national level - such as the truth

commission implemented in juxtaposition with amnesty in the South African case –

paved the way for the Mozambican amnesty law to silence the war and, consequently,

its memories.

One observes, however, that silence was not achieved among political elites. In

the words of Victor Igreja, “the official silence is repeatedly broken by the use of violent

memories as weapons with which to retaliate against former military enemies” (2008:

539). Despite the amnesty law and the promotion of silence, the latter is vividly broken

and war memories are constantly recalled in parliamentary discussions between Frelimo

and Renamo.

Moreover, history repeated itself on August 14 2014, when a new amnesty law

was issued, exempting wrongdoers from the new violent attacks3, which led to the

suspension of the peace agreement between Frelimo and Renamo. Advocating in favour

of amnesty, Frelimo’s Deputy, Eduardo Mulémbwè declared:

3 The precise date is uncertain, but the general understanding is that the attacks started in mid-2013, lasting nearly a year.


15

In my view, we now face a proposal that, having as its main goal the genuine reconciliation and the effective peace within the Mozambican family, does not seek for winners or losers. For this proposal, there are no defeated or victorious. In this context, the sole and authentic winner is the national interest, or, in other words, the People who form our intrinsic nature and to whom we seek to serve with correctness and loyalty4.

In this context, to issue an amnesty law as the sole mechanism of reconciliation

reflected the political choice for “burying the past”, imposing a law of silence and

preventing victims from the possibility of declaring their suffering and restoring their

dignity. Nonetheless, the challenge of reconciliation is not to create a space where

people can “live and forget” (Lederach, 2001: 201). It engenders a greater challenge: to

find a space where individuals and communities can “remember and change”. Under

such circumstances, the Mozambican reconciliation process witnessed the inclusion of a

traditional practice, namely the traditional healing processes, as an informal

reconciliation mechanism mostly in its rural communities.

These rituals has allowed people to deal with their suffering (Hayner, 2001). An

alternative to victims, perpetrators and witnesses to find a common place and redefine

the events of the past. In particular, these traditional reconciliation mechanisms has

arisen as a unique instrument that offer the opportunity for people to address their

traumatic experiences, giving new meanings to their memories. They distinguish

themselves for, in principle, permitting the recognition of past actions, “freeing” victims

and perpetrators and allowing a renewed social life (Honwana, 1998). Ideally, they

oppose the amnesty “to live and to forget” theme and engender the challenge of sharing

a common space where individuals and communities may revisit their own past in order

to remember and transform it. These traditional rituals have theirs grounds laid on a

4 Translation done by the author herself.


16

communal perspective essentially different from the occidental view rooted on more

individualistic values. “It was war and not specific individuals or parties such as Frelimo

and Renamo per se that was to be blamed for the massacres, destruction, and suffering”

(Bartoli, 2001: 379). Finally, the demand for these rituals shows that despite the official

silence and the consequent silencing of the majority of the population, not forgetting (or

the memory of the war and its transmission along the generations) led the population to

seek alternatives for their pain.

5. Final Remarks

Violent conflicts cause great losses in material terms, but they also provoke

severe disruptions in social relations. Therefore, the restoration of societal relationships

becomes mandatory and has its starting point at the renewal of individual and collective

confidence and mutual security. The case of Mozambique calls special attention for the

absence of mechanisms in the public sphere, which have sought to investigate the

atrocities of the civil war and have created public space for the population to expose

their suffering. Rather, through amnesty, the attempt was to leave the past in the past

favouring the country’s stability.

Two general conclusions can be drawn from the present paper. The first responds

more directly to the debate between “forgetting versus remembering” with regard to

amnesty laws. The search for the traditional healing processes shows that, despite the

attempt to "bury the past" through amnesty, forgetfulness has not been achieved.

Particularly in rural communities, men, women and children participate in these rituals

in order to deal with their memories of the civil war, contradicting the idea of collective

amnesia. In this sense, based on the idea of postmemory, the civil war memories are not

only maintained, but also transmitted, continuing to influence the development of the

reconciliation process regardless of the general silence promoted by the amnesty laws.


17

Finally, this paper indicates that amnesty causes different effects in relation to

silencing. While in the political sphere the official silence is constantly broken during the

legislative debates, the silencing of the general population remains. The absence of

public debates that include citizens supports this assertion.

6. References

Aall, Pamela et al. (2007) “Negotiation and international conflict” in Webel, Charles; Galtung, Johan (eds.) Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies. New York: Routledge, 35-50. Bar-Tal, Daniel; Gemma H Bennink (2004) “The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and a Process,” in: Bar-Simon-Tov, Yaacov (ed.) From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford, OUP, 11-38. Bartoli, Andrea (1999) “Mediating Peace in Mozambique: The Role of the Community of Sant’Egídio” in Aall, P; Crocker, C. and Hampson, F. (eds.) Herding Cats: The Role of Mediation in Multiparty Crisis. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press. Bartoli, Andrea (2001) “Forgiveness and Reconciliation in the Mozambique Peace Process” in Helmick, Raymond G.; Petersen, Rodney L. (eds.) Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy, and Conflict transformation. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 361-380. Bartoli, Andrea et al. (2009) “Mozambique – Renamo” in Dayton, Bruce; Kriesberg, Louis (eds.) Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: Moving from Violence to Sustainable Peace. London: Routledge, 140-155. Bloomfield, David et al. (eds.) (2003) “Reconciliation after violent conflict: a handbook”. Stockholm: International IDEA. Böhmelt, Tobias (2010) “The effectiveness of tracks of diplomacy strategies in third-party interventions” Journal of Peace Research. 47-167. Brounéus, Karen (2008) “Truth-Telling as Talking Cure? Insecurity and Retraumatization in the Rwandan Gacaca Courts” Security Dialogue. 39-1, 55-76.


18

Cobban, Helena (2007) Amnesty after atrocity? Healing nations after genocide and war crimes. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Fischer, Martina (2011) “Transitional Justice and Reconciliation: theory and practice” http://www.berghof-handbook.net [03/02/2013]. Galeano, Eduardo (1996) “La memoria subversiva” in Tiempo: Reencuentros y esperanza. Guatemala: ODHAG. Hayner, Priscila B. (2001) Unspeakable truths: confronting state terror and atrocity. New York: Routledge. Hirsch, Marianne (2008) “The generation of postmemory” Poetics today. 29-1, 103-128. Honwana, Alcinda (1998) “Sealing the Past, Facing the Future: Trauma Healing in Rural Mozambique” in Armon, Jeremy; Hendrickson, Dylan and Vines, Alex (eds.) The Mozambican Peace Process in Perspective. London: Conciliation Resources, 75-81. Huyse, Luc (2008) “Introduction: tradition-based approaches in peacemaking, transitional justice and reconciliation policies” in Huyse, Luc; Salter, Mark (eds.) Traditional Justice and Reconciliation after Violent Conflict: Learning from African Experience. Stockholm: International IDEA, 1-21. Igreja, Victor; Dias-Lambranca, Beatrice (2008) “Restorative justice and the role of magamba spirits in post-civil war Gorongosa, central Mozambique” in Huyse, Luc; Salter, Mark (eds.) Traditional Justice and Reconciliation after Violent Conflict: Learning from African Experience. Stockholm: International IDEA, 61-82. Igreja, Victor (2008) “Memories as Weapons: The Politics of Peace and Silence in Post-Civil War Mozambique” Journal of Southern African Studies. 34-3, 539-556. Igreja, Victor (2010) “Frelimo’s political ruling through violence and memory in postcolonial Mozambique” Journal of Southern African Studies. 36-4, 781-799. Kriesberg, Louis (1998) Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Lederach, John Paul (1997) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace.

http://www.berghof-handbook.net/


19

Lederach, John Paul (2001) “Five Qualities of Practice in Support of Reconciliation Processes” in Helmick, Raymond G.; Petersen, Rodney L. (eds.) Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy, and Conflict transformation. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 193-204. Lederach, John Paul (2001) “Civil Society and Reconciliation,” in: Chester A Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall (eds.) Turbulent Peace: the Challenges of Managing International Conflict. Washington DC, USIP, 841-854. Martín Beristain, Carlos (2006) Humanitarian aid work: a critical approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Miall, Hugh (2004) “Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task”, http://www.berghof-handbook.net [25/03/13]. Minow, Martha (2001) “Breaking the cycles of hatred: memory and hate: are there lessons from around the world?” in Martha Minow (ed.) Breaking the cycles of hatred: memory, law and repair. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 14-31. Mulémbwè, Eduardo, (2014) “Discurso Integral de Eduardo Mulémbwè - Lei da Amnistia”, http://comunidademocambicana.blogspot.com.br/2014/08/discurso-integral-de-eduardo-mulembwe.html [15/08/2014]. Rosenblum, Nancy L. (2001) “Introduction: memory, law and repair” in Martha Minow (ed.) Breaking the cycles of hatred: memory, law and repair. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1-14. Schwab, Gabriele (2012) “Replacement Children: The Transgenerational Transmission of Traumatic Loss” Assmann, Aleida; Shortt, Linda (eds.) Memory and Political Change. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 17-34. Theissen, Gunnar (2004) “Supporting Justice, Co-existence and Reconciliation after Armed Conflict: Strategies for Dealing with the Past”, http://www.berghof-handbook.net [02/12/12]. Verdeja, Ernesto (2009) Unchopping a tree: reconciliation in the aftermath of political violence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.


http://comunidademocambicana.blogspot.com.br/2014/08/discurso-integral-de-eduardo-mulembwe.html

http://comunidademocambicana.blogspot.com.br/2014/08/discurso-integral-de-eduardo-mulembwe.html



Documents

The space of memory in post-conflict societies: the influence of amnesty laws