Reconciliation vs. CoexistenceReconciliation vs. Coexistence

John Paul Lederach

Strategies for Co-existence Strategies for Co-existence and Reconciliationand Reconciliation

1. Top-down

•From the inside•From the outside

2. Lateral (Middle-Range Leaders)

•From the inside•From the outside

3. Bottom-up

•From the inside•From the outside

Louis Kriesberg

Types of Peace•Separate: Disentangle (Co-Existence)

•Associate: Entangle; (Reconciliation)

Goal of Peace•Restore: reestablish trust, value (Overcoming distrust)

•Build: create trust, value (Creating trust)

Transition from Conflict to PeaceTransition from Conflict to Peace

1. Beliefs about societal goals

2. Beliefs about the adversary

3. Beliefs about the ingroup

4. Beliefs about intergroup relations

5. Beliefs about peace

Coexistence:

• It reflects an accommodation between members of different communities or separate countries who live together without trying to destroy or severely harm the other.

• Often, coexistence can involve competition and conflict if conducted through legitimate channels, as well as differences in values, cultural patterns, economic standing and political power.

• It is based on a sense of mutual tolerance and even respect.

Psychological Prerequisites for Mutual Acceptance (Kelman):

1. Both side had to acquire insight into each other’s perspective so that they could understand the resistance to acceptance.

2. Each side had to see that there were reasonable people on the other side and that there were issues to talk about, rather than that the two sets of demands were mutually exclusive.

3. Each side had to distinguish the ideological dreams and rhetoric from the operational programs of the other. Israel had to be persuaded that the Palestine dream of a united Palestine did not preclude the acceptance of the State of Israel and a stable peace with it. Palestinians had to be persuaded that the Zionist dream of the ingathering of exiles did not necessitate expansionist policies of annexation and settlement.

4. Both sides had to see that mutual concessions could bring about change leading toward resolution.

5. Each side had to believe that leadership changes conducive to a stable peace could take place in the other side. Israelis had to be convinced that the PLO was becoming a political organization (as opposed to terrorist one). Palestinians had to be convinced that the hard-line politics of the current Israeli government could become more conciliatory.

6. Each side had to see responsiveness to its human psychological needs by the other side through symbolic gestures.

Integration

Coexistence

Coercion

Instable

What is Reconciliation?What is Reconciliation?1. Truth

2. Justice

3. Forgiveness/remorse

4. Safety/Security

The Foundations of Political Life

1. Unpredictability

2. Irreversibility

Ability to forgive

Ability to make promises

Hannah ArendtThe Human Condition

When is reconciliation an appropriate framework?

When you can’t get what you want without the help of the other.

Definition of Trust:

belief in, and willingness to act on the basic of, the words, actions, and decisions of another

Trust has relevance only to situations in which there exists some degree of uncertainty or risk.

The Paradox of Trust:

You need trust to develop trust.

 

Player A

Player B 

C D

C 4,4 1,3

D 3,1 2,2

Rousseau:

Development of Civil Society

Common Knowledge

Trust/Distrust

Trust: Confident positive expectations

Distrust: Confident negative expectations

All relationship are degrees of trust and distrust: CBT, CBD, IBT.&IBD.

Creating trust in a relationship is initially a matter of building CBT

Calculation-based Trust (CBT)i) People will do what they promise because they fear the costs of not doing it and because they want the rewards

ii) Professional relationship that are task oriented

iii) Goal are external to the relationship

iv) Tend to be partial and fragile – although they can also be the early stages of a more intimate personal relationship.

Identification-based trusti) Identification with another’s desires and interests: understand and appreciate what the other wants.

ii) True affirmation of the strength of IBT is when the other party act more zealously in behalf of your interests than you would do.

iii) Collective identity; creating joint products and goals or commitment to commonly shared values

Calculation-based Trust

• Trusting what someone does

Identification-based Trust• Trusting what someone is about

Actions that build CBT We tend to see people who act consistently and

reliably as credible and trustworthy.

1. Behave in appropriate and consistent ways

2. Meet deadlines

3. Perform task and follow through with planned activities as promised

Strategies to manage CBD(1) Agree explicitly on expectations – tasks, deadlines, penalties, etc.

(2) Agree on monitoring and verification procedures

(3) Cultivate alternative ways to have one’s need met

(4) Increase the other’s awareness of how their performance is perceived

Example: Decommissioning in Northern Ireland

Actions that build IBT(1) Spend time sharing

(2) Common interests

(3) Common goals and objectives

(4) Similar reactions to common situations(a) Situations where they stand for the same values and principles, thereby demonstrating integrity

(5) Find ways to demonstrate that you have the interests of the other at heart

(6) We are likely to build IBT only with those whom we feel we legitimately share goals, interests, perceptions and values and if we meet under circumstance that facilitate our learning about this similarity.

Strategies to manage IBD(1) To develop sufficient CBT so that the parties with straightforward behavioral expectations that each has about the relationship

(2) Opening acknowledge areas of mutual distrust and design safeguards

(3) Design ways to keep IBD issues form interfering with ability to work together