Forum: The Politics of Reconciliation

ACCESS Youth Network’s

Round-Table Forum: The Politics of Reconciliation -an international phenomenon. Examining the politicization of reconciliation, forgiveness and apology

Wednesday 27th May 5:30pm – 7:30pm

Dyason House, 124 Jolimont Road, East Melbourne, 3002 (near Richmond and Jolimont stations & MCG)

Email your RSVP or call (03) 9654 7271.

FREE

Speakers>>

Dr. Andrew Gunstone

Senior Lecturer in Australian Indigenous Studies, Monash University

Foundation Editor of Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues.

 
Dr. Paul Muldoon

Lecturer in Political Theory and Global Politics, Monash University;

 
Lucho Riquelme

Co-founder of Latin American Solidarity Network  (LASNET) and

Chilean Popular and Indigenous Network;

Latin American Indigenous Rights Activist


Reconciliation has become a central term within the political dialogue of many countries that endeavour to unite fragmented societies.  This is the case in Australia, and has been the case in Latin America and South Africa. A common delusion is that reconciliation can be addressed with one swift act of political symbolism. In reality, reconciliation is a perpetual process of debate and deliberation, and perhaps can only be fostered in a culture of true democratic ethos.  It requires more of society than political posturing. What is more, these acts of political symbolism – albeit imbued with meaning and gravity – should be analysed within contemporary contexts. This naturally leads to an examination of the integrity of political apologies, reconciliation commissions and the like.

A case in point is the Australian government’s apology to Indigenous people. Whereas commentators commended the apology as an overdue demonstration of humanity and as having transcended stale arguments, the fact remains that it is a political compromise. Conditions of the apology, drafted while in consultation with Indigenous Australians, articulated a rejection of monetary compensation and compelled forgiveness from Indigenous peoples to look to a new future.  But, has the past been adequately dealt with and acknowledged? Does the apology legitimize the Northern Territory intervention?

Needless to say, in spite of it being a vital and compulsory step on the path of national unity, reconciliation is always a generational process that creates new narratives. This incorporation of reconciliation and apology into politics has been derived from a global phenomenon.  Reconciliation commissions have been integrated into democratic processes, particularly at transitional stages, internationally.

The Chilean National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation of 1990 investigated the torture, execution and disappearances of an estimated 4000 Chileans during Pinochet’s 16-year “reign of terror”. However, the Commission was only given charge to investigate deaths and disappearances and could not exact testimony.  Given such limitations, victims of Pinochet’s regime have argued that the Commission did not transcend political posturing and achieve moral healing. Can reconciliation ever lead to true social healing if what is sought is a mere political compromise? How “just” can a political compromise ever be?

Many view the 1994 post-Apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission as having set a global precedent. However, its processes have since been the subject of perpetual debate. The fact that amnesty was offered to those identified as perpetrators of Apartheid for the sake of transitional justice is a contentious point. What does this imply for the integrity of political forgiveness and apology in the process of reconciliation? Are such political apologies conditional? If so, is this not an inherent contradiction?

It is pertinent to the integrity of civic society that historical divisions entrenched by “rituals of blood” be addressed. However, the merits and implications of reconciliation as a political concept must be reviewed