Analysis Of Schaap's Reconciliation As Ideology And Politics

When taking a cursory glance at the concept of reconciliation, one can easily be fooled by the seemingly unending possibilities that it can offer to the process of post-conflict peacebuilding. However, spend a little more time attempting to fully grasp the nature of this notion; and one will find oneself feeling slightly cynical about what reconciliation can realistically achieve. While discovering that there ultimately is a problem with the current conception of reconciliation is rather simple, pinpointing the actual issues is not as easy. In his work entitled Reconciliation as Ideology and Politics, Andrew Schaap identifies six objections that he believes undermines the legitimacy of the idea that reconciliation processes invoke the common good. The objections to reconciliation that Schaap provides include – ‘its vagueness in meaning; its incompatibility with modern pluralistic societies; its presumption about pre-existing harmonious relationships; its

This poses a large problem, because corrupt or self-interested leaders in post-conflict societies can do next to nothing to alleviate the suffering of the nation’s citizens, and claim that what they are doing is their own take on reconciliation. Without clear definitional boundaries, the concept of reconciliation can be adapted to fit any process that suits the political elite. In Schaap’s own study, he found that there were at least three conceptions of reconciliation that emerged regarding the Australian reconciliation process in the 1990s. Reconciliation in the Australian case went from being about achieving distributive justice and equity on the one hand, to requiring an official apology and economic reparations on the other. Thus, the actual methods and outcomes of the reconciliation process will ultimately depend on who is in charge, what their intentions are, and who they strive to