ABSTRACT
In many ways, the ideal of reconciliation brings together themes from the previous chapters: the importance of inclusivity and open dialogue, the need for fair and just relationships and the importance of the recognition of differences. The ideal also includes apology and forgiveness. Whereas forgiveness refers to the past, reconciliation looks to the future. Whenever fear, anger, bitterness and hatred has so accumulated that relationships are impaired, reconciliation is required. Yet despite the term reconciliation being used widely, often it is not clearly defined or understood. Reconciliation is needed to break down antagonistic relationships that exist because of polarized views. In many societies recovering from conflict, different tensions, beliefs, interpretations of events and incommensurate values remain about how to respond to these different tensions. As we will see, reconciliation is a goal, ideal, principle and process that aims to lessen tensions and rebuild relationships. While there are substantial differences between Baghdad, Belfast, Belgrade, Cape Town, Colombo, Kabul, Kigali, Mogadishu, Ramallah or Santo Domingo, there are some similarities in terms of the long-term process of reconciliation, even though the path to reconciliation differs for each society. Wilhelm Verwoerd is right when he says ‘expect messiness’ (2003: 264). Reconciliation is demanding, and the messiness comes from dealing with fraught tensions, stressful relationships and aspirations to put aside the factional disputes that have long divided a nation.
