Third Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy, "Building Democracy for Peace, Development, and Human Rights"

WORKSHOP REPORTS: Conflict Resolution, Transitional Justice, and Reconciliation

Democracy as a Tool for Conflict Resolution
Organizers: Swedish Center Party International Foundation – Sweden ACCORD – South Africa	Moderators: Åke Pettersson – Sweden Vasu Gounden – South Africa Rapporteurs: Mila Eklund – Sweden Tshiliso Molukanele – South Africa	Presenters: Ayo Obe – Nigeria Par Granstedt – Sweden Eugene Nindorera – Burundi Liia Hanni – Estonia Ben Kapita – Zambia Kwezi Mngibisa – South Africa

The workshop began with the following question posed to the participants: Is democracy a precondition for stability and conflict management or should conflict management and resolution precede democracy?

Three general themes were emphasized:

democracy as a tool for conflict management across borders;
democracy as a tool for conflict management at national levels; and
mass mobilization during times of transition.

Observations:

Democracy is a process of power sharing, and democratic consolidation can assist in conflict management. Parliamentarians and political parties thus have an important role to play in democracy and conflict management.
Parliament is a model of peaceful conflict management; it provides space to different groups, opinions, and approaches.
Electoral systems should be free and fair and promote representative parliaments; those that have not fulfilled these criteria have led to conflict in the past.
Mass mobilization during transitions is important. The involvement of civil society in the democratization process is also important; for instance, it has a role to play in monitoring. Freedom of speech and press is important for the full participation of all sectors of society, and transparency is central to democratization.
Regional and sub-regional forums and parliamentary bodies have a role to play by facilitating understanding between nations.
When they are not handled in a proper manner ethnicity and division may threaten democracy. Inclusion of all in the management of the affairs of the country may restore stability.
Parliament is key to providing a platform for dialogue among various political groupings in a country. Accommodation and representation, transparency in public affairs, and constructive relations between majority and opposition are all conditions of a well functioning parliament. Cross-border linkages and regional parliamentary forums should have major roles in addressing common challenges.
Democracy has been used as a tool of division in the past. Elections are important for democracy, but the history of elections on the African continent suggests that they are not necessarily good for stability. That is why it is important to instil democracy in individuals; you cannot have democracy without democrats.
Conflict arises as a result of mismanagement of political power. The lack of rules, or lack of respect for rules, leads to conflict, and this happens where there is no democracy or room for pluralism. Citizens should be able to hold leaders accountable.
Conflict is often caused by the exclusion of others from governance, selfish leaders, and ethnic cleansing. Examples of this can be found among African leaders in Zambia, Malawi, and Namibia who wish to change the laws to prolong their own positions of power. There is a need to instil partnership and power sharing in government, along with engagement with the opposition and civil society. Global agreement on the Inter-Congolese Dialogue was a good start for peace and stability in that country.
Human interaction is fraught with possibilities of conflict and conflict management should seek to result in a community in harmony. Conflict management promotes smooth human interaction and provides communities with the opportunity to co-exist. Democracy helps to arrest the deterioration of human relations into conflict and chaos.

Questions:

What is the position of social and economic justice in democracy?
How should we deal with external factors of conflict? The interferences of other states and interest groups in the internal affairs of a country may not lead to democracy (e.g., states might then be imposing their “way of democracy” on others).
Can power-sharing arrangements in post-conflict situations be seen as a way of legitimizing former warlords and warring parties? Can this lead to impunity during war given the knowledge that an amnesty will be granted?
Peace agreements are often pacts between the elites and do not necessarily represent aspirations at the grassroots level, or the general population is simply left out of the process altogether; local people do not participate and issues of human rights violations are often not addressed. Can such agreements be used as instruments in building lasting peace?

Conclusions:

Democratization itself should be given time to develop, but timeframes for “deliverables” should be set. The population at large should know what to expect and not be taken by surprise. Good, mature leadership during a transition is an important asset.
Respect for minorities and other identities is important for a well functioning democracy. If a minority is threatened it becomes stronger and may very well overrun the democracy itself.
Political parties should be based on values rather than on persons or identity.
A democratic political culture should be developed through the educational system beginning with children at an early age.
Democracy needs strong institutions, such as an independent judiciary and a strong parliament.
Lasting democracy may depend on the form of a struggle. Mass-based struggles, rather than elite-based negotiations, often lead to stronger democracies.

Strategies for Democrats in Situations of Armed Conflict
Organizers: Congreso Visible – Colombia Corporación Región – Colombia Panorama – Palestine	Moderator: lisabeth Ungar – Colombia Rapporteur: Rubén Fernández – Colombia	Presenters: Riad Malki – Palestine Leon Valencia – Colombia Gershon Baskin – Israel

Participants in this workshop presented experiences of democratic activists in Israel, Palestine, and Colombia.

Challenges:
The presenters mentioned some of the constraints that democrats experience in countries and situations of armed conflict, namely:

Individuals and organizations that work for peace amidst a conflict are often threatened by the various actors in the conflict and are often accused by one side or the other of supporting the enemy.
Those who work for peace often have to confront public opinion, which says, “You must not speak with the enemy.” Sometimes, however, they receive support from different sectors of society but are afraid to speak up.
There are always powerful economic and political interests that benefit from a conflict and they often conspire against the peace process.
It is often easier for extreme positions to win the support of public opinion because their messages are simple and direct, such as “If they are going to kill us, let’s kill them first.”

Recommendations:
The presenting organizations have worked in the field of education and the promotion of democratic values, in direct contact with people of different beliefs, in an effort to influence public opinion and to enlarge the base of democrats who support the peace processes in their countries. From the presentations and the ensuing dialogue among the workshop participants, a number of recommendations emerged:

There is an ethical starting point: it is a duty of all democrats to work for a peaceful solution to a conflict, not only because of the cost in lives, but also because peace is more sustainable when it is built in a negotiated way.
It is always necessary to work to maintain an open door for communication between enemies. This presents both an opportunity and a challenge for civil society organizations; when the official channels have broken down, the doors to dialogue should be opened by democrats of differing beliefs.
Democrats should develop educational programs and promote democratic values among different groups in conflict affected societies so that while they may have different beliefs they will still believe in democratic values. It is especially important to work with young people in this respect.
Since it is more difficult to gain the support of people for the peace process, because the proposals and activities are often more complex, working with media representatives and journalists is indispensable. Again, the purpose of this work should be to influence public opinion and to enlarge the base of democrats who support peace processes.
It is very important to work with public opinion on the side of the “enemy” because for democrats not everyone on the opposite side or those who have different values and beliefs are enemies; it is necessary to try to understand their values and win their support for one’s cause.
The central idea is that the supreme value is life and that from life freedom and democracy emerge.
It is necessary to combat the use of terror and indifference towards those who wield it. It should also be understood that there is an “official terror” and an “unofficial terror”; both are very dangerous for society and for democracy.

Indigenous Approaches to Conflict Resolution
Organizers: Foundation for Citizenship and Governance Training – South Africa Center for the Research of Societal Problems – Turkey	Moderator: Craig Arendse – South Africa Rapporteur: Brian Redelinghuys – South Africa	Presenters: Craig Arendse – South Africa Dogu Ergil – Turkey

The opening presentations emphasized the importance of retaining communalism and holism of the community in conflict resolution efforts. The communities themselves are the insiders and thus should be intimately involved in the resolution of conflict, unlike Western approaches that depend on outsiders.

Observations:
Elements of indigenous approaches to conflict resolution

Engagement in dialogue
Replicating dialogue
Transforming relationships
Consulting communities
Respect for the other individual as the basis

Benefits of indigenous approaches for strengthening democracy

The indigenous approach is more enduring.
It develops ownership of the process within the communities involved and assists in the self-recovery of the disputants.
It is sustainable in terms of peace building and keeping.
Acknowledges the feelings of the actors and thus creates opportunities to get to the root cause of the issues.
Allows mediators to learn about the conflict directly from the indigenous actors.
Brings internal experiences to the resolution of the issues.

Challenges:

How to develop a gender-balanced approach?
How to integrate indigenous approaches with Western approaches so as not to create a dichotomy?
How to define what is indigenous in a cosmopolitan context?

Best Practices:

The role of women in conflict resolution mechanisms is minimal and should thus be encouraged and expanded.
The outsider should provide space to employ methodologies that are central to indigenous processes.
Name the process in such a way as to be acceptable to the parties and actors.
Build on what is already there with respect to resolution of the conflict.
Instill ownership of the process within the communities.
Sustain the process.
Prevent conflict through attention to cultural sensitivity, knowledge, and acceptance of local history.
Clarify the roles of interveners and equalize the playing field.

Conflict Resolution Work: The Democratic Capacity-Building Dividend
Organizer: Youth Movement for Democracy	Moderators: Clayton Lillienfeldt – South Africa Ryota Jonen – Japan	Rapporteur: Ryota Jonen – Japan

Participants in the workshop discussed the important links between conflict resolution and democracy and explored the possibilities of building partnerships to develop training programs on conflict resolution and democratic leadership in different regions.

The workshop introduced the concept of linking conflict resolution and democracy, which has not been recognized sufficiently among academics and democracy-promotion organizations around the world. The workshop was based on the youth training programs that the Youth Movement for Democracy has developed on democratic leadership and conflict resolution skills. The workshop thus began with an explanation of the training programs and an identification of links between conflict resolution and democracy. For example, conflict resolution skills (communication skills, building trust and consensus among antagonistic groups, and identifying causes of conflict) are also crucial skills for democratic leadership.

The workshop discussion focused mainly on identifying additional links, identified as:

Reconciliation and nation building, particularly in post-conflict societies;
Co-existence, tolerance, diversity, minority rights, and representation in political institutions;
Building partnerships and sustainable relationships as outcomes of the conflict-resolution process;
Good understanding of the root causes of conflict as a key to successful democracy building;
Traditional approaches to conflict resolution;
Employing democratic principles in political negotiations;
Importance of a democratic environment for intervention and peace processes, such as broad participation of citizens and NGOs;
Wide distribution of information about the peace process;
Recognition of massive violations of human rights in a conflict and the establishment of a post-conflict human rights regime to address those violations.

Recommendations:

The manual should include successful case studies of conflict resolution and democracy building.
The target group for the training programs should be specified because approaches to resolving conflict are different for different groups of people (e.g., NGOs, youth, government officials, warring factions, etc).
In addition to the proposed training programs, workshop participants also recommended exchange programs for young activists from different conflict situations and programs on human rights violations in conflict.

Given that the Youth Movement seeks to conduct training programs in different regions of the world, participants from Sierra Leone, Tibet, and Colombia expressed their interest in possible collaboration on the programs.

The first Youth Movement’s training program is scheduled to take place in Nairobi, Kenya, on December 12–17, 2004. This program has been developed in collaboration with the Africa Democracy Forum.

Instruments of Transitional Justice: Truth Commissions, Tribunals and Multi-Sector Community Approaches
Organizer: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation – South Africa	Moderator: Graeme Simpson – South Africa	Rapporteurs: Polly Dewhirst – South Africa

The first part of the workshop was composed of a brief introduction to issues and models of transitional justice, such as truth commissions, tribunals, and mixed approaches that incorporate both prosecutorial and reconciliatory mechanisms. Workshop participants from 20 countries shared their experiences of transitional justice mechanisms taking place or being planned in their regions.

Challenges:

How do local experiences relate to transitional justice mechanisms that take place at a national level (i.e., how should informers be dealt with; how can reconciliation be embedded in communities)?
The tensions involved in local and national transitional justice processes running alongside international justice initiatives, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), must be recognized and the options for dealing with them must be developed.
The challenges facing national processes in dealing with regional conflicts (e.g., Democratic Republic of Congo, Southern Africa) must be addressed.
It is important to tackle the incapacity of transitional justice instruments to address past and present violence and to link the two.
It is necessary to deal with the tensions involved in balancing needs for justice with reconciliation.
Concerning the issue of reparations, approaches must formulate how to get them, how to get governments from using them as substitutes for truth, and what the role of memory and museums should be.
What is the potential for “Traditional” justice, or the use of customary tools?
Can the transitional justice process truly deal with genocide or with large-scale conflicts (i.e., in the Democratic Republic of Congo where more than 3 million people were killed)?
There are certain fault lines for re-emerging conflict if transitional justice processes do not deal with certain issues. Some of these fault lines include:
Refugee and displaced communities
Ex-combatant reintegration
Disappearances and unresolved cases.

Observations:
Due to time constraints and the wide variety of questions and issues raised in the information-sharing session, the workshop participants did not attempt to come up with specific recommendations or suggestions. Rather, the session sought to open dialogue and note key observations, which included:

There are no neat answers about which transitional justice mechanisms work best. There is also no model that can be applied directly to all countries. This is especially true of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which is often marketed aggressively. Civil society should continue to develop innovative approaches that balance justice and prosecutions, on the one hand, with more reconciliatory initiatives, on the other.
The amnesty process remains highly contested and controversial. This process must continue to be reviewed, revised, and explored, especially in light of the development of international justice instruments, such as the ICC. There continues to be serious limitations to prosecutorial approaches as well.
The protection and preservation of records is essential if transitional justice processes are to be effective, or even in situations where it is not possible for these processes to take place.
Transitional justice processes must prioritize the complex and changing needs of victims (for example, refugees who don’t want to return “home” because of better lives in the cities where they lived during the conflict).
There is a danger in the establishment in given countries of transitional justice mechanisms by international institutions. The country’s population must “own” the processes if the people are to be effectively engaged and/or have an impact on the local level.
Transitional justice mechanisms are often only able to open the door for reconciliation, truth-seeking and justice. Countries (and notably civil society) should set up additional mechanisms to work with and carry forward the work begun by these mechanisms.
Transitional justice mechanisms do not always have to be national processes. There are options for these mechanisms to be used in more creative ways to deal both with local and regional atrocities.

The Role of Sites of Conscience Museums in Democracy Promotion and Post-Transition Reconciliation
Organizers: District Six Museum – South Africa (member, International Coalition of Historic Site Museums of Conscience)	Moderator: Valmont Layne – South Africa Rapporteur: Valmont Layne – South Africa	Presenters: Valmont Layne – South Africa Lionel Davis – South Africa Yazir Henri – South Africa

What is a site of conscience? Sites are typically developed within the context of struggles for democracy. In addition, through historical processes sites may become part of the popular imagination or linked to human rights issues. History normally determines how this happens. How is it decided that a site has broader significance for human rights? How do sites become places that inspire hope and keep us focused on the task of developing and maintaining a human rights culture?

Three presenters in the workshop described sites of conscience museums in South Africa. From its sordid history, Robben Island, where Nelson Mandela and other anti-apartheid activists were imprisoned, has been turned into a memorial site, a place for education, a place of triumph of the human spirit.

Prestwich Place in Cape Town is a recently discovered burial site of slaves and their descendents. In this case, a critical consideration has been the process of asserting this as a site of conscience against business and other interests.

District Six, also in Cape Town, was destroyed under apartheid and became a site of conscience because of its physical and symbolic prominence. It is an example of how civic action can be linked to a site’s past and its future, mobilizing the past for an ongoing process of citizenship building. District Six was created through a process of civic contestation. That is its critical characteristic.

Participants in the workshop were interested in learning more about how to memorialize a site to reflect the struggle for democracy (e.g., in Taiwan). Others were concerned about how to popularize a site, to prevent backsliding from democratic progress; how can lessons learned be transmitted to a wider audience through a site of conscience? There was also an interest in sites as places of documentation and consciousness-raising.

Recommendations:

It is important that the content of a site be dynamically linked to its contested nature; all sites are contested and should reflect this.
In transitional contexts, sites can have the power to ensure that “there is no going back.”
Avoid the trappings of “political voyeurism.” Tourism can turn a site into a leisure experience and rob it of its meaning inside the struggle for human rights. It can lose its capacity to change the visitor.
Sites should be responsive to external stimuli and challenges.
Sites of conscience should put careful thought into access. For example, Green Island, a political prison in Taiwan, is not (yet) accessible.
Sites should ensure that they have a meaning beyond those who experienced the abuses. It is therefore critical to place emphasis on youth and future generations to ensure that the site remains relevant to them.

Transitional Justice and the Matter of the “Disappeared”
Organizers: John Daniel, Human Sciences Research Council – South Africa Committee of the Families of the Disappeared in Algeria – Algeria	Moderator: John Daniel – South Africa Rapporteur: Ollie Mahopo – South Africa	Presenters: Presenters: Nassera Dutour – Algeria Polly Dewhirst – South Africa

Participants shared their stories on the problem of disappearances in their respective countries. Several common problems emerged from the discussion, such as the destruction of records, fear among witnesses and perpetrators to volunteer information, the lack of interest and/or political will of governments to initiate investigations, and the presence of perpetrators in positions of power. The workshop was a useful beginning for sharing information and strategies. At the conclusion there was consensus that networks on the issue should be strengthened so that the effort goes beyond mere information sharing and moves toward joint action.

After the opening presentations and a viewing of a South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) documentary on human rights violations, discussion focused on the prospects of having TRCs in other countries where they might be useful and on the ways in which groups can link up with NGOs and other like minded organizations outside their countries.

Recommendations:

Establish networks for research and the exchange of information.
Conduct joint lobbying and advocacy both internationally and locally.
Develop capacity training for addressing disappearance issues.
Take cases to the International Criminal Court and the African Union Human Rights Court (once it is established).

World Movement for Democracy || National Endowment for Democracy || 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 800 || Washington, D.C. 20005 USA
world@ned.org || webmaster@ned.org