Dealing with the past

When referring to dealing with the past we have first to agree as regards what we understand by it. Working with relatives of victims of political repression and having lived it personally, has made me come to the conclusion that dealing with the past means 'learning to live / coping / struggling' in the present with our own personal and social lives which have been marked with repressive events we did not choose, want or provoke. On top of that they were inflicted by other human beings and most of the time deliberately. This present is determined by the past and has a direct impact on the future, not only in terms of what will happen, but also as regards our ways to give meaning and significance as well as handle the past in the present so as to connect it to the future.

When the dictatorship moved towards a transition to democracy in Chile (my country), one of the very important tasks regarding the topic of dealing with the past connected to uncovering the truth, but we must admit that there were also many who were uncomfortable and, in a sense, wanted to forget the past and focus on building a new future. But we cannot start from scratch, it is impossible to ignore the past as what we have lived makes us be who we are and determines our identity. Here some general principles are relevant, some of which have become universal:

• The truth about abuses of the past must be known. The reading of the reports produced by the Truth Commissions become helpful for this purpose. Summaries of these can even be easier to work with.
• All the different voices related to these abuses must be listened if we want to seek to deal with the past.
• There is a need for healing at personal and social levels.
• There is a great need for acknowledgement when dealing with the abuses, there must be a public and general recognition of what happened so as overcome denial.
• Reparations for victims is significant when confronting the past, even though in many cases they are controversial.
• When referring to the issue of justice, the question of prosecution and punishment comes up. In my experience, for many of us justice is the only appropriate acknowledgement of the past and the only way to achieve it is by individualising responsibilities, we cannot hold people guilty collectively

In connection to Serbs and Croats, Michael Ignatieff wrote in his book on nationalism: "Serbs and Croats have never begun the process of ending the past; instead they live it over and over".

There are 3 crucial reasons for confronting the past.

• Firstly, as a civilised society we must recognise the worth and dignity of those victimised by abuses of the past. If we do not confront what happened to them, in a sense we argue that those people do not matter, that only the future is important and we also perpetuate their victimisation which does not help neither in dealing with the past nor in being part of a present that projects into the future. At this same level, perpetrators have to become aware of their actions and take responsibilities for them.
• The second reason is connected to establishing and upholding the rule of law. It is basic and crucial to state clearly that everyone is subject to law. The rank and social status of those who victimised others must not immunise them from society's efforts to confront the past.
• The third one is related to deterring future abuses. Although we cannot predict the repetition of the abuses, we can try to understand what happened, confront the past and try to avoid dealing in such a way that makes it possible to perpetrate them again.

Most of the times dealing with the past happens at times when there is a transition between war or dictatorship into a post war situation or a transition into democracy. Very seldom there is a so called 'winner' and in this context dealing with the past injustices and human rights violations becomes both an ethical and political task. This is true not only for politicians but also for human rights activists as well. It will have to be dealt in the real society we have. Not the one of the past, not the one we dreamt and dream with but the one which is possible in the circumstances we have.

In any transition one is dealing with a situation where meeting ethical requirements and political constraints creates dilemmas. In Chile the existing institutions could not deal with the issue of human rights abuses and so the new government created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission explicitly for this purpose. Some elements to consider from this experience as well as from others:

• The Truth Commission came out from a negotiated process between the ones who were in power and were responsible for the violations and the new government which was not very strong and keeps the apparatus or Constitution of the previous one. It would be naive to think that it was set up to just deal with the needs of the victims. (see article in Peace News 2438, pages 16/17)
• From an ethical standpoint the purpose of dealing systematically with the legacy of atrocities is moral reconstruction - to put back in place the moral order that has broken down or has been severely undermined, or to build up a just political order where none has existed in historical memory.
• From an ethical standpoint the aim is moral reconstruction, from a political standpoint the purpose is maximisation. Maximisation means achieving the best that is possible in the circumstances. Here our energy and contribution is basic.
• Different measures of truth, justice, forgiveness and so are tools to advance the twin goals of prevention and reparation in a process of moral reconstruction. The writer Michael Ignatieff said: When there is no justice, then truth can easily be denied. Justice is essential, although one cannot expect any great results from trials as legal proceedings need incontestable proof of facts.
• Forgiveness and reconciliation are not mere words. They can not be demanded or set up by law. They are conclusions of a process rooted in moral reconstruction. The common factors of all processes of forgiveness in major religious traditions are that a wrongdoing is known, that it is acknowledged, that there is atonement and the perpetrator resolves not to do it again, and that reparations are made.
• There is a duality between the individual victims and the nation. Both are important. The victims and their relatives deserve respect and should be consulted with the utmost consideration. But at a societal level the process of moral reconstruction is in the hands of the society and the victims should be aware of this limitation/situation.
• No society can reconcile itself on the ground of a divided memory. Memory is identity, this would result in a divided identity.
• Without truth and acknowledgement, reconciliation is not possible. Reparations are important in this respect because they convey an acknowledgement of the victim's dignity.
• Leaders and organisations working with victims should be careful as regards what they offer and how far they go because there must be a measure of consistency.
• New political authorities should keep in mind, but not stop there, as regards being mindful of the constraints that result from a situation where the adversary has power - armed power and control of the civil service and/or political support.
• Leaders should never forget that the lack of political pressure to put these issues on the agenda does not mean they are not boiling underground, waiting to erupt.
• It is very important that policies adopted must be sustainable at present and in the longer term and the policies should be as transparent as possible.
• It is important to act promptly. The new authorities should use the 'profits' of the momentum and legitimacy they enjoy to take the initiative and propose policies.

Just to try to round up: The measures themselves should be as fair as possible. High moral ground should be present when dealing, even in procedures. If a commission is appointed, then everyone should be represented.