The Importance of Forgiveness

I am ashamed to say that I have been stumped by political correctness. Everyone knows what I mean when I refer to ‘the war’ that’s on right now. But who’s war? Are we even allowed to call it a war? Where is it? Is it between Israel & Palestine or Hamas & the government of Israel? Can I even simplify the situation into those groups? How can I be as neutral as possible when writing this article?

The fact is… it doesn’t matter. All we can agree on is that recently a conflict has escalated to the point where many people are dying and buildings are falling. And we are all contemplating how this situation can be resolved into a peaceful and fair solution. Both sides feel wronged by the other and there is a strong narrative to seek justice through retribution. Who knows how the situation will play out exactly, but it is in times like these that the topic of this article becomes more relevant and urgent than ever.

We will explore the ups and downs of retribution as a form of justice, as well as engage with the pursuit of reconciliation as a means of rebuilding relationships and balancing the two together. But we shall also explore the act of forgiveness and its role as a stepping stone between retribution and reconciliation.

The Downward Spiral of Retribution

Retribution, the act of inflicting punishment on those who commit wrongdoings, is often considered as an essential form of justice. It is the duty of every government to aid in the protection of the rights & wellbeings of its citizens and maintain public order by providing functional legal and defensive systems. In short, it is the duty of government to provide justice. Retribution can aid the pursuit of justice as it can lead to deterrence and moral balance. 

However, the quest for recompense or vengeance can often spiral into a vicious cycle of hostility and violence, thereby escalating existing conflicts. This occurs when retribution triggers a cycle of revenge and counter-revenge, with each party perceiving their response as a justified reaction to a perceived wrong. What one sees as a proportional response can be viewed as excessive by another, fueling animosity and leading to a tit-for-tat escalation of hostilities. This dynamic can cause collateral damage, affecting communities and families beyond the original perpetrators, and further entrenching grievances. The continuous cycle can lead to dehumanisation of the opposing side, justifying further violence, while simultaneously closing off avenues for dialogue and reconciliation. 

Such patterns can be observed in longstanding feuds, gang conflicts, and protracted geopolitical disputes. The Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s and the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan offer some interesting and alternative examples of this. 

But I shall avoid simplifying complex and sensitive case studies into this article, and instead encourage readers to do their own research and develop their opinion on these examples. Retribution certainly has a place in the causation of these conflict escalations, but it is up to you to consider the following questions: 

• How significant was retribution in escalating these conflicts?
• What other factors caused these escalations?
• Was escalation inevitable without retribution?
• What retributions were justified?

And having read this article, also consider whether and how the act of forgiveness could have de-escalated these conflicts.

The Psychology of Forgiveness

The act of forgiveness is often associated with psychological benefits. For instance, forgiveness has been linked to the alleviation of negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, and depression. It can also foster feelings of empathy, compassion, and understanding, which in turn, can lead to improved interpersonal relationships. Forgiveness can create a sense of closure and peace, enabling individuals to move past grievances and focus on a more positive and constructive engagement with others.

In the political arena, forgiveness can lead to a decrease in tensions between conflicting parties. By acknowledging past wrongdoings and expressing a willingness to forgive, political entities can pave the way for constructive dialogue and mutual understanding, creating a conducive environment for peace negotiations, diplomatic engagements, and cooperative policymaking.

Furthermore, political forgiveness can also have a ripple effect on the populace, promoting a culture of tolerance, understanding, and reconciliation within societies, which are essential ingredients for social harmony and national unity.

Political Forgiveness in History

One example is the reconciliation approach adopted by Nelson Mandela in post-apartheid South Africa. Mandela’s magnanimity and his advocacy for forgiveness over retribution was not merely a personal virtue but a strategic choice that facilitated the peaceful transition of South Africa from a racially segregated regime to a democratic society. His establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission provided a platform for both the victims and perpetrators of apartheid-era crimes to confront the past, a move that was instrumental in averting a racial bloodbath and fostering national unity (Tutu, 1999).

Similarly, in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide, Rwanda embarked on a path of reconciliation through the establishment of community courts known as Gacaca. These courts were instrumental in addressing the voluminous cases of genocide, promoting truth-telling, and fostering reconciliation among Rwandans. The Gacaca courts, rooted in traditional Rwandan dispute-resolution mechanisms, provided a platform for survivors to confront the perpetrators, who in turn were given an opportunity for atonement and reintegration into society (Clark, 2008).

Across the waters, the peace process in Northern Ireland post-Troubles also exemplifies the potential of forgiveness in political settings. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which marked the cessation of the Troubles, was a product of protracted negotiations and compromise among various factions. The willingness of parties to move past historical grievances, albeit not without challenges, was integral in paving the way for a relative peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. The narratives of individuals like Jo Berry, whose father was killed in the Brighton Grand Hotel bombing, and Patrick Magee, the bomber who later sought forgiveness and reconciliation, underscore the profound impact forgiveness can have on individual and societal healing (Shriver, 2005).

These success stories underscore the transformative potential of forgiveness and reconciliation in post-conflict societies. They highlight that under conducive circumstances, embracing forgiveness can facilitate a departure from a retributive ethos to a more restorative and reconciliatory political culture, which is essential for nation-building and sustainable peace.

But is it ever wrong to forgive in politics?

There is a thin line between fostering a culture of forgiveness and inadvertently enabling a culture of impunity. The political landscape, being a reflection of societal values and legal norms, has the onus to uphold justice and protect the rights of its citizens. So instances of extreme acts such as genocide, war crimes, or terrorism pose serious quandaries to the notion of political forgiveness.

Entertaining the argument that certain acts warrant punitive measures is essential to delineate the boundaries within which forgiveness can operate as a constructive force in politics.

Historically, the Nuremberg Trials post World War II, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are exemplars of the global community's commitment to prosecuting individuals responsible for large-scale crimes post-conflict. These judicial forums underscore the imperative of holding perpetrators accountable, a principle that is foundational to international law and human rights norms. The dichotomy between the need for justice and the aspiration for forgiveness becomes particularly pronounced in these contexts, reflecting the complex moral and ethical landscape within which political forgiveness is situated.

The success of these tribunals is for yourself to consider. But neither of them escalated conflict, at least not significantly, and not in the way I described when discussing the downward spiral of retribution earlier in this article.

Furthermore, the discourse around the ‘unforgivable’ also ventures into the philosophical realm, exploring the moral underpinnings that guide political decisions and actions. For instance, the retaliatory measures adopted post 9/11 by the US, framed under the banner of the ‘War on Terror’, reflect a stance where forgiveness was overshadowed by a compelling narrative of retribution and security.

The exploration of these challenges unveils the multifaceted nature of forgiveness in the political arena, where the imperative for justice and accountability often collides with the aspiration for reconciliation and peace. It's a delicate balance that demands a nuanced approach, ensuring that the pursuit of forgiveness does not undermine the pursuit of justice, yet provides a fertile ground for healing and constructive engagement moving forward. 

Balancing Retribution and Reconciliation

Getting the balance right between retribution and reconciliation is a complex task, which certainly isn’t going to be resolved in one article. But like any skill, we get better the more we practice. Often, the pursuit of reconciliation gets neglected when conflicts escalate, so the first step to improve would be to keep it relevant throughout the decision-making process. And as we get more experienced, we can begin to develop reliable doctrine for handling future scenarios more effectively. With more experience, we can also innovate different options of retributive and forgiving policies for us to utilise.

Policymakers also need to have profound situational awareness in order to get the balance right. They need to be able to predict and understand the implications of introducing retribution and forgiveness at various levels. I have curated an 8-part estimate that encompasses the different considerations I see relevant for policymakers to develop their situational awareness on this matter of ‘balance’.

BALANCED: Benefit, Accountability, Law, Alternatives, Needs, Community, Escalation, Deterrence.

Benefit - What benefits will result from both retribution or forgiveness for all groups involved?

Accountability - How can group accountability be ensured without compromising future reconciliation?

Law - Does the law provide a fair foundation for both retribution and forgiveness?

Alternatives - What justice mechanisms can be utilised to balance retribution with opportunities for forgiveness and reconciliation? (e.g. restorative justice programmes)

Needs - Are the collective needs and wounds of the groups acknowledged and addressed?

Community - Will the approach unite or divide the broader community?

Escalation - Could retribution escalate group conflict, and might forgiveness de-escalate it?

Deterrence - Will the approach deter future conflicts and promote lasting peace?

Forging a Path of Forgiveness & Reconciliation

This may, at first glance, appear to be a lofty, even utopian ideal; however, integrating forgiveness and reconciliation into political discourse and policymaking is both practical and essential. Despite the complications of balancing with retribution, the bottom line is this: in every historical instance of political rivalry, there has always been room for politicians and policymakers to be a little more forgiving and merciful, even if they feel it was within their right not to forgive completely. So I am not calling for forgiveness to replace any other political consideration; instead, I'm advocating for its consistent and more prominent inclusion in the decision-making process, particularly in situations of hostility.

To begin with, it is imperative to accentuate the essence of empathy. In a political context, empathy is the capacity of nations, leaders, and their representatives to place themselves in the shoes of their adversaries, to understand and appreciate their histories, concerns, and aspirations. Empathy is not about condoning wrongful actions but rather understanding the motivations behind them. A lack of empathy often leads to dehumanisation, which exacerbates intergroup conflicts. By fostering empathy, leaders can pave the way for meaningful dialogue and potentially mitigate deep-seated tensions.

Open dialogue is the bedrock of any successful reconciliation process. It provides a platform for the exchange of perspectives, airing of grievances, and most importantly, the possibility of finding common ground. However, for dialogue to be fruitful, it should be approached with an understanding that each party might hold views steeped in their unique historical and cultural narratives. Recognising these nuances is vital. Reconciliation in politics often necessitates a mixture of apology, restitution, and truth-telling, all of which are facilitated through genuine dialogue.

Furthermore, international mediation plays a pivotal role in advancing the cause of forgiveness and reconciliation. Bodies such as the United Nations have the capability and the credibility to foster an environment where conflicting parties feel safe and acknowledged. In this context, mediatory bodies serve as neutral platforms where the language of forgiveness can be translated into actionable policies and measures.

For instance, the United Nations’ role in the Cambodia peace process during the early 1990s is illustrative. By setting up the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), the international body played a crucial role in ensuring free and fair elections, demilitarising factions, and laying the groundwork for reconciliation. Such initiatives underscore the potential of international mediatory bodies in weaving the threads of forgiveness into the fabric of political resolution.

The discourse around political forgiveness in the context of international conflicts and policymaking is not merely an idealistic pursuit but a pragmatic approach towards lasting peace and stability. The examples of Mandela's South Africa, Rwanda's post-genocide journey, and Northern Ireland's path post-Troubles, all reinforce the transformative power of forgiveness towards reconciliation in political settings.

However, it is crucial to recognise that forgiveness does not negate the need for justice or accountability; rather, it complements these aspects to foster a more holistic approach to conflict resolution. In a world where retributive justice often leads to a perpetuation of conflict, the incorporation of forgiveness in political strategies presents an alternative path – one that prioritises healing, empathy, and understanding, over vengeance and perpetual hostility.

The balance between retribution and reconciliation is delicate and complex, but essential for the progress of societies. As we reflect on recent events in the Levant region, it becomes evident that infusing forgiveness into the fabric of our political and social discourse is not just important, but imperative for a more harmonious and compassionate world. This article, therefore, stands as an appeal for a shift in perspective, advocating for a world where forgiveness is recognised as a powerful tool in the arsenal of policymakers, leaders, and citizens alike in the quest for peace and reconciliation.

Colossians 3:13