The conflict in Northern Ireland is now largely at an end, with violence only occurring infrequently. In its aftermath, argue John D. Brewer and Bernadette C. Hayes, it is important to develop an approach which is both led by, and centred around, the victims of conflict on both sides

Brewer, John D.

Hayes, Bernadette C.

LSE Research Online

By Democratic Audit UK 2015-8-25There is a need to develop both a victim-led and victim-centred approach to dealing with the legacy of NorthernIreland’s violent pastdemocraticaudit.com /2015/08/25/there-is-a-need-to-develop-both-a-victim-led-and-victim-centred-approach-to-dealing-with-the-legacy-of-northern-irelands-violent-past/The conflict in Northern Ireland is now largely at an end, with violence only occurring infrequently. In its aftermath,argue John D. Brewer and Bernadette C. Hayes, it is important to develop an approach which is both led by, andcentred around, the victims of conflict on both sides. Credit: Shaun Dunphy, CC BY SA 2.0No matter how successful the introduction of new governance structures and the institutional reform of politics,societies emerging out of conflict are left with a series of legacy issues that are important to reconciliation andhealing in society. If not adequately addressed, these issues can destabilise the democratic gains made during thepeace process. Legacy issues concern specific policy questions like amnesty for former combatants and the rangeof victim and survivor policies, but also broader matters like dealing with the past, and the meaning of values liketruth, justice and forgiveness.These legacy issues rarely surface in the immediate aftermath of a negotiated settlement for the euphoria andexpectations at the ending of conflict side line them. The paradox of legacy issues is that they emerge only sometimelater, in the long and difficult process of learning to live together once the violence is largely over, when people’sexpectations of change have been disappointed or re-evaluated in the light of experience, and the peace processseems to bounce along at the bottom. This is precisely when the peace process is at its lowest ebb, a point wherepost-conflict societies come to realise that learning to live together is not automatic and does not follow naturallyonce the violence has ended.At this point of lowest ebb, legacy issues come to assume almost as much importance in political debate as the1/3original conflict itself, making discussion of the morality of the conflict a route into revisiting the terms of thesettlement that ended it. Legacy issues can thus become politicised and function as the main arbiter of the future,determining the confidence people have in the whole settlement and in the likelihood of people learning to livetogether. Therefore, the legacy issues of violence that were once parked while negotiators dealt with the moreimmediate task of ending the violence, come back to haunt the negotiation process and fuel opponents’ accusationsof it being a ‘dirty peace’.Managing the problems that legacy issues cause is therefore vital to stabilising the democratic reforms thatintroduced the new governance structures, as well as to progress in healing and reconciliation in society.There is no way of escaping these legacy issues, since they emerge inevitably in the course of a peace process atthe point when memory of the violence recedes and debate about the morality of the conflict supersedes that aboutthe conflict itself. If they cannot be avoided, what is important is that they are managed.Truth recovery is advocated as the primary management process for this. But rarely are the views of victimsthemselves canvassed for how to deal with the past. In an article recently published in The British Journal of Politicsand International Relations (see here), we address this omission by providing the first systematic study of victims’views on how to deal with a violent past. Using Northern Ireland as a case study and focusing on the three mainreligious groupings – Protestants, Catholics, and the non-affiliated – within this society, the data is based on anationally representative sample of the adult population which was collected in 2011 and funded by our LeverhulmeTrust-funded research programme ‘Compromise after Conflict’.Attitudes on how to deal with the past were operationalised in terms of victims’ views concerning six approaches todealing with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s violent past. These included formal truth recovery mechanisms such asa truth commission, more police investigations and prosecutions, and more public inquiries. In addition,  views oninformal mechanisms were also included—such as public apologies from those who did wrong and initiatives withincommunities to help people come to terms with the past—as well as focused support for victims.Results show that there is overwhelming agreement amongst all victims that victims should be supported withfocused initiatives. There is also very strong support across the communal divide for unofficial approaches, such ascommunity-based local initiatives. This is not the case when formal truth recovery mechanisms—such as truthcommissions and public inquiries—are considered. Here support among victims remains either lukewarm (truthcommissions) or extremely limited (more public inquiries) at best. Moreover, there are also some stark differencesbetween the various religious groupings particularly in relation to this issue, with victims from within the Protestantcommunity as well as among the non-affiliated, being significantly less likely to endorse such formal truth recoveryinitiatives than their Catholic counterparts.The results also show that while both perceptions of victimhood and general attitudes towards the past are the keydeterminants of victims’ views in relation to truth recovery mechanisms, their effects differ across the variousreligious groupings. While perception of victimhood is the key predictor of opinion within both the Protestantcommunity and among the non-affiliated, it is general attitudes towards the past which emerges as the majordeterminant of Catholic views. In fact, more so than any other factor, it is this issue—a hierarchical or restrictiveapproach to victimhood—which accounts for the lack of Protestant support for the introduction of range of truthrecovery mechanisms to deal with the legacy of the past. By contrast, it is general opinions on how to deal with thepast, and not perceptions of victimhood, which emerge as the key determinant of Catholic views.Overall, the results of this investigation point to the need to develop both a victim-led and victim-centred approach todealing with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s violent past. Such an approach should be a bottom-up initiative,reflecting victims’ priorities and preferences. The results also suggest that a comprehensive package of financialsupport to meet the material and social needs of victims would be a fruitful and unifying place to start.Such an approach to the past might help ensure the democratic gains in Northern Ireland do not collapse.2/3—This post represents the views of the author and not those of Democratic Audit. Please read our commentspolicy before posting. —John D. Brewer is Professor of Post-Conflict Studies a t Queen’s University Belfast Bernadette C. Hayes is Chair in Sociology and a Professor at Aberdeen University 3/3

There is a need to develop both a victim-led and victim-centred approach to dealing with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s violent past

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online