Download | PDF - IFSH

Ilire Agimi
A Review of Governmental Contributions to Reconciliation among Albanians
and Serbs in Kosovo: Possibilities for Coexistence
1. Introduction
The aftermath of any violent conflict usually presents one of the toughest challenges to deal with,
for both, for society and for state institutions. Whereas the majority of the Balkan countries have
recovered from the chain wars in the 1990’s and the integration into a multi-ethnic European future
is becoming a reality, Kosovo 1 still has a long way to go until the former enemy communities accept
each other as equal citizens. This is where the concept of ‘reconciliation’ comes into function.
Reconciliation involves the difficult process of rebuilding (or creating) a relationship between estranged
communities with the aim of providing opportunities for the development of a joint future. 2
I agree with Wolfgang Petritsch, who says that reconciliation is “a complex web of economic, social
and political elements interwoven with ‘soft’ issues like truth, trust, tolerance and empathy.” 3
As the analysis on Kosovo will show, it is important to recognize that only when reconciliation is
incorporated as an essential part of the complex politically led transformation process will it be
possible for the society to recover from a violent and divided past. With the vast changes undergone
since the beginning of the war seven years ago, the case of Kosovo provides the necessary
elements to exemplify the difficulties a society faces when recovering from violent conflict, such as
democratization of institutions, refugee return, social integration through education etc. This research
describes these difficulties and tries to answer the following question: To what degree do the
efforts governmental institutions are investing in order to create new conditions for this recovery
include measures for achieving reconciliation?
2. Reconciliation for Realists
Reconciliation, truth telling, and justice are fundamentally political processes. 4 An exceptional
analysis of reconciliation from Susan Dwyer sheds more light on the fragile circumstances and
complex issues a society endures after a violent conflict. She argues that the solution to these issues
by political measures paves the way for national reconciliation. 5 Despite her very brief engagement
with the debate on reconciliation, Dwyer’s approach had nevertheless a substantial impact on it,
especially by emphasizing the importance of the political aspect within this process and trying to
limit the importance given to forgiveness. 6 According to Dwyer, “reconciliation does not require
apology or forgiveness” 7 . Dwyer argues that it is useful to “distinguish between micro-level and
macro-level reconciliation, where the former typically involves local, face-to-face interactions and
the latter concerns more global interactions between groups of persons, or nations which are often
mediated by proxy” 8 . The fundamental point for Dwyer’s ‘realistic’ approach is that “national reconciliation
can be successful even if individual reconciliation with the past doesn’t happen” 9 . At
this macro level the political capability and authority of governing institutions can be exercised to
encourage and guide the population to reach what is best for itself. “Reconciliation at a macro level
requires the credibility that can be established only by the implementation of social and economic
1
In the thesis I refer to the whole society of Kosovo with the term ‘Kosovar’ whereas the two main ethnic groups
analysed are referred to with the terms: ‘Kosovo Serb’ and ‘Kosovo Albanian’.
2
Compare with: Dudouet et al, p. 25 (2005).
3
Petritsch (2003).
4
Compare with: Barsalou, pp. 1-12 (2005).
5
Dwyer’s ‘realistic’ concept is used to describe pragmatic governmental efforts. Her concept opposes accepting
reconciliation solely as a spiritual, emotional or religious concept. Compare with: Dwyer, pp. 91-110 (2003).
6
Compare with: Dwyer, op.cit., p. 102.
7 Dwyer, op.cit., p. 105.
8 Dwyer, op.cit., p. 93.
9 Ibid.
35