Behind every action is a driving intention and goal for results. No action or event simply appears but is a conscious physical translation of our intentions and prioritizations. To many, the intent and drive behind an individual, organization, or governmental action can be considered equally as important as the actions themselves. However, others would argue that the resulting effects from actions are more important than the sentiment behind them, as ineffective or detrimental actions are not saved by well-intended motivation. While this argument applies to many issues, this debate over the role of motivation has been central for many looking at how governments are implementing reconciliation efforts. Prompting the question: to what level does motivation need to be “perfect” throughout the government, and can a hyper-focus on motivation end up hindering the progression of effective and quick reconciliation efforts for survivors and victims?
Typically, when referencing a government’s reconciliation effort, many are referring to forms of reparations of fiscal, legal, and formal apologies to victims from a previous administration or governing bodies. Examples that the international community would be quick to recognize could be the truth commissions in Rwanda post-genocide, the Japanese economic reparation to South Korea post-occupation, or Germany’s education efforts post-WWII. Each effort attempts to repair a relationship after human rights violations by the country, and each effort comes with its own arguments concerning varying perceptions of success and controversies.
With reconciliation being directly connected to survivors and victims of a country’s past wrongdoings, it is understandably a sensitive issue and one that can have highly impactful effects on people, society, and the nation. These reconciliation efforts are rightly placed under heavy scrutiny and evaluation to avoid further damage and produce the best forms of reconciliation. However, beyond merely analyzing the resulting actions, the efforts guiding ethics and intentions can come into question. While this reaction is not inherently unfounded, with such mass attention and importance, the conversation can become saturated with different observations and criteria that quickly write off reconciliation efforts that do not stand up to one’s personal classifications of proper motivation. Begging the question; how important are perceived properness of intentions and motivation behind reconciliation efforts if effective and progressive reconciliation by countries is being implemented?
Difficulties With The Concepts of “Pure, Proper, and Perfect” Motivation
While I would wish to subscribe to the collection of optimists regarding the intrinsic necessity of proper motivation that is perfect and pure in nature, it is difficult to argue the existence of past and current implementation efforts that can withstand the wide variety of collective perspectives and standards. Concepts of motivation, ethics, and morals are not only multifaceted in nature but can be critically subjective in observations, making the task of observing, classifying, and measuring during or after implementation extremely challenging. Therefore, attempting to classify the morals and ethics of individual motivations that come together to make up a governmental body’s guiding motivation for implementing these efforts an elusive concept. Suppose one argues that a proper or perfect guiding motivation is the only motivation that can create effective reconciliation efforts? In that case, that is a continuing impossible criterion and initial hurdle that will hinder the possibility of progressive efforts for reconciliation.
Now, highlighting the difficulty or infeasibility of obtaining a proper and perfect motivation that everyone accepts does not equate to suggesting that all motivation is acceptable or beneficial to reconciliation efforts. Reconciliation must be that of a victim-centered approach that places victims’ needs and priorities at the forefront of the effort. In addition to this victim-centered approach, the efforts need to bring about accountability and the eradication of denial through educational or legal implementations. Any motivation that would work against these areas of development would obviously not facilitate effective reconciliation. An obvious example of this could be if a member of the government who is part of the reconciliation efforts denies the existence of the past wrongdoing of the government. This conflict in motivation between creating effective educational efforts and their own personal stance of denial would obviously pollute effective motivation inside the effort. However, this concept is less clear when these areas of reconciliation are met and the motivation is not simply wanting to right the wrongs of past action, but more of reconciliation as an aspect of a larger national interest agenda.
Role of National Interest
National interest tends to be given a negative connotation as the state’s goals and ambitions can be used as justification for actions that serve its interest regardless of their impacts. However, in the case of reconciliation, viewing national interest as a separate and competing motivation isn’t really practical or beneficial. In places where reconciliation efforts occur, so are government transitions and administrative changes which strive for aspects of national interests, including international reputation repair, economic stability, and societal trust-building. While these are not in line with a more righteous motivation of simply righting their wrongs because they were wrong, they do align with goals that effective reconciliation efforts can produce. An effective effort that uses a victim-centered approach with accountability and removal of denial would also increase progress towards international reputation repair, and societal and economic re-stability.
It is wrong to presume that a national interest focus means that all efforts are ill-intended and that effective progress cannot be obtained. Instead, we should be strengthening the position of reconciliation efforts inside of this already pre-existing motivation. Positioning reconciliation’s role inside of a national interest justifies the need for effective reconciliation efforts quicker to a more broad scope of people than positioning the efforts outside of national interest in a more ethical and moral focus. Nations will always work to protect their national interests as the most paramount motivation. If international and domestic audiences pressure and educate the government that the implementation of reconciliation, justice, recognition of guilt, and reform, is not only beneficial to the government’s national interest but is in fact critical, then effective efforts will become a central focus.
It would be unfair to boil this perception down to an approach that ignores motivation and believes that the ends justify the means in reconciliation. Instead, this argument is for how the debate about motivation can hinder reconciliation progress. It is not about having the perfect motivation throughout the government, but instead getting effective and quick results to survivors and victims’ that they deem to meet their effectiveness standards. By using a more realistic interpretation of national and individual motivation of positioning reconciliation inside of national interest, governments can be more effectively swayed into establishing a sense of normalcy, justice, and peace for the survivors and victims. If the reconciliation is victim-centered and brings about accountability and eradicating denial of their past wrongdoings, then a more nuanced motivation will not hurt, but will even facilitate effective reconciliation.