Achieving a conflictive consensus: memory as an agonistic mechanism in post-conflict reconciliation

Supervisor/s: Daniela Nascimento and Manuel Loff

Doctoral Programme: International Politics and Conflict Resolution

Funding: FCT

This PhD project focuses on the role of memory towards reconciliation in post-conflict settings, especially focusing on the potential use of agonistic theory applied to processes of reconciliation in which transitional justice may play an important role.

Focusing on the cases of post-civil war Algeria and post dictatorship Tunisia, the aim of this project is to explore an alternative approach to reconciliation, based on the agonistic theory proposed by Chantal Mouffe (1985; 2013). Presented as a counterpoint to the mainstream liberal democratic establishment - whose main goal is to completely neutralize any chance of conflict, either physical or dialectic - the agonistic theory recognizes and emphasizes the inherent nature of conflict within

the political spectre. Instead of escalating into violent confrontation, the conflictive nature of politics is converted into discursive practices, meaning that former enemies become opponents whose debate and struggle is framed within the rules of discoursive interaction. This move from violence into political debate can, therefore, contribute to minimize the potential a relapse into direct and violent confrontation between groups within a society. (Mouffe, 1999).

Case study #1 - Algeria

After a long period of civil war (1988-1999) marked by violent clashes between the government and a widely organized Islamic faction (FIS - Front Islamique de Salut), the Algerian government

passed two very comprehensive laws of amnesty in 2000 and 2005, aimed at annuling any attempts to deal more deeply with the past. Therefore, the country's official policy and discourse has clearly been one of promoting peace and "stability" by deliberately choosing not to pursue mechanisms of transitional justice such as truth comissions or judicial prosecutions (Arnould, 2007

In this sense, Algeria is an example of a state-sponsored agenda aiming to "turn the page" after a period of bloodshed by favouring silence over reparation to the victims, justifying the amnesty policy as a preventive measure to avoid a relapse into violence. (Scully, 2008) These measures have been widely contested by victims' associations both in Algeria -with all the legal and bureaucratic hurdles they have to endure - and abroad, especially those concerned with enforced disappearances during the war (e.g. CFDA - Collectif des Familles des Disparus en Algérie).

Case study #2 - Tunisia

Contrary to the case of Algeria, Tunisia provides a new insight on transitional justice. Rather than following the Algerian "page-turning" example, the newly-elected Tunisian government that replaced Ben Ali (who ruled the country from 1987 to 2011), quickly established a "Ministry of Human Rights and Transitional Justice" (2012) in order to collect testimonies of human rights abuses. Shortly after, in 2014, the Truth and Dignity Commission (TDC) was set up as the official mechanism of transitional justice in the country to push forward a transitional justice process in the country.

After a period of violent clashes against the former regime, which echoed through the authoritarian regimes of the Arab world (Hess, 2013), transitional justice was seen as a priority, unlike many of its counterparts in the Arab world (Rishmawy, 2012).Even though the use of transitional justice in Tunisia has been praised as innovative for the inclusion of anti-corruption measures and economic reparations (Benedizione and Scotti, 2015) - a rare concern in similar mechanisms of the past - its application has been widely contested by civil society, questioning how far it goes in terms of inclusivity of the victims (Lamont and Boujneh,2012) and its instrumentalization by the post-Ben Ali government, trying to exclude the sympathizers of the former regime off the process.

Methodology and relevance of the project:

Now that the case studies have been clarified, our goal is to understand if an agonistic approach could help to fill in the gaps between the official policies adopted by the State and the claims of the victims, both in a case where the official state policy promoted forgetfulness and silence over the past (Algeria) and a case where transitional justice has been adopted in a conventional way (Tunisia); and thus bridge the gap between the victims' claims and the state agenda, using memory

as a vital instrument towards a long-lasting peace and political discourse and debate as a way to prevent violence.

Regarding fieldwork, and despite the many practical difficulties of conducting our research in Algeria, our aim is to conduct semi-structured interviews with the main intervenient in both

countries, either abroad (the Algerian victims' associations have a long history of lobbying in international institutions and they also have an office based in France) or in Tunisian territory.

To sum it up, we do believe that the comparative study between these two countries will contribute not only to enrich the theoretic and empirical fields of transitional justice and reconciliation, but also to reflect on the common aspects which influenced both the past and present of these two countries: authoritarian regimes, the presence of islamist movements and high levels of contestation to state policies regarding a violent past.

Using an innovative theoretical framework, our goal is to think of new solutions towards a sustainable peace and conflict prevention by going beyond the Western-exported models of liberal democracy (which have been the source of legitimation for previous regimes in the area) and thus provide new alternatives that can meet the needs of regional and national stakeholders and settle the accounts with a violent past.