             ,     ! 1 How do post-conflict societies deal with a traumatic past and promote national unity and reconciliation? Andrew Rigby Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies, Centre for Peace & Reconciliation Studies, Coventry University, UK Introductory observations ‘How do societies deal with the legacy of violent and destructive conflict in the attempt to promote national unity and reconciliation?’ Let us start off with the concept of ‘post-conflict societies’. It seems very clear that a conflict does not end with a ceasefire and a peace settlement. Rather it takes on different forms, which hopefully include an end to the more-or-less organized and intentional killing and other extreme forms of physical violence. This means that strategies and policies relating to dealing with the past do not emerge in a political vacuum. They reflect to a significant degree the lines of political contention and the balance of political forces prevalent during the relevant post-ceasefire period. The power ratios in turn relate very closely to the manner in which the peace agreement has been brought about. Three ideal-typical forms of transition from violent to nonviolent conflict can be identified. 1. A negotiated settlement reached between parties that are more or less exhausted and do not see any realistic chance of outright victory of one over the other. 2. A negotiated settlement between asymmetric forces, in which the weaker still controls sufficient resources to exercise a veto power. 3. The victory of one party over the other. My thesis is that there is a close link between types of settlement, the consequent power relationships during the post-settlement period, and the likely strategy to be adopted in terms of dealing with the past. But before going on to illustrate this thesis, let us first look briefly at the other terms in the title -- ‘national unity and reconciliation’. ‘National unity’ refers to some form of coexistence between those actors/parties that were divided by violence and destructive conflict. In this context it is worth bearing in mind that we can have different levels of coexistence, different degrees of national unity. The concept of reconciliation can be used to refer to a process and a condition. As David Bloomfield has observed, reconciliation is both a goal -- something to achieve -- and a process -- a means to achieve that goal. 1 How to recognize when that goal or condition of reconciliation has been achieved 1 D. Bloomfield, in D. Bloomfield et al, eds., Reconciliation After Violent Conflict: A Handbook, Stockholm: International IDEA, 2003, p. 12.