Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this paper, we offer a possible interpretation of reconciliation in the former Yugoslav area. In a conflicting past and not-reconciled region, it is presumed that the truth should be the main pillar of reconciliation. However, according to our empirical analysis of 146 reconciliation projects implemented in the period between 2002 and 2015, there are many interpretations of truths in the region which are opposed to each other. These interpretations are the result of different national political constructions, supported by the dominant structures of the societies in question. Accordingly, instead of insisting on a single factual truth, we propose the introduction of the ‘agonistic dialogue’ principle, where multiple truths would coexist, thus turning former war enemies into political adversaries in the post-conflict setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bešić et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: