Reconstruction of coexistence, reconciliation is the context in which solidarity with victims is addressed in school.


The reasons for this claim are as follows:

• Reconciliation gives full meaning and vision to the social and universal values of the pedagogical effort to spread empathy and solidarity;

• After a period of violence and division, it helps the school to adhere to the current and future constructive aspirations of society;

• Reconciliation spontaneously requires basic social consensus. Thanks to these consensuses, extremist attitudes or partisan uses of suffering are left out of school;

• Contributes to building a better world in general; • Contributes to a social and democratic goal (reconciliation, coexistence) in our own country;

• Peaceful coexistence is the best gift of solidarity that can be given to the victims. Division increases victimization, while solidarity promotes reconciliation.

Reconciliation is the reference area for this specific solidarity. But such a process has a very strict characteristic or condition: it must necessarily be shared. The viability of the process is a prerequisite for this. To share, it is first necessary to explain an idea, a story, a concept of reconciliation to all parties. That's exactly what we're going to deal with. This concept contains ten ethical requirements (all relating to reconciliation) that must be taken into account when dealing with solidarity with victims at school.

1. Definition: mutual respect and acceptance

After a period of violence, fragmentation and devastating conflict, coexistence is rebuilt through reconciliation on the basis of mutual respect and acceptance. This does not mean that those who were formerly rivals will now be friends, but that they will respect and accept each other again.

2. Subject: society The

subjects of reconciliation are society and its representatives. Reconciliation is not a function of the victims, but of society. Victims should benefit from this process, not be held accountable.

3. Objectives: payment, humanization and reconciliation

A process of reconciliation combines several objectives, all equally important and interrelated but with different areas of influence.

• As far as the victims are concerned, the payment is an urgent objective. The harm caused to the victims must be recognized, mitigated and compensated.

• In terms of society, humanization is an urgent goal. The fractures and divisions created in society must be repaired, hatred and prejudice eliminated, and respect, mutual recognition and dialogue promoted.

Reconciliation is a political and strategic goal. Peaceful coexistence based on the democratic principles of justice, freedom, equality and peace must be strengthened.

4. Strategy: A New Look at the Present, the Past and the Future The

path or strategy to achieve the goals of a reconciliation process is to share a new way of acting on the past, the present and the future. It is not a question of all having the same vision, but of looking at the past, the present and the future in a different way, that is, of examining the past from a critical perspective, the present from a constructive perspective, and the future from a preventive perspective. These three times are the focus of the reconciliation process.

5. The first axis. The Past: A Critical Look and

Compensation Two Tasks: Recognition and Review. Looking at the past involves a joint analysis of what happened and requires two things: knowing and recognizing the harm done to the victims, and a critical review of the past. These reconciliation processes are carried out in reports called “Reports of Truth” or “Never Again”. Such reports should be prepared by a person or entity agreed by all parties to serve as a basis for a full payment process. The most delicate phase is to look at the past with new eyes, as it reopens the wounds. Therefore, the following three criteria should be considered (at a minimum):

All suffering must be considered. The harm done to all victims must be known and acknowledged, not only by those we feel close to us. This is precisely the key that can lead to the viability or failure of a reconciliation process, the dividing line. If this line is crossed, not only is reconciliation impossible, but the foundations for new conflicts are laid.

Critical review of the past must be rigorous. It is necessary to make a critical review of the entire passage, not only of what is convenient for oneself. As for the Basque cause, ETA (some branches and others) has caused the highest number of deaths since the 1960s. There must be a specific assessment of this. However, not all victims have been affected by ETA, so they and their suffering must also be fully integrated into the reconciliation process. Terrorism by ETA must be accompanied by terrorism by the state or right-wing extremism, as well as by torture, police abuses and other human rights violations.

• There may be agreement and disagreement in the diagnosis of the past. It must be admitted that there will be several ways of interpreting what has happened. It is impossible to make a shared political diagnosis. That there is no shared diagnosis is the most shared diagnosis. In any case, the parties can and must agree on what should never happen again (“Never again”). There is a raw material for a minimum conformity: “What happened was because some people put their cause or purpose before human dignity. This requires a commitment to pay damages. No political cause, no party’s objective, no state’s motive has absolute value, no way of putting itself above the respect due to man and life.”

6. The second axis. Present: constructive look and empathy

Two essential requirements: respect and acceptance. With regard to the present, the task of reconciliation must meet two essential requirements to begin a constructive process: inequality must be recognized and the inviolability of human dignity must be respected. This is the starting point of a new coexistence, which is materialized in the commitment to prevent the recurrence of what happened. In this new way of approaching the present, expressions of self-criticism and apology or demands are crucial to consolidating the reconciliation process. The present is a time of shared empathy for all victims, recognition and reparation for the harm done, expression of affective and effective solidarity. Three things to keep in mind:

• Forgiveness must be voluntary. Apologizing or forgiving is not obligatory; however, self-criticism, apology and forgiveness tend to be decisive positions in consolidating reconciliation processes. This is the paradox of forgiveness: it is not a necessary condition for the beginning of the reconciliation process, but it can be decisive. It is precisely the process of reconciliation that should create an atmosphere of self-criticism or voluntary apology.

• Inevitable: a commitment not to happen again. Self-criticism and forgiveness are convenient and helpful. In order to embark on a process of reconciliation, it is imperative to commit ourselves not to repeat past events. Two democratic principles must be observed (without any doubt) in order to share a process of reconciliation: the recognition of inequality and respect for the inviolability of human dignity.

• Criticism or self-criticism of the past must be individual. There is a widespread tendency to make a collective critique of the past, to impose a certain label or dissonance on the whole or part of society. We consider this tendency to be a serious mistake for two reasons: on the one hand, because it is used as a martingale for self-criticism; on the other, because responsibility is always individual, and generalization can lead to manipulations that are not only unfair. Every man and woman or organization must criticize and self-criticize the past, but never in the form of collective condemnation. Self-criticism must answer the following questions: “What did I do or say?”, “What did this media, party, social movement, organization... say?”

7. The third axis. Future: a preventive look and education

Humanity, generosity and humility in terms of demands. In view of the future, the process of reconciliation requires a pre-emptive look at the demands of humanity, generosity and humility. The process requires a commitment to take action to prevent the recurrence of what should never have happened. The commitment mainly concerns the following two areas: the foundations of coexistence and education.

• Educate to live together. In education, the following criteria should be used: “Let us always educate our students as if the highest value to be preserved is peaceful coexistence.” This requires the development of an educational project based on the ethics of human dignity and the knowledge, experience, respect and promotion of the learning and values that correspond to it.

To educate, to live together. In coexistence, the following criterion should be used: “Let us act in all conflicts of coexistence as if the highest goal to be achieved was to leave our children with their last educational inheritance.” This approach requires the use of the following criteria: all-inclusive and no-one excluded; dialogue and negotiation instead of dogmatism and violent establishment; freedom, equality and an environment for the peaceful resolution of conflicts rather than the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms.

8. Deadlines: without any restrictions at the starting point, and without haste at the end

Listen. Deadlines and moments are often important in reconciliation processes: “When did it all begin, when should the work of reconciliation end?” General criterion: listening, not fixing anything beforehand.

• Open starting point. It is not an easy thing for the parties to agree on this: when exactly did the period of injustice and suffering in the process of reconciliation begin? It is difficult because the debate about the cause and the effect is quickly ignited. As far as the Basque question is concerned, the last law on victims states that the starting year was 1960 (previous laws mentioned 1968). It's a good reference. However, when initiating a reconciliation process, it is advisable to set open deadlines so as not to restrict in advance the search for truth and the knowledge of the damage caused. With a critical investigation of the past and listening to what the victims say, the date of the beginning of the injustices must be fixed. In the Basque case, the beginning of the 1960s may be the approximate start date.

• Start early, but don’t rush to finish. It’s been 50 years since 1960. It is a long and complex time frame, so it is not advisable to draw any hasty conclusions. The reconciliation process requires an atmosphere of calm and security, free from the threat of violence and human rights violations, and with some distance from the past. This prudential approach contrasts with the trend that appears in all conflicts: all parties are in a great hurry to establish their own version of what has happened. This is an interesting conclusion, because reconciliation must be a process without haste and without interruption, and it must try to find the truth by listening to all parties.

9. Victims Help

them instead of harming them. The human being is the ultimate goal of reconciliation. Reconciliation must be a positive, constructive response, not only to socio-political conflicts, but above all to the pain inflicted on men and women by past injustices. The victims are the main subject in this sense. Helping the victims, not harming them, is a delicate workshop that requires a few things to be emphasized.

• Use a name that excludes and does not hide anyone. In order for the reconciliation process to be inclusive, it is crucial that victims be given an appropriate name. The criterion is not to exclude, not to conceal, any form of suffering. To do this, it is necessary to look for a denomination that considers all the victims and that corresponds to the specific denominations in each case. In our opinion, the appropriate general designation is ‘victims of human rights violations in the Basque conflict’. This designation includes victims of ETA terrorism, terrorism around the state, right-wing extremists and other human rights violations.

Help them overcome victimization. Overcoming the victimization (the destructive blockade that aggression leaves in the life of the victim) is the most important thing for the victim, the aggression and the aggressor to recover the sovereignty that has been stolen from him, to realize that his life is more important than his pain... The greatest enemy of this task is the victimhood, that is, everything that leads to the domination of the status of victim over anything else. The movement of solidarity with the victims must take this into account, so as not to promote victimhood and contribute to the recovery of the sovereignty of the victims, facing the blockade of victimization (an approach that we will specifically address in the next

point) • Do not feed false expectations about the rights of the victims. In order to promote the health and recovery of victims, it is necessary to speak openly about their rights and not to create - or nurture - false expectations. If they are led to believe that they have a right to anything, or that they can make certain political demands, the victims will wait for compensation that will never reach them, suffering. Victims have three main rights: the moral right (to be recognized for the harm they have suffered); the material right (to be compensated); and the political right (to have a critical review of the past). These are the three main functions of society and the reconciliation process with respect to victims. No more, no less. Speaking clearly is healthy.

• Agree, do not manipulate. The search for what unites us above what separates us is especially important in everything that concerns solidarity with the victims. Fragmentation and partisan manipulation of suffering do not help to overcome victimization or to dispel victimhood; rather, they prolong it, make it deeper and more destructive.

10. Reconciliation is a personal responsibility.

Reconciliation is a collective task, but it requires above all personal commitment. We must prepare ourselves for reconciliation, and we must prepare ourselves for reconciliation. It is up to each of us to give constructive direction to these tensions.

• Only “our”, or “our” with “others.” Reconciliation requires giving space to others, their motives and history; while limited, it requires humility in recognizing that we do not have complete reason, and generosity in accepting the reason of the “others.” Reconciliation requires learning to accept the truth about what has happened and that there is no single version. The diagnosis of the past is not one-sided. Reconciliation requires acceptance and respect for the political perspectives of others.

• The truth about suffering: one-sided or multi-sided. Despite all of the above, the facts can be analyzed objectively and must be reviewed with a critical perspective in order to act in the service of the truth. In any reconciliation process, all the suffering and injustice suffered must first be taken into account. No commitment to coexistence and reconciliation can be made without the express will to know and recognize the truth of suffering. As for each of us, this requires us to be willing to recognize the suffering of “others,” to recognize that the suffering has not been of one side, but of all sides.

• Identity and consent. Reconciliation, rebuilding coexistence does not mean abandoning one’s personality in order to reach consensus. It means that we must give priority to those who unite us in order to find a space where all identities can express themselves and develop freely, the only conditions being respect for human rights and the attachment of society (free and voluntary). Agreeing on the minimum democratic requirements for living together, on the one hand, and respecting the will of the majority of society, on the other, are the conditions for acting in this field.

• Motivation: ethics or partisanship? Purpose: Cohabitation or Revenge? It is not easy to be an active participant in a reconciliation process, because the best and worst aspects of each human being and each group are revealed by looking at the past and what has separated us. It’s important to focus on motivation and purpose. Motivation refers to the question “From where?”: “Am I motivated by ethics, solidarity, or partisan interest?” The goal, in turn, refers to the question “For what?” “Is my real intention to rebuild coexistence, or revenge?”