Can we take for granted that religious leaders are always good and relevant agents of reconciliation? The knowledge and research about this is strikingly limited. Of acts in good faith, on the other hand, there are plenty, writes Ingrid Vik, right, Executive Director of the Nansen Dialogue Project. (09-FEB-06)
This article, written by Ingrid Vik, Executive Director of the Nansen Dialogue Project, has been edited and translated for publication here by HRH / Niels Jacob Harbitz. Photo f Vik: HRH / Niels Jacob Harbitz.
In processes of peace building, former Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik has for many years been an eager advocate for inter-religious dialogue. With his recently established Oslo Peace Centre (click here for www.humanrightshouse.org’s coverage of the launch of this centre), he is now establishing an institutional framework for his engagement in this area.
As Prime Minister, Bondevik participated in numerous inter-religious dialogues, among other things through prayer breakfasts with heads of state in Eastern Europe and the United States, and also through dialogue meetings with religious leaders in many other parts the world. And within the Norwegian context, Bondevik is not alone. Pastor Trond Bakkevig, for one, is involved in an inter-religious dialogue between Moslem, Christian and Jewish leaders in the Middle East. Former Bishop Gunnar Stålsett is still an active participant in several faith-based dialogue processes.
A common denominator for these efforts is the vision of establishing inter-religious fora at both national and international levels. The idea is that a strengthening of shared religious and ethical values will contribute positively in processes of peace and reconciliation.
The question, however, is whether or not these dialogues actually contribute to reconciliation between people. In a study of several religion dialogue processes in the West Balkans, I have had the opportunity to study some of this work. The conclusion of this study is that religious leaders and faith-based communities can be, but not necessarily and always are, constructive channels in peace building efforts. This is because the same applies to religious leaders as to all other leaders: Some of them are good, some are not. In addition, religious leaders work within complex societies where other strong forces of society also play important parts. Hence, it is not a given that the religious dimension contribute positively, let alone contribute at all.
So, what will it take for religious leaders to contribute to peace and reconciliation in their societies? Is it sufficient for them to sign declarations of their shared values? Of course not! First of all, this has to do with credibility and leadership through words and deeds. A poignant example of a leader of this kind is Desmond Tutu, who, as an anti-apartheid-activist always took a non-violent and reconciliatory approach. After the fall of the white minority regime, Tutu was the obvious choice to lead the work of the truth and reconciliation commission.
Another example of positive leadership comes from the Serbian Orthodox Bishop who, in March 2004, in front of a raging mob outside a Mosque in Belgrade, appealed for tolerance and decency among fellow human beings regardless of religious faith and identity. The cause of the mob’s harm was the unrest in Kosovo, where people had been killed, churches burnt and Serbian homes destroyed. The Bishop’s attempt was an act of bravery, and a powerful example of positive religious leadership. The obvious follow-up question, then, is how the religious leaders in Kosovo reacted during and after the 17 and 18 March 2004 riots. The answer is that none of the central religious leaders in Kosovo took charge in any way similar to the Serbian Bishop. This observation is crucial, since the religious leaders in Kosovo had signed a joint declaration in Oslo in 2001 on the necessity of strengthening mutual tolerance and co-existence in Kosovo. On the basis of this declaration, an inter-religious council had been established, and a plan of action had been worked out. The optimism that marked the meetings in Oslo in the autumn of 2001, however, soon disappeared when the parties went back to Kosovo. The religious leaders have not been gathered since, and have not come up with any concrete action, in accordance with the plan of action they all signed. In March 2004, in other words, there was little to expect from these leaders.
The story from Kosovo is not unique. It shows that there is a vast distance between declarations in Oslo and concrete inter-religious co-operation in conflict-ridden areas. It also shows that inter-religious dialogue faces the same challenges and difficulties as politically founded dialogue and reconciliation processes.
In 1997, an internationally supported inter-religious council was established on the basis of a declaration on shared values in Bosnia-Herzegovina. By its initiators and members, this council is considered a success. In a society still marked by ethnic and religious segregation, though, there is little evidence suggesting that the council has actually contributed to reconciliation. Interviews with journalists and students from cities like Mostar and Sarajevo reveal that many question the credibility of the members of the council. One of those interviewed puts it like this: “How can we trust the council when we all know what role the faith-based communities and their leaders played during the war?†The interviewee’s remark demonstrates the need for inter-religious dialogue to include questioning and discussion of the faith-based communities’ and their leaders’ role during and after the conflict. This is required for religious leaders to get the legitimacy they need to play a meaningful role in peace processes. If one does not include such questioning and discussion, one risks providing international support to religious leaders and faith-based communities with a highly problematic war history.
Desmond Tutu’s credibility was rooted in his steady and consistent demand for equal rights for all, in his emphasis on reconciliation both before and after apartheid, and in his extraordinary qualities as a spiritual and political leader. At the same time, it is important to remember that the South African context sets itself apart from the Balkan in many ways, and not the least with regard to the role of religious communities. In the Balkans, we see that these communities have played key parts in the ethno-religious propaganda, with only the rare individual example of religious leaders publicly appealing for dialogue and reconciliation between religious and ethnic groups. Hence, there is no reason to believe that senior leaders from the biggest religious communities in for example Bosnia Herzegovina have a wish to make use of their positions in the inter-religious council to promote reconciliation and multi-religious values. The study from the Balkans also shows that the inter-religious councils only to a very limited extent manage to include religious leaders at municipality level. When we also know that religious leaders in many villages and municipalities in the Balkans contribute actively to promote nationalist attitudes and intolerance towards believers of other religions, we are faced with a severe shortcoming in the international approach to these processes. This finding also speaks volumes about a missing commitment among the religious leaders taking part in the inter-religious councils to use their authority to promote more including and reconciliatory attitudes.
The study from the West Balkans concludes by way of requesting a more considerate and knowledge-based approach among international advocates of inter-religious dialogue in conflict-ridden areas. It also shows that organisations with a broader mandate, among them Norwegian Church Aid, is better equipped to see inter-religious dialogue efforts in conjunction with local challenges. To put all this short: We need less belief and more knowledge about what it will take for religious leaders to play positive roles in periods of conflict. If we don’t bear this in mind, we risk undermining the potential for positive contributions that religion has in processes of peace and reconciliation. In view of this, Bondevik’s Peace Centre can play a meaningful, important role.
