Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Purpose of exercise: The objective of the exercise is to identify and then to quantify the major challenges for which reconciliation is needed.
It is only by knowing which challenges are most important and how serious they are that one can start addressing them. In reconciliation it may
be found that two opposing sides have completely different sets of priorities, or that one side feels that a certain set of problems are more serious
than they are considered by the other side. This exercise will help to identify those problem areas that are considered most important by various
people and also give an idea whether it is perceived that circumstances are improving or deteriorating. It will help to identify areas of common
perceptions as well as areas where there are differences. It does not provide possible solutions, it is supposed to be a basis for discussion for
solutions.
Guidelines: A number of relevant issues are defined. Within each challenge defined a few components are identified. These are then divided
into possible manifestations of that challenge area. Each manifestation should be evaluated individually. The average of these then gives a score
for each of the shaded challenge areas.
Column A: Provides a general description of the challenge in the shaded area. This is then followed by the possible manifestations of that
challenge. If the challenge is not considered relevant leave blank.
Column B: These should be scored on the scale of 1-4, where 1 indicates that it is not a serious problem and 4 indicates that the problem is
serious. If the challenge is not considered relevant leave blank.
Column C: Here the significance of the challenge is scored as compared to all the other challenges. If it is not considered to be very serious
score 1; if very serious score 3. If the challenge is not considered relevant leave blank.
Column D: The tendency gives an indication on whether the problems related to the challenges are getting worse (-1) or better (+1). If it
remains without meaningful change it is (0).
Challenge 1: Socio-Economic differences between different groups (These may be ethnic, social, cultural, religious or economic).
Definition: The major identity groups live at different standards of living; regarding basic needs such as food, housing, jobs, health care and
education. Some groups are denied access to goods and services, while others enjoy them, or are seen as privileged. Specific events affect parts
of the population leading to loss of land, harvests, homes or work.
Column A Column B Column C Column D
Description of Challenge Score Significance Tendency
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 -1 0 +1
Low High Low High Worse Better
1. To what degree have specific economic processes, such as structural adjustment
programmes or integration into global economies had an impact on particular groups?
• Ability or willingness of government to provide safety nets sufficient to offset the
negative impact of economic stresses.
• Economic policies are perceived to favour specific economic or social groups at the
expense of others.
• Differential access to global markets leading to increased economic and social
inequalities.
• Perceptions of increasing economic and social stratification leading to critical levels of
discontent emerging from unequal economic policies.
2. To what extent do all sections of the population have access to basic requirements for their
livelihoods, such as food, water, fuel and security?
• Lack of significant opportunities for families and communities to ease the strains of
economic reform.
• National welfare systems to compensate for lack of vital resources.
• Fragile livelihoods, such as subsistence agriculture and pastoralism are endangered by
competition for scarce resources.
• The denial of access is seen to be a deliberate policy of neighbouring communities or of
government or other authorities.
3. To what extent are groups denied access to equitable economic opportunities such as
employment, credit and access to land?
• The extent to which the government is addressing inequalities (subsidies, land reform and
social policies).
• National pro-poor welfare systems and public services to compensate for lack of economic
opportunities.
• Exclusion is perceived by poorer groups to be a deliberate manifestation of policy.
• Economic stratification is increasing.
Challenge 9: Biased law application and enforcement by justice and security services.
Definition: The courts, the army and the police do not apply or enforce laws even-handedly for the whole population and according to
transparent and legitimate rules. Conditions of detention are potentially life threatening. Human rights abuses and ordinary crimes are not
prosecuted, thus nurturing a culture of impunity.
Column A Column B Column C Column D
Description of Challenge Score Significance Tendency
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 -1 0 +1
Low High Low High Worse Better
1. To what extent are the areas of activity and responsibility between the civilian and
military authorities clearly and legally delineated and implemented in practice?
• Absence or breakdown of government procedures and oversight mechanisms which could
significantly reduce the role and influence of military officials in political decision-
making.
• The state relies on the military for political and repressive ends.
• Unclear separation of military and police functions in society.
• The military authority is perceived to be the ultimate arbiter of political power.
2. To what extent do members of the security forces have the capacity and willingness to
enforce the law effectively?
• Professional security staff lacks the political will and technical capacity/ability to enforce
the law in accordance to human rights standards.
• The government does not provide adequate resources for the efficient running of the
police and security forces.
• The police force is unable or unwilling to plan and implement programmes to combat
drugs, fraud and corruption.
• Widespread and unregulated use of weapons.
• Security forces complicit in illegal roadblocks, extortion.
3. To what degree is respect for human rights and impartiality central to the operating
culture of the security forces?
• Government policies and practices do not reflect the principles advocated in international
conventions on human rights.
• Lack or, or ineffectual mechanisms in place to correct inappropriate behaviour by police
or military staff.
• Composition of the military or police is unrepresentative of broader society.
• Communities and minority groups perceive that the security sector is operating outside a
minimum human rights framework.
4. To what extent do civilians within government and civil society play a role in managing
and monitoring the security sector?
• Government and military officials prevent active participation in military monitoring and
training programmes by civilians.
• Parliament does not permit or lacks mechanisms through which independent bodies could
verify government accounts of how money has been allocated and spent.
• Absence of processes to provide and train security forces which are responsive to
community needs.
• The public is prevented from playing a role in monitoring the security sector through open
debate, media scrutiny or academic research.