AFTER VIOLENCE: 3R, RECONSTRUCTION, RECONCILIATION ...

Africa when we include Mozambique, and why right now, in the
1990s? Why was the settlement after years of violence not limited
to the Justice model, even imitating the Western powers in
implementing victor's justice?
Simple answer: impossible, because most defendants would have
been from, and in, those very same Western powers. We are talking
about residual colonialism and neo-colonialism, run by a local
elite, supported by the West (with some opposition), and resisted,
violently or not, by people marginalized by the mighty structures
they tried to change. In the process atrocities were committed,
particularly to protect status quo. The struggle for liberation
was typically directed against infra-structure, like power supply,
communication/transportation, and the struggle to preserve the
status quo aimed at the "terrorists", particularly leaders, having
them "disappear". And then they "won", or there was a stalemate;
in Latin America, in Southern Africa.
So why did patterns of reconciliation emerge in these cases?
Like a plea bargain. The Reconciliation model could serve as a
substitute for the Justice model, saving elites from punishment.
Being stronger and less vulnerable they demanded this in return
for "accepting" a truce, "granting" independence, "accepting"
democracy. The brighter among them, having seen the hand-writing
on the wall, knew very well that at best violence could win them a
stalemate against the forces of history, and at worst a position
in the darker chambers of the graveyard of history. Rather make
giving in look like accepting democracy.
When that same layer in the world won or could arraign their
50