Carl Stauffer

This anthology of ten chapters revolves around new developments in the restorative justice movement as well as assessments and concern areas regarding the current state of the movement. A common thread throughout the chapters is the recognition that restorative justice can no longer be confined to the realm of programs that serve clients. Rather, it is becoming a social movement that promises significant social transformation on many levels of society, connecting both systemic change with frameworks for individual and relational heart-change. Chief among those unfolding changes are matters of race relations, movement leadership and community empowerment.

The context for this anthology stems out of a three-year, grant-funded project conducted by the Zehr Institute for Restorative Justice. The first two years included a facilitated consultation of select restorative justice leaders who grappled with future scenarios of where the field may be headed (2015), as well as a larger conference (Restorative Justice in Motion: Building a Movement) that allowed diverse groups to articulate both new successes and new challenges (2016). Out of that event (in 2017), contributors for this anthology were invited to write about those new applications and about current barriers and challenges to movement integrity. The ultimate aim for this third year project was to get the message out to a larger audience connected to the restorative justice movement.

Co-Editors:

Ted Lewis, Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking
Carl Stauffer, Zehr Institute for Restorative Justice

The nexus between development and peacebuilding has been a contested terrain, and debates about the primacy of one over the other are increasingly irrelevant as their multiple, layered complexities continue to thicken. Yet to conflate these two conceptions of practice is disingenuous. Building on a case study from South Africa, this essay explores the historical progression of these two domains of practice following the thread of human needs theory expounded by the seminal voices of Manfred Max-Neef and John Burton. Both of these thinkers unwittingly agreed on a synergetic framework for the satisfaction of human needs that offers both development and peacebuilding pundits an opportunity to seek and enact a shared vision, an integrated ethics and a ‘whole system’ approach to social cohesion and human wellbeing.

The impact of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of South Africa is a contested terrain. On the one hand, it pioneered an entirely new level of national " truth telling " by empowering the victim's voice through public hearings and reparations, and by insisting on accountability for all amnesty applicants by treating them in a uniform manner (regardless of claims of moral high ground). Additionally, it applied a conditional amnesty, robust public hearings, sectorial submissions, and provided intensive national media coverage coupled with investigative services to verify confessions and exhumations to locate missing remains. On the other, there were also multiple deficits attached to the TRC process. Many evaluators assessed the TRC to be ineffectual in reaching the community " grassroots " level masses due to its " top-down " centralized approach, its perceived perpetrator bias, and its unacceptable level of victim compensation. Other critiques pointed to a lack of follow through, limited timeframe and mandate, and its coercive forms of forgiveness and reconciliation. This entry is concerned with the wider societal impact of the TRC 20 years after its inception. Three broad themes will be utilized to frame this entry and to identify future research forays: the contribution of the TRC to public participation processes; the contribution to the construction of a new narrative discourse at a societal level; and the contribution to collective social justice in South Africa today.

Mythmaking is a natural phenomenon. We as humankind are predisposed to constructing founding stories, rituals, symbols and belief systems that give meaning to life. As Mennonites, a historically marginal people, we have formed multiple myths to explain who we are and why we do what we do. One of the Mennonite meta-myths is that of being and acting as peace-loving and justice-serving communities. All myths are encoded with particular historical realities while at the same time being embedded with both constructive and destructive legacies and aftermaths in current application. This essay explores three typical, formative peace and justice myths from past Mennonite narratives: Dirk Willems of Asperen (1569), Russian Mennonite Persecution (1917-20), and the first Restorative Justice case - Elmira, Canada (1974). For each of these founding myths there are counter-narratives that both positively and negatively influence the expressions of Mennonite peacebuilding and restorative justice practice today.

An alternative agenda is emerging in the transitional justice field through the current revival of restorative, indigenous justice practices that are ‘filling in the gaps’ of what constitutes satisfying human justice. Simply put, numerous forms of ancient indigenous justice that are restorative in nature are providing new lenses for reconfiguring what justice means and how it is implemented (Cobban, 2007; Pouligny et al, 2007). There are three critical observations regarding this renewal of indigenous justice systems:
1.) The Transitional Justice field has unwittingly provided the scaffolding of language and the platform of dialogue for indigenous justice forms to surface in order to meet the desperate need for justice to be felt as transformative by local communities on-the-ground who otherwise are often left out of the national and international transitional justice discourse and accompanying mechanisms.
2.) These ancient forms of indigenous justice are offering coherent frameworks that engage ethical values and processes of facilitation that are necessary in order to critique and create new future hybrid models of justice.
3.) There are numerous paradoxes and negative externalities resulting from the attempts to concretely define deviance in the current Western legal system. Indigenous justice applications are showcasing the restorative corrective ‘DNA’ to assist in redefining the meaning of human deviance away from a stagnant code of legislated behaviors toward a nested paradigm of human interaction that is negotiated through relationship ties, and the norms and mores of community networks.

In a bold, decisive departure from the dominant power-politics analysis, ‘Acting out the Myths’ employs a narrative social constructionist approach to interrogate the 1980-1987 Matabeleland conflict in Zimbabwe. It offers a provocative look at the violence meta-narrative manufactured by the ZANU-PF government and imposed on the nation's citizenry. This all-encompassing meta-narrative is contrasted to the subjugated counter-narratives formulated as alternative stories of resistance by recipient communities. The generative nature of the intersection between these scripted forms of violence is skillfully deconstructed by surfacing five salient narrative themes: Ethnicity, Nationalism, Loyalty, Legitimacy, and Unity. The author artfully decodes the power and function of violent narrative discourse in the formulation of ethnic identities, nation-state ordering, historical exclusion, political discipline, and social uniformity. The text's premise is that durable peace in Zimbabwe will only be realized to the extent that the silenced voices of the Matabeleland massacres are afforded public and sustained recognition in the collective memory of the nation.

The field of Restorative Justice (RJ) remains a contested terrain. The notion of RJ has its origins in practice and has only recently started solidifying its theoretical underpinnings. Metaphorically speaking, RJ as an academic and professional discipline is now ‘coming of age’ and as such it is facing at least three critical transitions: defining its identity, monitoring its best practice, and sustaining its adaptability. As a needed corrective to a justice system that tends to singularly focus on the past and the present, RJ provides a frame for a future view of justice – a trans-generational justice. RJ programming offers a container for trauma and memory work, a vehicle for nonviolent social and structural change, a practice for building social capital (community development) and the guiding values for a restorative approach to transitional justice at a national and international level.  RJ gives hope for a satisfying form of justice.

In a search for new channels through which to effectively engage with complex protracted conflicts, this case study delves into exploring an innovative project called the Kathorus Video Dialogue.  This project was embarked upon in the East Rand area of the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, between 1998-99.  In an effort to describe the conflict context and set the stage for the analysis, this paper gives an overview of the national, local and community specific violence that erupted in the early 1990's.  A summary of the current conflict realities in the Kathorus area is given substantive attention. Additionally, a descriptive narrative is made of the Video Dialogue Project itself; it's history, as well as the project's aims and objectives.

The primary focus of this paper is the author's analysis of the Kathorus project, and this inquiry is birthed out of various theoretical models, and definitions of social conflict. Hence application of theory is continually interspersed with practical insights from the author's personal experience, research formulated from interviews, and the examination of numerous documents emanating from the project.  As a capstone to the analysis section, an overall summary assessment is made of the Kathorus project and it's accomplishments.  Possible prescriptions for the conflict intervention process in Kathorus are then explored.  Emphasis is placed on solidifying the peace building process through a "constructionist" lens in conjunction with a "systems" approach and a concerted focus on creating a joint "futureview."  In conclusion, the work is rounded off by drawing attention to the powerful role that language plays in conflict.  The author makes a call for innovative language, and fresh terminology that will draw us towards the creation of new directions and layers of meaning within the global conflict transformation movement.

Peace seems to be an elusive dream in Angola.  In an attempt to grasp some of the complexities of this deep and protracted conflict, this paper starts by taking a look at the crisis of the African State ; an entity which often appears marooned by the storms of political, social, economic and (at times) ethnic violence.  Wading through a maze of conflict analysis, various explanations are explored as to why Angola has been besieged by a brutal civil war for 26 years.  Is it the inherited history of colonisation?  Is it the aftermath of the Cold War era?  Is it the power-hungry egos of leadership figures?  Is it failed diplomacy?  Is it the abuse and exploitation of natural resources?  Is it a weak civil society?  Clearly, no one cause of conflict is ‘water tight’ and able to satisfy the many voices of frustration, trauma and despair.  A combination of these explanations must be held in tension in order for Angola to build towards a process of peace.  Once the appropriate explanations have been dissected, this paper suggests a way forward for embarking on a  journey towards hope and peace.  For Angola, this means uncovering the various ‘tributaries’ that feed into the river which defines a more comprehensive approach to peace.  These tributaries are understood as the origins of peace, the behaviourist view of peace, the multi-track diplomacy movement, the intersection of humanitarian aid and conflict, and the emergence of African configurations of political stability.  Fitting together the pieces for peace in Angola will involve a highly integrated, systems-based framework.  It is best described as a matrix that entails important violence prevention components, a dedicated and pivotal leadership with strong moral and ethical vision and a highly sophisticated and trusted communication flow across all sectors and actors in the Angolan peace movement.  The way forward for peace in Angola is definable – what is needed are those ‘voices for peace’ who are willing to risk and work hard at clearing the path for peace in this war-weary country.

This paper proposes that one of the critical components which assists in bridging the gap between violence and nonviolence is in-depth trauma healing.  The premise is that deep trauma healing is a critical foundation enabling those who have experienced severe violence to have the space to reflect, choose and act with a myriad of non-violent responses.  By way of introduction, the study highlights the interplay between personal and global violence and trauma.  Attention is given to the shortfalls of current conceptions of violence and some recommendations for how to approach the study of violence more comprehensively are made.  One of the key questions addressed is: what are the triggers that allow people to make a constructive and healing link between their personal past experience of traumatic violence and the need to work globally for peace and non-violence?  With this question in mind, the body of the paper explores some of the essential linkages on the journey from violence and trauma recovery to non-violence.  Interwoven throughout are stories from various parts of the Great Lakes Region of Africa, that examine non-violent experience and practice from this uniquely African context.  In conclusion, several other options for dealing with violence in a more holistic manner are discussed, and an expanded model for non-violence is presented.  This model offers a schematic representation of the salient features discussed in the body of the paper.  These features of trauma healing are then merged with the central focus of significant steps that need to be taken in the pilgrimage towards non-violence.

This paper is about human beings, the protagonists in any drama of human conflict - the victims and the perpetrators and their relationship in post-war societies, particularly in the context of South Africa.  Restorative Justice, as a holistic system of justice, is characterised by an accountable bounded vindication and a responsible integrated mercy, which when wisely applied, can promote and support the healing needs of victims and the rehabilitation needs of perpetrators coming out of cycles of violence. The author argues that Restorative Justice as compared to the other dominant justice frameworks, (applied through revenge, retribution or impunity) is the only sensible way forward for the future. 

A central pillar to the expression of Restorative Justice is the configuration of forums designed and developed for victim-perpetrator interface.  In this chapter, some of the specific efforts at practicalising victim-perpetrator mediation or conferencing (in the context of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission) will be assessed and evaluated.  Through the use of short case studies, it will be evident that these various configurations of victim-perpetrator interactions had as their aim to bring back into view the human relationship elements of Restorative Justice.  These elements can be summed up as acknowledging wrong (confession and responsible truth telling), restoring equity (repentance and forgiveness) and addressing future intentions (tangible and symbolic restitution and reconciliation).  Limitations, reflections vis-à-vis ongoing Restorative Justice work, and challenges and future recommendations, particularly regarding victim-offender interface, will be offered in conclusion.

On July 15th, 1099, European Crusaders entered Jerusalem ransacking and ravaging the city in a bloody frenzy.  Approximately 6,000 Jews and 30,000 Muslims were slaughtered in their places of worship as the Crusading armies burned and looted their way through the streets.  As the smoke of smoldering ruins ascended to the sky and the bodies of this religious genocide were piled up in high mounds outside synagogues and mosques, these Christian crusaders danced and sang songs of victory and praise to God.  History tells us that they were in eager anticipation - expecting the eminent return of Jesus Christ to earth.    How did the Christian Church come to this place in history?  How does history tie itself to the present and the future?  How do we free ourselves from the strangleholds of historical atrocities?  These and other questions will be grappled with in this paper.  Section I will touch on the elusive movement of what is called 'history' and how it is interpreted and understood.  Section II will attempt a brief narrative of the history of the First Crusades.  Section III will unpack an analysis, from an 'integrationist' perspective, of the factors and circumstances that prepared the way for the Crusades.  Various tapestry threads of the Crusader worldview will be unraveled such as the theological underpinnings, the political ambition, the economic interests, and the social, cultural and religious decay of that era.  Section IV will look at one response to this Crusade history in the form of the Reconciliation Walk.  It will explore the motivation behind the walk especially in the context of the Middle East with its main aim or focus being to move, speak and act, (through apology and deep listening) in a spirit opposite to that of the Crusades.  This section will open up the 'complexity of justice in a victim's world' by relating the past Crusade histories to the present dynamics of religious, political, economic and social-cultural conflicts and struggles.  In the conclusion, the spiritual dimensions of prayer, and acts of peace and forgiveness will be highlighted within the context of sustainable reconciliation and the work of peace practitioners.  Mention will be given to inter-religious relationship building and future-views for peaceful co-existence.

This paper will attempt to explore the interplay between the process of reconciliation and the various notions of time – past, present and future.  The primary questions probed, rotate around, “how” and “when” do societies who have experienced deep protracted violent conflict grapple with the memories or the “remembering” part of healing the past?  At the same time one needs to analyze “how” and “when” do these same people groups come to the place of accepting the reality of the present?  Finally, “how” and “when” does a nation extend itself beyond the here and now and dare to walk into a new future?  In the first half of the paper the reader will be taken through a brief review of some current thinking around the concepts of justice, reconciliation and forgiveness.  These three fields of thought feed each other and often overlap in both theory and practice.  Linked to the theoretical overview of justice, reconciliation and forgiveness, will be a brief discussion around the pros and cons of comparing individual and collective responses to violence, trauma and healing.  In the second half of the paper, the author will unpack some of the critical factors that affect the connection between dealing with the past and the progression of time either backwards or forwards.  Three African nations, South Africa, Burundi and Rwanda, each of which have experienced varying degrees of historical violence, will be highlighted.  These three situations will be analyzed from the differing starting points from which they have chosen to embark on their paths of healing and reconciliation.  In conclusion, the author will question whether or not these three measures of time (past, present and future) in the journey of reconciliation are in fact linear, sequential, necessary, or even distinguishable.  Also, an expanded model of reconciliation will be featured and some attention will be given to chaos theory and its relationship to transformative reconciliation.

The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center represents a grave clash of justices. In real time, the post-violence transitional politics of accountability, protection, vindication and healing are untidy at best and deeply conflictual at worst. After the exposure of disturbing human rights violations committed against the Guantanamo detainees, worldwide condemnation wracked the standing of the United States, calling into question its self-proclaimed status as a defender of human security and freedom. Focusing on the closure of Guantanamo prison and the reintegration of the remaining detainees housed there, this article argues that the United States is in need of reconstructing its integrity and that many of the current prisoners are in need of an integrative justice. The current emphasis on extra-legal justifications and the punitive system presently being applied will only continue to sharpen the divide of the identity discourses between West and East, Christian and Muslim, terrorist and freedom fighter, and what constitutes justice and injustice for the Guantanamo Bay detainees. To this end, the authors propose a hybrid justice model that integrates trauma recovery and restorative justice frameworks and their respective practices into the international retributive justice system already in place.

The analogy of an interwoven tapestry is useful in regards to conflict transformation study and work across cultures.  As academics and/or practitioners we can make generalizations, but in order to truly appreciate, understand and value the quality of an 'African' approach to conflict, one must engage with a variety of tribal (rural as well as urban) expressions of tradition and carefully explore layers of nuances and intricacies.  These details are the scaffolding of the web of social, cultural and spiritual linkages that form the basis of any contextual approach to conflict.  Critical to this discourse is the issue of practical application or how these connections play themselves out in the daily life and activity of any given people or cultural grouping. To this end, this study explores themes around the variations in indigenous African practices and values that serve as the underpinnings of conflict transformation expressions in the Sub-Sahara African context.  I will put forward the assumption that there are certain very basic instrumental values reflected in myth, folklore and tradition that seem to under-gird and sustain most nascent African conflict resolution practice.  Such value-driven characteristics have a great influence on familial and community formations and their activities.  They speak to leadership and authority structures, to decision-making, to understandings of human rights and responsibilities, to the sense of justice, to the 'interconnectedness' of life in all its seasons, to symbols, traditional customs and ceremonial rituals.  Critical to this entire discussion are the backdrops of African colonial history, modern political, economical and social trends as well as the effects of urbanization on the whole of sub-Sahara Africa.

Pursuing truth in the current global political climate is no easy undertaking. Truth seems to be contested on almost every front whether in social media, news outlets and/or the social discourse that surrounds us on a daily basis. The political rhetoric around " fake news " and " fact checking " has now become common lingua amongst everyday folk on the ground. What is the truth about truth? Is truth really so relativized and individualized as to be irrelevant? As we come to the close of 2017 and look forward to 2018, truth seems to be rather illusive.

Once again, we in the United States find ourselves caught in the vicious cycles of violence that seemingly leaves us stuck in the places of rage and hopelessness. Once again, we find ourselves thrust into a whirlwind of polarizing rhetoric spewing from the lips of politicians, the media, religious leaders and the affected communities and grieving families alike. Once again, torrents of socio-­‐political narratives attempt to force us to take sides and to declare our allegiances to the moral high ground being claimed by parties on all sides of the violence. Calls for revenge and punishment rail against counter calls for mercy and forgiveness. Calls for truth and justice fight for recognition over calls for peace and order. It seems that the scripts of " justice " and " peace " (values we all long for) are on two ends of the spectrum in our personal and political lives and there is scant hope of ever bringing them together. The ideals of unity and reconciliation appear to be distant horizons on our societal landscape checkered with racial hatred, public division and private pains. Thankfully, there are voices of calm and reason calling for all of us to step away from the edges of our angst and move to the center of our common humanity. People like Van Jones of CNN who has challenged all Americans to embrace new levels of understanding the " wounds " that we all bear in the midst of shared violence (See:

The field of Restorative Justice (RJ) remains a contested terrain. The notion of RJ has its origins in practice and has only recently started solidifying its theoretical underpinnings. Metaphorically speaking, RJ as an academic and professional discipline is now ‘coming of age’ and as such it is facing at least three critical transitions: defining its identity, monitoring its best practice, and sustaining its adaptability. As a needed corrective to a justice system that tends to singularly focus on the past and the present, RJ provides a frame for a future view of justice – a trans- generational justice. RJ programming offers a container for trauma and memory work, a vehicle for nonviolent social and structural change, a practice for building social capital (community development) and the guiding values for a restorative approach to transitional justice at a national and international level. RJ gives hope for a satisfying form of justice.

A symposium entitled: "Restorative Justice: Theory Meets Practice" held in Boston, MA on February 28, 2015.  I was one of 3 panelist discussing applications of Restorative Justice within Transitional Justice and post-war reconstruction contexts.