Unity and reconciliation should not replace demands for justice and reparations for the victims of social and political injustice.

It is only africans who promote phony ideals of “unity” and “reconciliation” without demanding true justice for the victims of injustice, and above all else, REPARATIONS from the perpetrators of injustice on african victims.

While unity and reconciliation are undoubtedly essential elements for social harmony, peace and all that, and above all, part of conflict resolution mechanisms in conflict-tone sociopolitical environments, they should not come at the expense of and certainly aren’t substitute for justice.

Unity and reconciliation should not replace demands for justice for the victims of social and political injustice, committed by those who, for the most part, are in position to ensure injustice does not happen; that no one is victimised by injustice by the abusive powerful. The perpetual and chronic power abusers who often control the means of violence and are often in government and other positions of power.

When unity and reconciliation becomes an official policy over and above demands for justice – some might emphasise, ‘true‘ justice – whatever that means – then justice too, is victimised by that policy, on top of victims of injustice.

It’s a double whammy on both justice and victims of injustice. The perpetrators are rewarded, perhaps not intentionally, maybe inadvertently but the reward is given nonetheless. This is the political thinking and phenomenon in post-conflict countries in Africa.

It has become apparent, almost as expected course of sociopolitical action, by [from] most post-conflict African countries (societies) and the administrations (governments) that come after conflicts (have [been]settled), to quickly embark on the policy of, and thus strictly demand for “unity” and “reconciliation“.

There’s a fundamental flaw in this policy and mindset.

Firstly, unity and reconciliation cannot be legislated and enforced by laws, whether written, explicit or implied – through social pressure and manipulation. That approach may work for sometime but it has its own limitations.

If unity and reconciliation is enforced, then by principle and logic, legislated enforcement or socially manipulated and exerted unity and reconciliation contradicts the very fundamental essence of unity and reconciliation. It’s not and is no longer voluntary while in essence it should be.

If you unity and reconciliation is enforced, then by principle and logic, legislated enforcement or socially manipulated and exerted unity and reconciliation contradicts the very fundamental essence of unity and reconciliation. It is not and is no longer voluntary while in essence it should be.

Secondly, when unity and reconciliation is demanded over and above justice for the victims, punishment for the injustice perpetrators and reparations for the victims; injustice is not only ignored and normalised but it is also rewarded.

This partly, or possibly majorly, explains why injustice prevails despite socially engineered and therefore [en]forced unity and reconciliation in such societies.

True social unity and reconciliation is voluntary, not forced. If it is voluntary, it is predicated on forgiveness and forgiveness cannot be feigned.

It is impossible to have true, i.e, voluntary unity and reconciliation without true, i.e, voluntary forgiveness and voluntary forgiveness is not and should not be confused for blind forgiveness. True forgiveness demands commitment to justice and reparations for the victims of injustice.

Phony [ideals of] unity and reconciliation, particularly in post-conflict african countries (societies) is big money business and are not based and/or influenced by socio-moral values.

In such countries (societies), especially where unity and reconciliation is not strictly [en]forced by law and through other social means, it has either completely failed or is in shambles, and the hypocrisy of it only exposed by the social tensions and continued socioeconomic injustice and inequality.