INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter I considered institutional dimensions of the damage to political relationships during civil conflict and repressive rule, which stem from the absence or erosion of the rule of law. In this chapter I concentrate on important attitudinal dimensions of political reconciliation. Deep, pervasive distrust is a prominent feature of political relationships within transitional societies. One significant source of such distrust is the erosion of the rule of law. The objective of this chapter is to articulate why the absence of trust is damaging to political relations and thus why rebuilt political relationships are characterized by reasonable default political trust.

It is puzzling why exactly the absence of trust, as well as the conditions that make trust reasonable, is damaging to political relationships. Academics and politicians within transitional societies frequently claim that it is imperative to build trust. Deep and pervasive distrust is often viewed as an obstacle to peace. Advocates of the importance of trust typically emphasize the instrumental value of trust for political relationships. Trust, for example, bolsters and stabilizes the normative expectations constitutive of moral political relationships. Reflecting these ideas, philosopher Margaret Urban Walker and the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) define reconciliation in terms of the rebuilding of civic trust. However, within the literature in philosophy and political science the necessity and value of political trust are increasingly being challenged. Political cooperation, it is claimed, does not depend on trust.