In this article, the authors defend a thesis that a consideration of the fluid dialogue between legal, political, and psychosocial dimensions of society is of fundamental importance to the topic of transitional justice. Although there are no psychosocial experts on transitional justice, the authors contend there is a considerable dissociation among the discussed dimensions that is problematic for exploration and practical implementations of transitional justice in Colombia.

This research focuses on the significance of the word reconciliation. It questions what implications it has in contexts of armed conflict, generalized violence, violations of human rights and impunity from the countryside to the cities of Colombia. Facing the difficult realities of reconciliation, the authors explore what is needed to have durable peace rise from a time of profound interpersonal conflict characterized by denial of the other, aggressive behavior and violence.

The article suggests that reconciliation is what is needed for there to be a lasting peace, which was existed before there were enemies and deep interpersonal conflicts, negation or lack of recognition of the others and the constant use of aggression and violence.

Latin America went through years of great political agitation between the early sixties and the late eighties. Those times were hard on democracy. Leftist movements openly opposed not only the governments but also the constitutional institutions of the time. The State –and the law, which sustained it- were seen as the source of all social problems. Faced with such criticisms, traditional parties and their spokesmen entered a period of confusion and political indecision. They wanted to establish strategic alliances with spokesmen of the opposition. However, traditional parties were reluctant to the revolutionary measures desired by the latter; they were only willing to accept reforms to the existent situation.

En varias oportunidades, el actual gobierno ha defendido la tesis de que en Colombia no existe un conflicto armado sino una amenaza terrorista contra una democracia y contra la ciudadanía. Múltiples comentaristas y analistas han criticado esa tesis gubernamental, ya sea por ser contradictoria, pues en otros discursos el mismo gobierno parece reconocer la guerra,…