I’m at the analytical place in my book on strategies that three African countries used to address the legacies of recently-past conflicts where I want to try to put the whole, 15-plus-year phenomenon of truth commissions into some kind of comprehensible political context.
My earlier hypothesis was that the whole TC phenomenon grew up in a mainly European-cultured context (European-cultured elites in Latin America; actual Europeans in east and central Europe), and that originally they were deployed mainly in the context of a fairly well infrastructured society making a marked transition from authoritarian rule to democracy… But that then, over time– and especially after the notable prominence of the South African TRC!– lots of people in very different circumstances around the world got it into their heads that hey, this looks like a good mechanism, let’s try it!
Especially since the Ford Foundation and various other massive US-based foundations have put lots of real mega-$$ into various projects around the world that sought to emulate the SA TRC.
I’m not against the deployment of TRCs. (Far better than deploying troops, cruise missiles, or armies of international prosecutors into recent or continuing war zones, don’t you think?) I just want to look at the developments over time in the way this mechanism has been used, and perhaps to start an assessment of what it has achieved and what it hasn’t achieved.
One of the ironies of the whole international “fame” of the SA TRC was that, as far as I can understand it, the whole thing came about as a result of a rushed and rather messy political compromise that was forced onto the ANC right in the middle of the holding of SA’s landmark, four-day-long 1994 elections…
Basically, the security forces went up to the ANC negotiators and said, “H’mm, nice little elections you’ve got going there. Wouldn’t it be a pity if we found we couldn’t hold back the White hotheads from disrupting them for you, huh? Oh, and by the way, we really still do need some amnesty for our people in the event this democratization thing should work out. How about it, huh?”
Later, with huge help from Archbishop Tutu, the whole TRC venture got packaged as– and actually, in many ways, became– this “visionary”, wonderful, spirit-led process that everyone throughout the world worshiped and wanted to emulate. History’s a funny thing, eh?
… So anyway, I thought I should try to compile all the basic info I would need to make a judgment about the political contexts in which TCs have been used in various places around the world, and see if some trends emerg over time. Here’s the chart I made today.
Comments? Suggestions?
5 thoughts on “Truth commissions in context”
Comments are closed.
Wow, I hadn’t realized that the first truth commission was established by Idi Amin. No wonder the idea took a while to catch on.
I’ll have to consider the questions you raise before responding in full. I think there are some very basic factors that influence the efficacy of truth commissions, though, including (1) the independence of the commissioners, (2) the degree of cooperation provided by the government, (3) the existence of subpoena power or other methods of obtaining information without government cooperation, (4) the availability of witness protection, and (5) the presence on the commission of representatives from all sides of the conflict. These are, at minimum, what distinguishes the South African and East Timor TRCs from Idi Amin’s whitewash.
Also, in addition to the countries on your chart, isn’t there some sort of commission of inquiry in Rwanda?
At any rate, thanks for doing the work of putting this chart together. (And you picked some good sources – Priscilla Hayner has done some amazing analysis in this field, hasn’t she?)
Jonathan, Thanks for the points you’ve already made there. Any additional ones I would also really value.
Re the Uganda-1974 commission, Priscilla cites a 1991 article by Richard Carver as actually characterizing the commission’s report as being far from a whitewash (p.52 of her book where he is quoted thus: “In view of the considerable practical difficulties it faced and the highly unfavorable political climate in which it operated, the Commission’s achievement was remarkable.”)
Later, Carver asks rhetorically, “Was the whole exercise a waste of time?” And, as Priscilla then writes, he:
argues that it was not, on three grounds. He cites the importance of the commission report in refuting later revisionist views of the 1970s in Uganda; the fact that the disappearances decreased, in the short term, during the period of the commission’s investigation; and the fact that this early knowledge of the atrocities places clear responsibility on Amin’s international supporters who continued to back him well into the 1970s.”
Re Rwanda, sadly no commission at all. Just gacaca, which has finally gotten off to a “nationwide launching” in the past ten days and will doubtless grind on for a few more years. One of its goals is to establish a historical record– but strictly of the kind the RPF wants to see written, i.e. no mention of any of their side’s misdeeds…
The more I think about this, the more I think we need to go back to first principles and ask the ma nishtanah – how are truth commissions different from all other commissions? After all, the use of commissions to investigate particular problems or incidents is nothing new, and arguably derives from the common law grand jury. How are the 28 commissions in your chart different from the Church Commission in the United States or the Or Commission in Israel?
One possible foundational definition is that a truth commission’s mandate involves an entire conflict or the abuses of an entire regime rather than a particular incident. That’s not an entirely satisfying definition, though, because it could include commissions that aren’t aimed at discovering truth, such as a government’s attempt to whitewash its own abuses. I’d add at least two further requirements: a truth commission should be empaneled after (or in conjunction with) the end of a period of abuse, and should be created by a government that wants to make a genuine break with the past. There’s certainly room to quibble with those standards, but I think they begin to divide the real truth commissions from the rest.
I think I’ll write something about this; watch my site early next week. In the meantime, I’ll leave you with a few questions for further thought (I’ll also be thinking about them):
1. How far should a truth commission go in analyzing the causes of a conflict as opposed to determining historical facts?
2. Are the truth and reconciliation functions of a commission ever at odds – i.e., does the need for reconciliation ever lead to the formation of a “consensus truth” or a “political truth?”
3. Is the role of a truth commission compatible with any kind of judicial function – i.e., could the Waitangi Tribunal or the gacaca courts be considered truth commissions? If the roles aren’t compatible, should a truth commission’s findings be binding in courts of law?
4. What are the minimum requirements (e.g., constitutional status, subpoena power, tenure protection etc.) necessary to ensure the independence of a commission?
I’ll try to answer those questions next week.
Good observations and questions, Jonathan.
I’ve been doing more work and a bit of analysis on the table, as you can see.
Your question about what is it that distinguishes a t.c. from other forms of government-formed Commissions of Enquiry etc is crucial. I’m not sure that any of the sources I used in compiling the table was actually using a hard and fast definition, though it would be excellent to develop one.
Looking at the names of the various commissions is suggestive, though not definitive. I might try to get the various names into the table. For example, the Ghanaian one was called “National; Reconciliation Commission”, which does not have “truth” in it for a reason– perhaps because Pres. Kufuor is under no obligation (far as I can see) to publish the 5-volume report presented to him last October.
(Of course, “Reconciliation” can mean many things, including as a purely technical term, as in “reconciling various different financial or narrative accounts”.)
For a Commission to qualify as a “truth” commission I think as a basic sine qua non it should publish its report, no?
I want to respond–publicly– to what you say above but find it hard to do so in this horrid little MT “Comments” box (never mind my own self-imposed quidelines on length of comments…) I think I’ll have to start either a new post in which to do so, or a whole new blog in which you and I (and others) could all post and discuss transitional justice issues. What thinkest thou?
In response to your question 2 above, however, I’ll just say that in my experience all accountability-establishing mechanisms, whether courts or truth commissions, have a strong potential to disrupt fragile recopnciliation processes because they can revive old hurts, be perceived as pointing fingers of blame, etc etc.
I realize that that is a different issue to the one you raise about the danger of a “single truth”; but it remains a very important issue.
Do tell me when you put something about t.c.’s up onto Headheeb, btw.
I’m not sure that any of the sources I used in compiling the table was actually using a hard and fast definition, though it would be excellent to develop one.
Or possibly more than one. As you point out, a “pure” truth commission is different from a truth and reconciliation commission, with the one function deriving from the classic commission of inquiry and the other from 20th-century social psychology.
For a Commission to qualify as a “truth” commission I think as a basic sine qua non it should publish its report, no?
Or, at the very least, that its findings not be subject to suppression by the government.
I think I’ll have to start either a new post in which to do so, or a whole new blog in which you and I (and others) could all post and discuss transitional justice issues. What thinkest thou?
A transitional justice blog might be a lot of fun, especially if other people with knowledge of the field join in. This gentleman, for instance, worked for the South African TRC, and would have some interesting ideas to share.
I’ll keep you posted.