Do Truth Commissions make a difference? When and how truth commissions contribute to reconciliation
Do Truth Commissions make a difference? When and how truth commissions contribute to reconciliation

Summary/Abstract: In this contribution, we analyse 18 different truth and reconciliation commissions, which have dealt with past atrocities during the last 30 years. Based on publicly accessible documents and already existing literature, we assess, if and eventually how they were able to contribute to reconciliation of divided societies, on whose behalf they were acting. We define reconciliation as the inclusion of former political enemies into the new political order and as the absence of radical and armed political contestation against this new order. We test some theoretical approaches about vetting procedures and transitional justice and conclude, that the way, transition societies deal with perpetrators from a fallen regime depends mainly on the distribution of power after transition and the degree of radical change, transition brought about. The character and scope of atrocities, for which the old regime is responsible, does not seem to affect the scope and intensity of retribution after regime change. Compared with the impact of the transition process itself and the power distribution between old and new regimes, the activities of truth commissions are only minor and hardly autonomous factors shaping transitional justice. We find that only three truth commissions were able to contribute significantly to reconciliation in their countries: the commissions of Chile, South Africa and El Salvador.

• Details
• Contents