Truth Commission Assessment

Brahm Getting to the Bottom of Truth: Examining Truth Commission Success and Impact By Eric Brahm PhD Candidate Department of Political Science University of Colorado at Boulder [email protected] Paper prepared for presentation at the International Studies Association Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, March 1-5, 2005. Abstract: In light of their growing popularity, truth commissions are overdue for evaluation. More than simply judging them based on whether they complete their work, what is ultimately of interest is their broader social effects. A whole range of uses have been put forward for truth commissions, but there is little consensus on what criteria might be used to assess them. Yet, despite these wide-ranging claims, the evidence for them is often spotty. The issue is compounded by a growing chorus of critics that see truth commissions as ineffectual or even dangerous. This paper isolates a few such purposes often articulated by supporters: first examining the implementation record and then the consequences for democratization, human rights, and trust: and suggests how existing data might help us begin to answer this question without having to wait for better data collection in future cases. In addition, I address the problem of distinguishing truth commission impact from other factors given the fact that they are relatively limited institutions. From there, I suggest some important sources of truth commission variation that are likely significant in shaping outcomes. Introduction Truth commissions1 have enjoyed a meteoric rise over the past 15 years amongst many human rights advocates and academics interested in the pursuit of justice in the 1 Truth commissions are understood here to be “bodies set up to investigate a past history of violations of human rights in a particular country – which can include violations by the military or other government forces or armed opposition forces” (Hayner, 1994: 558). Hayner (2001) delineates four main characteristics of truth commissions. First, they focus on the past. The events may have occurred in the recent past, but a truth commission does not examine contemporary crimes as a human rights commission would. Second, truth commissions investigate a pattern of abuse over a set period of time rather than a specific event. This excludes investigations of a specific incident, such as the commission established to look into post-election violence in Côte d'Ivoire in 2000. In its mandate, the truth commission is given the parameters of its investigation both in terms of the time period covered as well as the type of human rights violations to be explored. Third, a truth commission is a temporary body, usually operating over a period of six months to two years and completing its work by submitting a report. These parameters are established at the time of the commission’s formation, but often an extension can be obtained to wrap things up. Fourth, truth commissions are officially sanctioned, authorized, or empowered by the state. This removes from consideration non-governmental inquiries, such as that of the archbishop of Sao Paulo and World Council of Churches in Brazil. Often, official status allows the commission to have greater access to information, greater security, and increased assurance that its findings will be taken under serious consideration. Official sanction from the government is crucial because it represents an acknowledgment 1 Brahm aftermath of gross human rights violations and in addressing the challenges of post- conflict peacebuilding. Some have argued that truth commissions are a necessary but not sufficient component of transitional justice (Mendez 1997; Roht-Arriaza 1998). Described as a chair with four legs, the transitional justice process ideally involves investigation and acknowledgment (truth commissions); prosecution and the achievement of justice (trials); reparations and compensation; and steps to purge and rebuild the security and police apparatus. This optimal scenario is highly unlikely in most transitional circumstances, however. Compromise is frequently central to political transitions unless the losing side is weakened to an extent it can exert no influence over the shape of the new political landscape. As a result, in any given transition, each of these four ‘legs’ is developed to varying degrees. In fact, countries often utilize only one of these, if any. Therefore, it is reasonable to undertake at least a preliminary investigation of the consequences for pursuing one of these components, namely the investigation and acknowledgment provided by truth commissions. Such an undertaking is all the more important because the theoretical and factual bases of many claims regarding the power of truth-seeking have recently been called into question (Mendeloff 2004). A growing chorus of critiques has questioned the empirical claims of truth commission advocates. Some observers see truth commissions as weak, ineffectual substitutes for criminal prosecution. Others view amnesties as an unfortunate necessity in transitional situations as any mechanism to deal with the past is likely to threaten powerful interests and stir anger and resentment. In fact, although over two dozen countries have created truth commissions and many others such as Indonesia, of past wrongs and a commitment to address the issues and move on. Furthermore, theoretically governments are more likely to enact recommended reforms if they have established the commission. 2 Brahm Afghanistan, and Bosnia are contemplating doing so, we still know relatively little about the consequences of utilizing this transitional justice tool. These arguments, both supportive and critical, rely largely on normative conviction and anecdotal evidence. As a result, we are faced with a situation in which, despite their growing popularity, our understanding of the impact of truth commissions on the emerging political environment, both the immediate reception and longer-term effects, is cloudy. On a basic level, some argue that the commission even completing its work is significant. Not to diminish this accomplishment, but what is crucial is the broader purpose for which the commission was created in the first place. The literature on truth commissions does provide a number of clues regarding their expected effects, but they have not been explored across a range of cases. A number of observers have suggested how we might judge success (Abrams and Hayner 2002; Hayner 2000; Popkin and Roht-Arriaza 1995), but most criteria have yet to be operationalized let alone systematically applied. This lack of broader analysis is in part due to the fact that truth commissions have received relatively little attention from social scientists. Most of our knowledge comes from human rights activists, journalists, legal scholars, and policy analysts. For all that has been written about them, there is, in fact, little consensus on what criteria might be used to assess truth commissions. This paper suggests some preliminary steps that might be taken to adjudicate between the varied claims made as to the consequences of truth-seeking. First, I review the consequences of truth-seeking and measures of success suggested in the literature. Assertions have been wide-ranging and contradictory, but overall the impact of truth commissions remains an open question. To provide some provisional conclusions, the 3 Brahm second step is to look more closely at the expectations of scholars and practitioners that might be usefully operationalized. I suggest steps that might be taken to obtain additional support for the claims by specifying different types of evidence that could be applied to the task. Third, given their relative weakness and the fact that they are themselves a product of the transition, it is a formidable challenge to isolate what affects the truth commission itself has. I will suggest some steps to begin to address this problem. Finally, I will delineate some important points of variation amongst truth commission experience that likely influence their ability to aid the transition process. Despite their relative weakness, much has come to be expected of truth commissions by academics and practitioners as well as the public in transitional societies. Given their growing use, it is worthwhile to pause at this stage to think critically about what is expected of them and to evaluate their ability to produce desirable outcomes. The Consequences of Truth-Seeking Early writing on truth commissions was largely made up of descriptive accounts of individual cases and studies exploring what factors shaped the choice of transitional justice mechanism. Although the former often dabbled in this, gradually attention has begun to turn to consider truth commissions as independent variable. In other words, interest has begun to shift to explore what impact truth-seeking has had on individuals and society in general. This is driven in part by the fact that international donors are increasingly demanding it (Shea 2000). It is surely also motivated by a desire on the part of practitioners, activists, academics, and funders alike to more rigorously determine how and under what circumstances truth commissions can positively contribute to political transitions. 4 Brahm The consequence of this has been an explosion of suggestions of often methodologically complicated criteria such as reconciliation, justice, or healing. There is little agreement on the best measures, nor have any of these been applied across a range of cases. In fact, the evidence

Load more