Truth and Reconciliation Commissions

Collective Emotional Healing

History

• 1989 - 116 ongoing Intra-State conflicts in 78 different countries

• The end of the cold war started many revolutions, and insurgencies

• Decades of repression and years of war left deep emotional and physical scars

• The competing groups must reconcile themselves with the past, as well as the future

Structural-Systemic Perspective

Emotional Perspective

Cognitive Perspective

InterestsPerspective

Anatomy of a

Conflict: A Framewor

k for Analysis

Structural Interest Cognitive Emotional

Core

Concerns

•Distribution of power & resources

•‘Built-in’ structural inequalities

•Underlying interests, goals and objectives

•Beliefs

•Schemas

•Frames

•Fear

•Loss and grief

•Rage

•Pathology

Goals Justice Integration or compromise

Reframing Healing

Conflict Management Techniques

•Revolution

•Re-distribution

•De-construction

Negotiation / mediation•compromise•bargaining•win-win

Facilitated contact

•Truth-telling•Public

Acknowledge- ment•Forgiveness

Emotions

• Grief

• Guilt

• Anger

• Indignation

• Confusion

• Fear

• Loss

• Pain

• Hate

• Shame

• Pity

• Violation

• Victimization

• Insecurity

• Humiliation

Post Conflict Options

• Amnesia

• Trials and Justice

• Lustration

• Negotiated Restitution and Compensation

• Political re-education

• Truth Commissions

Theory

• Johan Galtung: Positive Peace

– “Positive peace is more than the absence of violence; it is the presence of social justice through equal opportunity, a fair distribution of power and resources, equal protection and impartial enforcement of law."

• Michel Foucault: Discourse as Power

– “Interpretation of reality is an assertion of power”

• Ron Kraybill: Emotion

– “Reconciliation as an interpersonal or intergroup encounter is a difficult and delicate process that is not simply a matter of the head, but more so of the heart.”

Truth Commissions

• Developed over the past 30 years

• 30 or so TRC’s, USIP website for list

• There have been TRC’s on 4 continents

• Definitions vary

Common Characteristics

• Defined time limit of operation

• Created at a point of transition

• Officially sanctioned

• Non-Judicial bodies

• Authority for unusual access to investigate sensitive issues

• Focus on the past

• Investigate Patterns of abuse over time

• Focus on human rights violations

• Conclude with a report

Goals

• Record the past

• Identify perpetrators

• Overcome denial

• Restore dignity

• Promote healing

• Educate about the past

• Prevent future violence

• Form basis for Democratic order

• Promote reconciliation Legitimate and stabilize new regime

• Create a collective memory

A Model in Transition

• TRC model is inherently malleable• Mandate• Local Political Situation• Local Reconciliation Methods• Local Religion• Funding• Infrastructure• Length of time to investigate

• This is its greatest strength

State of the Model Now

• South Africa’s TRC has become the model

• It was provided massive attention– Media – Academic– Political

• The hearings were the main focus of attention

Hearings• Preceded by Statement Takers

• Small percentage chosen

• Usually recorded

• Usually translated

• Usually very ritualistic

• Not a primary source of date, more for collective healing purposes

Role of Hearings• TRC goals are national, not only individual

• Media plays a huge role

• Ritual plays a huge role

• Goal is to reconcile groups (identity groups)

• Individual healing is used as a catalyst

• Show victims = de-legitimize denial

Strengths

• Provides dignity to victims

• Provides recognition of past crimes

• Defeats Impunity

• Humanizes the ‘Other’

• Provides security

• Broad investigative power

• Inclusive character

• De-legitimizes denial of violent past

Weaknesses

• ‘Truth’ is not always an indigenous form of reconciliation and psychological healing

• TRC model may be viewed as illegitimate

• Lack of minority/privileged participation

• Suitability only to certain situations

• Hard to represent all views

• Too open to the charge of purposeful manipulation of victim’s ‘truths’

Conclusion• One among many options

• Model in transition – Malleability

• Acknowledges and addresses emotion and suffering

• Individual to Communal impact

• Legitimizes new order by refuting the old