After reading the Kiss essay, the concept of “moral hatred” really resonated. Truth commissions are established presumably to “restore” a society, but is that restoration between the perpetrator and society or the perpetrator and the victim? The TRC was structured in a way that seemed to center around the victim. Commissioners listened to the stories of victims without interruption, the assembly rose in a gesture of respect when the victim entered the room, many commissioners offered to participate in prayer and song with the witnesses, and provided crucial social work assistance. Whereas the courtroom establishes a protagonist/antagonist divide, Truth Commissions seem to be about comforting and assisting the victim.
The TRC offered amnesty to perpetrators in exchange for a comprehensive truth of the acts they committed. At times this included detailing the atrocities committed to the spouse, children, or friends of the deceased or disappeared. For many of the victims attaching a face to the perpetrator, could initiate the healing process, but for others it could provide a focal point for their anger. This “moral hatred” would only be compounded by the fact that the victim can no longer seek prosecution of the perpetrator because of the amnesty they received. Kiss noted that in order to accept restorative justice, one must accept the premise that an individual can be transformed after they’ve committed a crime. Even if this is something that happens, I find it difficult to believe that in all cases the perpetrator has a change of heart and truly feels remorse for their actions. This encapsulates many of the criticism that there were Christian undertones in the TRCs organization. If the path to restoring the society is through a change of heart in the perpetrator, can the commissioners truly prescribe that?
Kiss noted that the idea of healing from restorative justice only came about from deliberation by the commissioners when drafting their final report; moreover, a whole only 17% of the South African society believed the TRC promoted reconciliation. Ideally Truth Commissions seek to restore the relationship between the victim and perpetrator, but if the victim does not forgive or if the perpetrator does not feel remorse this is impossible. Moreover, neither of those events can be prescribed, they occur spontaneously. Perhaps the real restorative nature of a Truth Commission is between the victim and the society as well as the perpetrator and society. By providing the victim with a conduit for their suffering, they are able to reintegrate with other human beings who empathize with their condition. For the perpetrators, they receive amnesty but at a cost of shame, shame which ultimately could lead them to feel remorse and undergo a "change of heart." If the ultimate goal is to find the truth that led to a systemic authorization of crimes against humanity and prevent it from happening again, Truth Commissions may be able to find success.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you highlight a good point about the dual exchange in truth commissions. It's a very novel idea to see the exchange as more than just reconciliation between victim and perpetrator. The "truth" that these committees are trying to get are truly societal truths, and thus its findings are something that the whole society has to reconcile.
ReplyDeleteIn all of our discussions regarding Truth Commissions, I've been thinking a lot about Kelsen and his ideas on subjective happiness and the objective structure of justice (and how the two don't seem to synch up). It seems to me that Truth Commissions are a pretty good "objective" (meaning authoritative) medium for allowing subjective conceptions of justice to survive.
I agree with the thought that commissioners cannot prescribe a change of heart in the perpetrator. And there is absolutely no way that they can be certain that all of the perpetrators actually DO have a change of heart. Even if they claim to, there is no way to completely assess that it is truth as well.
ReplyDeleteI have some difficulty reconciling the avowed goals of truth commissions (the TRC in particular) on behalf of individual victims with their broader objectives of societal reconcilation, particularly since as you point out, the ability of commisions to bring true reconciliation to individuals is limited. This seems to recall one of the discussions we had in class where we wondered whether commisions that did not name individual victims or perpetrators at all were better suited for promoting the new consensus of "restorative truth", since the issue of individual "moral hatred" is sidestepped.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting post.
ReplyDeleteI question Kiss’s point. I’m a bit more cynical (which is a criticism of truth commissions in general, not just Kiss's position). I tend to think that perpetrators are apologetic because their political power or support has faded and they are at the mercy of a new regime (one that controls their fate and is willing to forgive in exchange for the truth and a few tears).
To answer your first question, ideally, the answer would be both. And also to restore the relationship between victim and society.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that there are certain things that truth commissions cannot prescribe, such as feeling remorse on the part of the perpetrators, or forgiveness on the part of the victims, it does seem central to the very idea of restorative justice that you believe these things to be possible.