Truth Commissions are not always necessary in the path to transition from authoritarianism to democracy. We can identify countries in Africa and Asia where a truth commission was not required or requested for a peaceful transition to democracy. For example, in Mozambique and Cambodia a commission was not welcomed based on popular consensus that it was necessary to leave the past buried in order to move forward. This might appear to be a satisfactory resolution, but as Guillermo O’Donnell said, “refusing to confront and to purge itself of its worst fears and resentments, such a society would be burying not just its past but the very ethical values it needs to make its future livable”. Each country is unique; however, I would argue that if given the right conditions, Truth Commissions can help countries in transition to democracy by; 1) receiving International recognition and legitimacy 2) promoting reconciliation and reducing tension between civil society groups and “state-terrorists” or armed insurgencies and finally, 3) by creating an environment to debate the country’s past and the future in which will integrate society to the political discourse.
Truth Commissions can pose a threat to human crimes perpetrators and as a result present a challenge to a peaceful democratization process. The more brutal and inhumane was the authoritarian government or the armed insurgency, the more the perpetrators would feel threatened and risk a peaceful transition to democracy. Transitions to democracy are often the result of agreements in which the authoritarian ruler step aside or the armed insurgency agree to a cease fighting in exchange for amnesty. In Argentina, before leaving power the military junta granted itself immunity from prosecution. In Chile, Pinochet amended the constitution to ensure his continued power and giving amnesty to the military and it other cases amnesty was agreed by the opposition and the ruling regime as a condition to leave power. Failing to obtain these guarantees can remain a serious danger to the emerging of democracy, however, despite the risk presented to the birth of democracy the “least worst” strategy – as described by Guillermo O’Donnell – is to muster the political and personal courage to impose judgement.
Legitimacy can be used in various ways and very differently, hence a definition can prove elusive. In a political aspect “legitimacy” can be summary in the following phrases; whether a government has the right to rule, whether the leader has been duly installed, whether correct procedures have been followed; and in a moral aspect, whether a policy serves the good of the majority. In the process of transition, a new democratic state will most likely present traits of unstable states, thus, losing legitimacy internally and internationally. It is imperative for the survival of a nascent democracy to gain legitimacy and strengthen it through its institutions. Failure to gain or sustain legitimacy can result in the overthrown of the democratic regime like it did in Chile in 1973. Samuel Huntington claims that in order to fill the authority vacuum created by the transition to democracy it is essential to build international legitimacy by getting support of foreign and transnational actors.
Truth Commission functions as a instrument for a new democratic state to fill the authority vacuum. It serves as a sign by the new democratic state to the international community that they intend to face past and rectify the it in order to prevent from happening again. The new democratic state receives international legitimacy when it chooses a Truth Commission as its embracing democratic ideals like; rule of law, equality and justice. Truth Commissions. The international community can be of great help in supporting transitional to democratization. In general, the international community can give advice to the new government. Veterans of past truth commissions have increasingly become persuasive advocates and teachers for other countries seeking to learn from past experiences. Because state institutions are often weak, international support of this kind is also helpful. Other countries and NGOs often financially support the operation of commissions.
States developing to democratic nation are unlikely to receive much trust from civil society after many atrocities from authoritarian regimes or periods, however, truth commissions can provide legitimacy as it serves as a signal to civil society that the state intends to repudiate its past abuses and concentrate on instantiating democracy. Some sectors of the society might not even be aware of the abuses committed by the authoritarian regime or might even support it like in Argentina and Chile. Commissions can reveal the brutality of the authoritarian regime or armed insurgency to those who were unaware. The final report may convince them to repudiate the previous regime and support a democratic future while simultaneously strengthening the governments right to rule. Another way the state can gain internal legitimacy if by allowing or instructing the truth commission to conduct public hearings. Public hearings allow civil society to overcome incredulity about the motives of the truth commission, particularly in those instances where people have only met the state other than in the form of an armed soldiers.
Not only truth commissions provide legitimacy to the state but it also assists with reconciliation and reducing tension between the perpetrators, state and the victims while promoting a stable democracy. Unhealed wounds in a society and victims can linger long after the transition to democracy and commissions can create a climate where healing or reconciliation – as referred by Priscilla B. Hayner – occur. It’s widely asserted that knowing the truth about the past it is necessary for reconciliation to take place. Violence reconciliation it’s one of the truth commission aims, however, it has a become a difficult mission. According to Priscilla B. Hayner it is important to differentiate between individual and national reconciliation. The strength of truth commissions is in promoting reconciliation on a national or political level. By speaking overtly and freely about the past and by allowing an independent commission to resolve human crime cases, a commission can relieve some of the tension that may otherwise be present in national legislative or other political bodies. An official narrative and conclusion about the past can allow opposing parties to debate and govern together without latent conflicts and bitterness over past lies. One thing is clear, chances to build a new democratic state without reconciliation at the political level is highly unlikely to endure. Another truth commission goal is to prevent further human crime violations and it hopes to accomplish this by breaking the cycle of revenge and hatred between former enemies by promoting reconciliation.
Finally, truth commissions can create an environment of debate about notions of the past and concepts of the future. Final reports can provide the democratic foundation for political discussion and the future by including different civil society groups like human right groups and clerical groups into the political discourse. By including this groups, the state is fostering a more open and genuine public discussion about past atrocities. By state creating this dialogue with civil society groups the new nation is sending the message that it is ok to speak and solidifying the new democratic ideas.
Truth commission is only one variable of many in the effort of transition and consolidation of democracy after a period of authoritarianism or internal armed conflict. It would be unfair to judge their success solely on the future stability of the new democratic state or on some measure of future levels of violence or adherence to the rule of law. There are too many other variables involved in determining whether democratization is permanent. One thing is clear, truth commissions can bring legitimacy to a new democratic state, reduces violence by promoting reconciliation resulting in a more stable state and finally it cultivates a free speech environment and open dialogue between the state and society.