Explain The Constraints Of Truth Commissions
The constraints of truth commissions
A truth commission is supposed to not only investigate and publicize the truth, but also help emancipate the people, both the victims and perpetrators, in a post-violence society from the traumatic past. To achieve this goal, there must be sufficient funding, a robust institution, a sound legal system as well as active civil participation. Unfortunately, truth commissions are often faced with a number of intrinsic constraints that make it impossible to provide the whole, real and objective truth (Chapman & Ball, 2001). Many truth commissions have so far encountered some common difficulties and challenges, such as institutional failure, political will, resource and funding limitations, inaccurate information as well as obstruction from vested interest groups, which impede the seeking of truth and the persecution of those found responsible for human rights abuses.
Institutional constraints. In order to be successful in seeking the truth and promoting reconciliation, a truth commission need to work with commensurate institutional frameworks, such as democratic political systems and effective legal …show more content…
institutions. Unfortunately, these crucial institutional structures have not been established in most of the transitional societies across the world. Although mass violence and conflicts have ended, the overthrow (or termination) of an authoritarian regime (or dictatorship) does not necessarily guarantee the institutional support for democratization and the rule of law (McCalpin, 2012). Indeed, institutional transformation is not likely to take place all of a sudden apart from political reconstruction and economic rehabilitation.
When Aristide was reinstated to the presidency in 1995, one could barely see a well-functioned government institution or a full-fledged legal system.
This meant that the work of the National Truth and Justice Commission could hardly yield any substantial result——no matter who was in charge of the Commission and what truth the Commission had documented, there would be considerable obstacles for the effective implementation of the report’s recommendations. Even though Aristide had initially committed to the restoration of democracy and rule of law, it turned out to be an extremely difficult task due to complicated political situation in Haiti. In addition, the Commission itself, composed of Haitian and international staff, was chaotically managed and organized that both the head and commissioners ended up muddling through the
task.
In Uganda, institutional limitation was also the primary reason that the Commission of Inquiry had achieved little applause from international community. The commission was unable to carry out its work smoothly since the very beginning of its creation, given the poor conditions of government infrastructure, lack of functional judicial system as well as unprecedented scale of work. Moreover, the commission, according to its terms of appointment, was forbidden to investigate any issues that took place after Museveni came into power, leading to wide skepticism that the Commission might not reveal the traumas of many Ugandans in a fair and impartial manner (Quinn, 2004).
Political will. The success of a truth commission depends to a large extent on the political will and commitment of the policy maker(s) in the new regime. These people are highly influential in decisions concerning the provision of fund, security as well as other assistance for the commission. Without the cooperation and support from local political elites, the commission staff can hardly undertake their work, such as accessing official records, interviewing victims or holding public hearings. Unfortunately, the political motivations of many new leaders to establish truth commissions were often criticized as a strategy to undermine political opponents as well as strengthen the new regimes’ legitimacy.
In Haiti, the government, particularly President Aristide, seemed to support the National Truth and Justice Commission and vowed repeatedly to provide necessary convenience to the Commission’s work. As time went by, however, many people began to question the sincerity of Aristide in seeking the truth. For some international staff, he was intentionally distancing himself from the Commission (Quinn, 2009). Similarly, in order to win support from both the Ugandan people and international community, Museveni had initially promised to build a democracy and restore peace and justice in the country. Ironically, it was Museveni himself who refused to relinquish power for more than fifteen years and failed to provide sufficient fund and requisite facilities for the Commission of Inquiry, which was widely believed to be the main cause of the Commission’s relative failure (Quinn, 2004).
Financial constraint. Funding is often a major restriction that hampers the operations of truth commissions in many poor countries. In fact, a number of commissions had to rely on international donors to complete their work, and those lucky enough to obtain financial commitment from local governments must, in most circumstances, balance with care the needs of new regimes and the goals of the commissions themselves. Besides, one should note that in some cases the promises of money and facilities were never met, which was part of the reason that the commissions in those countries were forced to suspend their work from time to time and thus the investigation lasted for years.
Like many truth commissions, both the Haitian and Ugandan commissions suffered chronically from lack of funds. The head of the Haitian commission, Francoise Boucard, had always complained that she was overwhelmed by the challenging task of fund raising, making it difficult for her to manage the commission effectively (Quinn, 2009). By contrast, the conditions in Uganda appeared to be even tougher. Due to serious shortage of funding and resources, truth commissioners sometimes had to ask those interviewed to bring with their own paper and pen during the testimonies (Quinn, 2004). The final report, though widely considered as disappointing, was finally completed after eight years.
Publicity and accessibility. Many scholars have argued that insufficient publicity and inadequate accessibility are partly responsible for the failures of some unsuccessful truth commissions. In fact, the “publicity-accessibility” criterion, as pointed out by McCalpin (2012), is often adopted as one of the basic standards to assess the effectiveness a truth commission. The public must be informed of the commissions’ work and findings to the largest extent. As one of the most critically acclaimed truth commissions, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission had done very well in this regard. It spared no efforts in improving its transparency as well as keeping a close cooperation with the media, which ensured that the people could stay updated with the investigation.
Although the Ugandan Commission of Inquiry had created conditions to publicize its work, it failed to win public support and yielded little success. Until the late 1980s, most of the Ugandan people did not have an adequate knowledge of their fundamental human rights (Quinn, 2004). In the case of Haiti, by contrast, it is still difficult today for an ordinary Haitian to access to a copy of the final report of the National Truth and Justice Commission. What’s worse, the majority of the victimized poor population in Haiti had not been properly taken into account. To some extent, they were excluded from the agenda of the Commission. This has received considerable criticism that the Haitian truth commission was nothing but a “futile exercise” (McCalpin, 2012).
A truth commission is supposed to not only investigate and publicize the truth, but also help emancipate the people, both the victims and perpetrators, in a post-violence society from the traumatic past. To achieve this goal, there must be sufficient funding, a robust institution, a sound legal system as well as active civil participation. Unfortunately, truth commissions are often faced with a number of intrinsic constraints that make it impossible to provide the whole, real and objective truth (Chapman & Ball, 2001). Many truth commissions have so far encountered some common difficulties and challenges, such as institutional failure, political will, resource and funding limitations, inaccurate information as well as obstruction from vested interest groups, which impede the seeking of truth and the persecution of those found responsible for human rights abuses.
Institutional constraints. In order to be successful in seeking the truth and promoting reconciliation, a truth commission need to work with commensurate institutional frameworks, such as democratic political systems and effective legal …show more content…
institutions. Unfortunately, these crucial institutional structures have not been established in most of the transitional societies across the world. Although mass violence and conflicts have ended, the overthrow (or termination) of an authoritarian regime (or dictatorship) does not necessarily guarantee the institutional support for democratization and the rule of law (McCalpin, 2012). Indeed, institutional transformation is not likely to take place all of a sudden apart from political reconstruction and economic rehabilitation.
When Aristide was reinstated to the presidency in 1995, one could barely see a well-functioned government institution or a full-fledged legal system.
This meant that the work of the National Truth and Justice Commission could hardly yield any substantial result——no matter who was in charge of the Commission and what truth the Commission had documented, there would be considerable obstacles for the effective implementation of the report’s recommendations. Even though Aristide had initially committed to the restoration of democracy and rule of law, it turned out to be an extremely difficult task due to complicated political situation in Haiti. In addition, the Commission itself, composed of Haitian and international staff, was chaotically managed and organized that both the head and commissioners ended up muddling through the
task.
In Uganda, institutional limitation was also the primary reason that the Commission of Inquiry had achieved little applause from international community. The commission was unable to carry out its work smoothly since the very beginning of its creation, given the poor conditions of government infrastructure, lack of functional judicial system as well as unprecedented scale of work. Moreover, the commission, according to its terms of appointment, was forbidden to investigate any issues that took place after Museveni came into power, leading to wide skepticism that the Commission might not reveal the traumas of many Ugandans in a fair and impartial manner (Quinn, 2004).
Political will. The success of a truth commission depends to a large extent on the political will and commitment of the policy maker(s) in the new regime. These people are highly influential in decisions concerning the provision of fund, security as well as other assistance for the commission. Without the cooperation and support from local political elites, the commission staff can hardly undertake their work, such as accessing official records, interviewing victims or holding public hearings. Unfortunately, the political motivations of many new leaders to establish truth commissions were often criticized as a strategy to undermine political opponents as well as strengthen the new regimes’ legitimacy.
In Haiti, the government, particularly President Aristide, seemed to support the National Truth and Justice Commission and vowed repeatedly to provide necessary convenience to the Commission’s work. As time went by, however, many people began to question the sincerity of Aristide in seeking the truth. For some international staff, he was intentionally distancing himself from the Commission (Quinn, 2009). Similarly, in order to win support from both the Ugandan people and international community, Museveni had initially promised to build a democracy and restore peace and justice in the country. Ironically, it was Museveni himself who refused to relinquish power for more than fifteen years and failed to provide sufficient fund and requisite facilities for the Commission of Inquiry, which was widely believed to be the main cause of the Commission’s relative failure (Quinn, 2004).
Financial constraint. Funding is often a major restriction that hampers the operations of truth commissions in many poor countries. In fact, a number of commissions had to rely on international donors to complete their work, and those lucky enough to obtain financial commitment from local governments must, in most circumstances, balance with care the needs of new regimes and the goals of the commissions themselves. Besides, one should note that in some cases the promises of money and facilities were never met, which was part of the reason that the commissions in those countries were forced to suspend their work from time to time and thus the investigation lasted for years.
Like many truth commissions, both the Haitian and Ugandan commissions suffered chronically from lack of funds. The head of the Haitian commission, Francoise Boucard, had always complained that she was overwhelmed by the challenging task of fund raising, making it difficult for her to manage the commission effectively (Quinn, 2009). By contrast, the conditions in Uganda appeared to be even tougher. Due to serious shortage of funding and resources, truth commissioners sometimes had to ask those interviewed to bring with their own paper and pen during the testimonies (Quinn, 2004). The final report, though widely considered as disappointing, was finally completed after eight years.
Publicity and accessibility. Many scholars have argued that insufficient publicity and inadequate accessibility are partly responsible for the failures of some unsuccessful truth commissions. In fact, the “publicity-accessibility” criterion, as pointed out by McCalpin (2012), is often adopted as one of the basic standards to assess the effectiveness a truth commission. The public must be informed of the commissions’ work and findings to the largest extent. As one of the most critically acclaimed truth commissions, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission had done very well in this regard. It spared no efforts in improving its transparency as well as keeping a close cooperation with the media, which ensured that the people could stay updated with the investigation.
Although the Ugandan Commission of Inquiry had created conditions to publicize its work, it failed to win public support and yielded little success. Until the late 1980s, most of the Ugandan people did not have an adequate knowledge of their fundamental human rights (Quinn, 2004). In the case of Haiti, by contrast, it is still difficult today for an ordinary Haitian to access to a copy of the final report of the National Truth and Justice Commission. What’s worse, the majority of the victimized poor population in Haiti had not been properly taken into account. To some extent, they were excluded from the agenda of the Commission. This has received considerable criticism that the Haitian truth commission was nothing but a “futile exercise” (McCalpin, 2012).