Alternative Truths as Reconciliatory Mechanisms in Post-Conflict Societies

Otilia Rehnstrom
{"title":"Alternative Truths as Reconciliatory Mechanisms in Post-Conflict Societies","authors":"Otilia Rehnstrom","doi":"10.33063/pbj.v10i1.164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Truth and reconciliation commissions (TCRs) make use of truth-seeking and truth-telling as reconciliatory mechanisms in the aftermaths of intrastate and intra-ethnic conflicts. TCRs are the subject of scrutiny by many scholars who argue that these mechanisms are incompatible with some local needs, norms and contexts, and therefore suggest that other reconciliatory methods may be more successful. This essay argues that truth-seeking and truth-telling mechanisms can be successfully used for reconciliation efforts if they are reimagined. This is because any incompatibility between these mechanisms and the realities of some local contexts are rooted in the narrow understandings of what truth(s) are relevant for reconciliation, stemming from the fact that they were founded within ‘regimes of truth’ that reflect Western liberal normative ideals. Two TCRs will be examined through engagement with survivor and victim testimony: the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, deemed largely successful, and the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor, deemed largely unsuccessful. It will be illustrated that the understandings of truth that informed both TCRs reflected the local norms and needs of survivors and victims in South Africa than it did those in Timor-Leste. Ultimately, the essay finds that truth-seeking and truth-telling mechanisms need to better align with: one, local practices for reconciliation and addressing conflicts; and two, the needs of the victims in regard to what truths, or what information, they need for healing and reconciliation.","PeriodicalId":300494,"journal":{"name":"Pax et Bellum","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pax et Bellum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33063/pbj.v10i1.164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Truth and reconciliation commissions (TCRs) make use of truth-seeking and truth-telling as reconciliatory mechanisms in the aftermaths of intrastate and intra-ethnic conflicts. TCRs are the subject of scrutiny by many scholars who argue that these mechanisms are incompatible with some local needs, norms and contexts, and therefore suggest that other reconciliatory methods may be more successful. This essay argues that truth-seeking and truth-telling mechanisms can be successfully used for reconciliation efforts if they are reimagined. This is because any incompatibility between these mechanisms and the realities of some local contexts are rooted in the narrow understandings of what truth(s) are relevant for reconciliation, stemming from the fact that they were founded within ‘regimes of truth’ that reflect Western liberal normative ideals. Two TCRs will be examined through engagement with survivor and victim testimony: the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, deemed largely successful, and the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor, deemed largely unsuccessful. It will be illustrated that the understandings of truth that informed both TCRs reflected the local norms and needs of survivors and victims in South Africa than it did those in Timor-Leste. Ultimately, the essay finds that truth-seeking and truth-telling mechanisms need to better align with: one, local practices for reconciliation and addressing conflicts; and two, the needs of the victims in regard to what truths, or what information, they need for healing and reconciliation.
作为冲突后社会和解机制的另类真相
真相与和解委员会(TCRs)在国家内部和种族内部冲突之后利用寻求真相和讲述真相作为和解机制。tcr是许多学者审视的对象,他们认为这些机制与一些当地需求、规范和背景不相容,因此建议其他调和方法可能更成功。本文认为,如果对寻求真相和讲述真相的机制进行重新构想,它们可以成功地用于和解努力。这是因为这些机制与某些地方背景的现实之间的任何不相容都植根于对与和解相关的真理的狭隘理解,这源于它们是建立在反映西方自由主义规范理想的“真理制度”内的事实。将通过接触幸存者和受害者的证词来审查两个TCRs:南非真相与和解委员会(被认为基本成功)和东帝汶接收、真相与和解委员会(被认为基本不成功)。将说明的是,与东帝汶相比,这两项tcr对真相的理解反映了南非幸存者和受害者的当地规范和需求。最后,本文发现,寻求真相和讲述真相的机制需要更好地与:一,和解和解决冲突的地方实践;第二,受害者需要什么样的真相,什么样的信息,来治愈和和解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信