Document Library

Rethinking Truth and Reconciliation Commissions: Lessons from Sierra Leone

Author: R Shaw
Date: 2005
Size: 20 pages (20 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs), are increasingly viewed as a standard part of any national post-conflict healing process. Can TRCs contribute to social recovery? This paper, published by the United States Institute of Peace, investigates Sierra Leone's TRC, which began its public hearings in 2003. It examines the compatibility of the TRC with the local recovery strategy - a "forgive and forget" approach. It argues that the TRC will be more effective if it builds on established practices of healing and coexistence.

TRCs became popular during the Reagan era as a means of dealing with repressive Latin American regimes. More recently it has been held that the public recounting of memories of covert, state-sponsored crimes is deemed a redemptive process. TRCs provide an opportunity for the previously silenced stories of victims to be publicly acknowledged. The process of remembering is intended to avoid reoccurrence. TRCs therefore rest on the premise that past atrocities must be confronted in order to face the future.

Sierra Leone's TRC was popular among local NGOs and human rights activists, but gained less support among the wider population. The TRC in Sierra Leone was not well adapted to the local context. The 'forgive and forget' approach, or social forgetting, which is the traditional and established local practice for recovery was the most popular amongst the people. This approach had been used to reintegrate child soldiers in the North. Verbal remembering has proved useful where state-sponsored, clandestine human rights abuses have taken place, but in Sierra Leone, crimes and killings were common knowledge as no attempt was made to conceal them in the first place.

Wherever TRCs are contemplated, scepticism is encountered. These can be based on:

• Fear of retaliation by the perpetrators of past crimes and worries of government retribution.
• Concerns about the coexistence of different justice mechanisms (in Sierra Leone's case the TRC and the Special Court for Sierra Leone).
• A discrediting of the assumption that TRCs give purportedly universal benefits. The process of verbally remembering violence is problematic and largely based on Western historical processes.

There will always be a need to document atrocities through first-hand accounts. This can contribute to the development of stable national institutions. However, as Sierra Leone's experience shows, specific considerations must be taken into account before establishing a TRC:

• TRCs can empower previously silenced survivors and are an important means of establishing accountability after periods of covert state violence. But such outcomes are unattainable in cases of overt crime and where there is no recourse to retributive justice.
• It is essential to gauge popular support for this type of healing process. The views of all people should be taken into account, rather than instigating plans based on the views of local politicians and NGOs.
• Any process of healing is more effective if created in line with established practices, rather than negating the value of cultural preference.
• Recovery can in fact be undermined if external practices that seem to vehemently oppose local tradition are thrust upon the population. In Sierra Leone, communities were in fact divided over their views towards the TRC.

Access full text: available online

Source: Shaw, R., 2005, 'Rethinking Truth and Reconciliation Commissions: Lessons from Sierra Leone', United States Institute for Peace, Special Report, no. 130