Do Truth Commissions Really Improve Democracy?

Abstract

This article presents and tests an original theory that truth commissions (TCs) inspire democratic behaviors, but have little discernible impact on democratic institutions. Using quantitative analyses of countries undergoing transitions between 1970 and 2015, and accounting for endogeneity of TCs, we find that these temporary bodies are associated with greater democratic participation and state agent observance of physical integrity rights. However, they have no measurable effect on institutions like fair elections, rules regulating political association, liberal checks on the executive, or judicial independence. This contradicts a key argument in the transitional justice literature that TCs catalyze institutional reform through investigation and extensive recommendations. This article’s findings might encourage those who intend to use these bodies as a tool to promote citizen activism or police restraint. However, the findings might discourage those who hope TCs could jump-start judicial reforms or create a firewall against executive overreach.

Psychosocial effects of Brazilian Truth Commission

“…The Brazilian TC represents a step "towards breaking the military's veto power and affirming human rights", allowing the establishment of new memory policies (Torelly, 2018). However, some authors argue for a distinction between the improvement TCs have in democratic behavior but not in democratic institutions (see Dancy and Thoms, 2022). Therefore, future studies could address this distinction as well.…”

The standardisation of transitional justice

“…Scholars also contribute to generification. The ‘empirical turn’ in political science scholarship on TJ (Dancy and Thoms, 2022: 559) relies on generic conceptualisations to collect many observations for statistical analysis. While legal analysis implicitly confirms the essential nature of first-tier mechanisms when it structures and organises knowledge according to the four core elements (e.g.…”

“…Comparative case studies caution against making TJ a precondition or prerequisite for democratisation (Encarnación, 2012; Skaar et al, 2015), while statistical research produces contradictory results. Large- N studies find that truth commissions variously do not improve electoral democracy on their own (Olsen et al, 2010), have beneficial impact on democratic participation but not institutionalisation (Dancy and Thoms, 2022), or contribute to a decline in repression (Kim and Sikkink, 2010). National trials on average reduce the violation of physical integrity rights but not civil and political rights (Dancy et al, 2019; but see Olsen et al, 2010).…”

La política de memoria en Colombia. El relato histórico del Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica

“…Esto les hace instituciones únicas, ya que no sólo miran hacia atrás, sino que fomentan el reconocimiento público del pasado conflictivo ayudando a la reconciliación. Estos organismos eventualmente proporcionan información suficiente para proceder con casos penales contra los perpetradores, y facilitan diversas formas de reparación y restitución (Dancy;Thoms, 2021;Mathias Espinosa;Rime, 2021;Winston, 2021;Paulson;Bellino, 2021). Es abundante la literatura que se ha dedicado a analizar las narrativas históricas realizadas por las comisiones de la verdad en el continente (Lessa, 2013;Bakiner, 2015;Torelly, 2018;Paixâo, 2021) Fue América Latina la que dio origen a las llamadas comisiones de la verdad, particularmente en Argentina (1984) y Chile (1990), quienes oficialmente crearon comisiones que emitieron informes de la verdad.…”