Why Do States Adopt Truth Commissions After Transition?

Abstract

Objectives Why do states create a truth commission after political transition? This article answers this question by testing three key theories after surveying the existing literature: transnational advocacy networks, the balance of power between old and new elites, and diffusion theory. Methods Cox proportional hazards models were used to explain the adoption of a truth commission. I used the Transitional Justice Database Project database on truth commissions in 71 countries that became democracies between 1980 and 2006. Result Strong evidence supports transnational advocacy networks and diffusion explanations. First, active domestic and international advocacy is a key factor. Second, diffusion theory is supported, as establishing a truth commission in neighboring countries is a relevant factor. Transitional countries are most sensitive to truth commissions adopted in culturally similar countries. Conclusion I found empirical evidence supporting the relevance of diffusion, domestic advocacy groups, and international actors.

Do Truth Commissions Really Improve Democracy?

“…This assumption, that the instrument only influences the outcome variable through the mediating endogenous variable, cannot be empirically tested, but must be theoretically supported (Sovey & Green, 2011). We contend that the regional incidence of TCs is a reasonable instrument, because TCs are regionally clustered, suggesting diffusion processes (Kim, 2019). However, there is no obvious reason why a country should alter its democratic institutions or practices because neighboring countries established TCs.…”

Hawaiian psychology: Ka lama kukui: Kūkākūkā (talking story) and Hawaiian historical and racial trauma.

“…Those in control of the narrative wield the power to determine who is seen as the victim or the villain. The use of narrative methods, such as truth and reconciliation trials, storytelling, and counter-storytelling have effectively mitigated the suffering of some victims of HT and RT (Kim, 2019; Lowenheim, 2009; Zvobgo, 2020). In South Africa, truth and reconciliation panels allowed sufferers to face perpetrators who publicly reveal their harm-doing.…”

“A Showpiece Gesture”: Strategic Legitimation and Commissions of Inquiry in Sri Lanka

“…As the previous discussion illustrates, justice mechanisms that are implemented in democratic transitions are usually driven by key factors, including the balance of power between the old and new regimes, strategic preferences of incoming leaders, strong civil society movements, diffusion and the influence of international actors (Pion-Berlin 1994;Huyse 1995;Dancy and Poe 2006;Sikkink 2011;Kim 2019). Yet, justice processes may also emerge because of conditions that are separate from the conventional goals of a democratic transition.…”

“…Specifically, truth commissions are often viewed as a political compromise when the balance of power between the outgoing and incoming administrations is relatively equal and there are attempts at powersharing (Dancy and Poe 2006;Roper and Barria 2009). Additionally, truth commissions tend to emerge after a political transition when there is a push for accountability from transnational advocacy networks, and when truth commissions have been previously established in culturally similar neighboring countries (Kim 2019). Research on post-conflict transitions find that truthseeking commissions tend to be created by political elites when there is a negotiated settlement, like a peace agreement (Olsen, Payne, and Reiter 2010).…”