Truth, Reparations and Social Cohesion

Transitional Justice Lessons from Peru

Elisabeth Bunselmeyer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000045116
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Jura
• Subtopic: Rechtstheorie & -praxis

This book addresses the effectiveness of transitional justice mechanisms for repairing social cohesion.

Truth commissions and reparation programs are implemented worldwide to enhance social cohesion, peace and democracy in post-conflict settings. Most claims about transitional justice measures are, however, normatively and not empirically based.The book questions whether attention from a truth and reconciliation commission can truly change the lives of the violence-affected people and whether monetary compensations or communal projects in form of milk cows can ever truly "repair" the harm suffered. The within-country comparative case study analyzes the effects of the commission and reparation program in Peru. It studies the post-conflict situation and the development of social cohesion in communities affected by the internal armed conflict. Using detailed empirical data this analysis reveals why the "reparation" of social cohesion in Peru was an impossible task. Contributing to a broader understanding of the impact of nationally applied transitional justice instruments in local settings, the book further offers a new framework for analyzing social cohesion as one of the aims of transitional justice processes.

Offering a detailed account of transitional justice processes and social cohesion on the micro level, as well as an important analysis of their relationship, this innovative monograph will be invaluable for transitional justice scholars and students, as well as for international political and societal actors who are involved in transitional justice measures.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Truth, reparations, and social cohesion in Peru

[…] the Comprehensive Reparation Plan for violence-affected victims. We will continue with the effort of social inclusion and attention for our fellow citizens in situation of vulnerability, breaking the historic intergenerational transmission of poverty and social exclusion because we want to consolidate a democratic country for everyone.¹

The former president of Peru, Ollanta Humala, claimed the comprehensive reparation program for victims of the internal armed conflict as a success of his government in his annual speech to the nation in July 2014. In Peru, a truth and reconciliation commission (TRC) investigated past atrocities and a reparation program was implemented to attend to the needs of the victims of the internal armed conflict that occurred in the country from 1980 to 2000.

Interest in the concept transitional justice (TJ) has grown as well as the number of truth commissions, reparation programs, and trials implemented in post-conflict countries worldwide since the 1980s. The United Nations and other international organizations are promoting and financing TJ. Nowadays, we can observe that there is almost always an imperative for TJ, which is based on the normative assumption that a country has to deal with its violent past, victims, and perpetrators in order to secure a peaceful and democratic future. However, these assumptions about TJ are as yet unverified. Research on the impact of TJ has only evolved over the last decade to question whether the applied measures indeed affect politics and society as intended.

This book joins in this discussion and studies the impact of TJ in Peru. In the Peruvian internal armed conflict (1980–2000), two rebel organizations were fighting violently for a new “fair” and inclusive state. The democratically elected governments of that time responded with military and police forces and a violent counterinsurgency strategy to the revolts. Legitimized by the fight against the rebel groups, Alberto Fujimori installed a quasi-dictatorship by dissolving the congress as well as the judiciary in 1992. Fujimori was in power until he left the country because his massive network of corruption was revealed in 2000. The fights among rebel groups, state forces, and self-defense committees resulted in approximately 70,000 dead and disappeared, mainly in rural areas. Within local villages, the lines between victims and perpetrators are blurred as are the lines between these two categories.² Villagers are living next door to their loved ones’ murderers. As a consequence of the violence, social cohesion within the communities was damaged. Values such as solidarity and trust were eroded.

In Peru, as in more than 80 post-conflict societies worldwide, TJ measures were applied to address these legacies of past violence.³ In 2001, a TRC (or commission hereafter) was installed by the interim government that followed the authoritarian presidency of Alberto Fujimori. The commission of national experts worked for two years with international support, collected testimonies, carried out exhumations and public audiences, and published an extensive report in 2003. As part of its recommendations, a comprehensive reparation program was developed. Ever since 2007, the Peruvian government has been giving collective reparations to affected communities with the aim to enhance social cohesion and democracy, as proposed by the TRC and also mentioned by Humala cited earlier. The first individual payments to affected people and families were realized in 2011. While the design of the program as such is generally regarded as a success, its critics are concerned about its late and incomplete implementation. Even now, not all of the affected communities and individuals have received their reparations. Questions arise concerning the effectiveness of the TJ measures applied in Peru. Critical voices doubt that attention from a TRC can truly change the lives of the people affected. Skeptics also question whether monetary compensations or communal projects in the form of milk cows or fish farms can ever compensate for the harm suffered.

This book addresses these questions in a comparative case study in Peru. I investigate the post-conflict situation and the development of social cohesion in communities that were hit by worst of the internal armed conflict. It is a study of a government program and its aims, limitations, and effects. But most of all, it is a study of the people in these communities, their post-conflict lives and their perception of the past, the present, and the future. The study investigates whether the truth commission and reparation program were able to have a positive influence on the development of social cohesion in post-conflict times. It is a study of the micro level of the society where the TJ measures are meant to have a positive impact.

Transitional justice and why it matters

The concept of TJ refers to a “set of practices, mechanisms and concerns that arise following a period of conflict, civil strife or repression, and that are aimed directly at confronting and dealing with past violations of human rights and humanitarian law” (Roht-Arriaza 2006, 2). It has become more important in the debates, and measures to deal with past have been applied by national and international actors all over the world. The origins of TJ can be traced back to the Second World War and the trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo (Bickford 2005; Kritz 1995; Teitel 2000). Mechanisms of TJ include trials or other forms of criminal prosecution, truth commissions, reparation programs, institutional reforms, and memory projects as well as amnesties. One characteristic of TJ is that it combines aspects from many different disciplines such as sociology, psychology, law, political science, and philosophy. Furthermore, it is a very dynamic field, which derived from the practice and is still hard to capture. So far, there is no theory of TJ, which would show what TJ intervention would result in a specific outcome in a given situation nor is there consent on the question whether a theory is needed. There is not even a common notion of what TJ is nor a clear definition of its key factors: truth, justice, and reconciliation. The concept is, however, based on implicit theoretical assumptions. Some recent works made attempts to create a theory and to disentangle those assumptions, but the discussion is still ongoing in this heterogeneous, young, and moving field (Buckley-Zistel et al. 2014; Corradetti, Eisikovits, and Rotondi 2015; Olsen, Payne, and Reiter 2010, 25–28). The present study aims to empirically analyze the assumption that truth commissions and reparation programs enhance social cohesion. By doing so, it further contributes to theory building.

Truth commissions cover a wide field:

Truth commissions are tasked with some or all of the following goals: to discover, clarify, and formally acknowledge past abuses; to address the needs of victims; to “counter impunity” and advance individual accountability; to outline institutional responsibility and recommend reforms; and to promote reconciliation and reduce conflict over the past.

(Hayner 2010, 20)

Hayner (2010, 35–38) classified the Peruvian commission as one of the broadest in its mandate.

Reparation programs to address social, psychological, and economic consequences of violent conflicts have also been applied in many post-conflict societies worldwide. The design of the Peruvian reparation program is classified as very extensive program as well (Laplante 2014, 76–77). Reparations are expected to contribute to individual satisfaction and acknowledgment, and to restore social cohesion within communities and society as a whole. Laplante (2014, 70–79) explains the wide range of possible goals of reparations, reaching from reparative justice with the aim of compensation to socio-economic justice and an equal society in her model “plural justice aims of reparations”.

It becomes apparent that the aims of these two measures and the whole concept of TJ are manifold. The “triumvirate” of truth, justice, and reconciliation is perhaps the most prevalent (Gready 2010). While some see those rather as short-term aims, peace and democracy are categorized as the long-term goals of TJ. The normative origin of TJ is based on Western hemisphere ideas of the state, society, and state-society relations. Overall, TJ measures are supposed to contribute to a peaceful, democratic future (Skaar, Garcia-Godos, and Collins 2016, 27). Whether TJ should focus on democracies can, however, reasonably be questioned.

It is important to note that some of the aims of TJ can contradict each other. Prevalent in the literature was the peace vs. justice as well as the truth vs. justice debate. A very relevant fact is also that the accomplishment of individual rights with certain benefits does not necessarily support social dynamics within a group or society in a positive way but can also have contradictory effects when causing new reasons for envy. This is crucial for the debate about individual reparations in this book.

Skaar and Malca (2015) make clear that most of the aims of TJ are based on normative or philosophical ideas and are not empirically grounded, critical research began only fairly recently. It questions whether TJ achieves what it promises and whether it really has the deterring effect it is meant to have in view of the continuing high number of human rights violations worldwide (Thoms, Ron, and Paris 2008, 19). Furthermore, requests to “localize” TJ and focus more on local conditions and needs, especially the necessities of conflict-affected people, are increasing (Baines 2010; Hinton 2010; McEvoy and McGregor 2008; Méndez 2016; Shaw, Waldorf, and Hazan 2010). Baines (2010, 413) points to the increasing awareness on the unintended effects: “Transitional justice mechanisms are increasingly scrutinized for their impact on the lives of those most affected, the ‘victims’”. Sriram, Martin-Ortega and Herman (2009, 34) hint at a risk: “If the population of a country perceives that the [TJ] strategies and tools are being imposed on them and are not locally appropriate, such practices lose their legitimacy and efficacy”. On the other hand, Lambourne (2009, 47) highlights the possible positive effects of TJ when applied appropriately: “Democratisation of the transitional justice process, which results in local ownership and capacity building, is more likely to contribute to sustainable peacebuilding”.

Within the constantly growing body of scholarship on TJ, an increasing number of studies are questioning whether the respective instrument fulfilled its theorized and mandated aims and objectives in the societies. Van der Merwe, Baxter and Chapman (2009, 4) stress the importance of such evaluations in order to advance both research and TJ practice:

Empirically based research can make a vital contribution to understanding what it means for a society to go through a transitional justice process, and it can help analyze the process’s short- and long-term impact. Such research can serve as the basis for more informed policy decisions in the future.

Skaar (2013, 98) also demands more high-quality research: “More in-depth studies of single cases employing two or more TJ mechanisms, looking at how these interact and affect the process of reconciliation”.

Good overviews of existing research addressing theoretical and methodological challenges ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgments
• List of abbreviations and Spanish terms
• 1 Introduction: truth, reparations, and social cohesion in Peru
• 2 Transitional justice and social cohesion: a new framework
• 3 The challenge of measuring social impact: the quasi-experimental research design
• 4 Four villages, truth, reparations, and social cohesion
• 5 Ten villages, truth, reparations, and social cohesion
• 6 Individuals, truth, reparations, and social cohesion
• 7 Conclusion
• Annexes
• Index