Argument: Truth and reconciliation are more important than retribution following violent and long term conflicts

It is important to uncover the real truth of what happened during periods of violence and/or repression. Uncertainty as to the fate of loved ones, the identity of informants or the motives for certain actions can maintain the grip of a conflict over the minds of its victims for many years [i] . The unreason and capriciousness of certain actions can undermine an individual’s identity and capacity to trust. A victory is supposed to bring rapprochement, reason and stability to a conflict zone – but it is unable to have this effect on individuals without some method of rationalising a conflict [ii] .

This result can only ever be achieved with the cooperation of those responsible; the individuals who had access to relevant documents or even participated in violent acts [iii] . Without this collective revelation of grief and guilt, the families of the victims will never know the truth about their suffering, and so will not be able to mourn them with dignity. The nation must also confront its past so that those who did not commit violence themselves, but who supported violent groups or repressive regimes, even if only passively, can no longer claim, "I did not know" but must acknowledge their part too and commit themselves to building a better society.

[i] National Healing and Reconciliation in Zimbabwe: Challenges and Opportunities. P 9. 2010, Pamela Machakanja. http://www.ijr.org.za/publications/pdfs/IJR%20AP%20Monograph%201%20Zimbabwe%20WEB.pdf

[ii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 1, 54-58. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/index.htm

[iii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 142-143. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/index.htm

Candidate 1: "Terrible crimes deserve appropriate punishments. Ignoring the past may not be a good idea, but war criminals (especially the leaders of violent groups) should be brought to justice in public trials.

This approach is the only way to ensure that dangerous men are not allowed to continue to act in and influence vulnerable societies. Such individuals are often opportunistic, using periods of peace to re-arm and refresh political sympathies, before resuming campaigns of violence. Indeed, the notorious Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony took advantage of peace negotiations initiated in early 2008 to rearm his followers and to forcibly recruit child soldiers for communities in south Sudan and Congo [i] .

Adversarial justice also allows punishment to be proportionate, distinguishing between individuals who planned violence and repression, and those who followed their orders, rather than granting all the same amnesty.

Most importantly, treating communal and political violence as a crime sends a message to other would-be warlords and dictators, both at home and abroad, that justice will not be denied; the easy assumption of amnesties will only encourage future violence.

[i] “Lord’s Resistance Army uses truce to rearm and spread fear in Uganda”, The Times, 16 December 2008. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/207/39842.html"
Candidate 2: "Even the best Truth and Reconciliation process can only arrive at a partial version of the truth. This may take so many years that political development is halted while society relives the trauma through commission proceedings.

Truth and reconciliation commissions also impose a particular form of morality upon both their participants and the post conflict society they serve. This moral perspective draws upon specifically Christian traditions of confession, absolution and forgiveness that may be alien to victims and perpetrators alike. Even in an almost completely Christian South Africa, many victims' families rejected the process for this reason; it is even less well suited to other societies and cultures.

It is no coincidence that the truth and reconciliation process is so heavily promoted by European and American think tanks, government and NGOs. It fits into a decidedly Christian niche and presents western donors and aid givers with an image of progress that they can understand an easily approve of. However, without closer ties to the cultural contexts in which past political violence took place, reconciliation commissions run the risk of obstructing political and social reform in the very societies that they are intended to protect."

Even the best Truth and Reconciliation process can only arrive at a partial version of the truth. This may take so many years that political development is halted while society relives the trauma through commission proceedings.

Truth and reconciliation commissions also impose a particular form of morality upon both their participants and the post conflict society they serve. This moral perspective draws upon specifically Christian traditions of confession, absolution and forgiveness that may be alien to victims and perpetrators alike. Even in an almost completely Christian South Africa, many victims' families rejected the process for this reason; it is even less well suited to other societies and cultures.

It is no coincidence that the truth and reconciliation process is so heavily promoted by European and American think tanks, government and NGOs. It fits into a decidedly Christian niche and presents western donors and aid givers with an image of progress that they can understand an easily approve of. However, without closer ties to the cultural contexts in which past political violence took place, reconciliation commissions run the risk of obstructing political and social reform in the very societies that they are intended to protect.
