Misportraying Truth's Commission

There are different kinds of justice. Retributive justice is largely Western. The African understanding is far more restorative - not so much to punish as to redress or restore a balance that has been knocked askew.

-Desmond Tutu

By Marco Cáceres
US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's opposition to the establishment of a Truth Commission to determine the facts surrounding the events that led to the overthrow of Manuel Zelaya may not be as outlandish as I initially thought, although our reasoning for sharing this position was probably arrived at differently. Mr. Rohrabacher believes that the "book is closed" on Honduras' political crisis, and thus that there is no need for such a commission. I sense his position is based on wishful thinking and a less than superficial understanding of Honduras. I have a problem with the commission because I think that the primary motivation behind it is political, specifically to fulfill another key provision of the Tegucigalpa-San José Accord. The ultimate goal is to check off as many provisions as possible to show that Honduras has faithfully complied with the agreement and, consequently, deserves to be fully re-integrated into the community of nations.

In other words, the commission is primarily a tool for helping achieve recognition of the Lobo administration by as many governments as possible. In-and-of-itself, the goal is a worthy one. If forming the commission and having it produce an official report hastens an end to Honduras' political and economic isolation, then great. My issue isn't with the potential positive effect of the commission, but rather with the way the idea of the commission is being portrayed to the people of Honduras... as a vehicle to help facilitate the process of national reconciliation. I think that tying the commission to reconciliation is disingenuous because there does not yet exist a sincere desire for reconciliation within Honduran society. What exists is a desire by a very large segment of the population to move forward and try to put the Zelaya saga behind it. But that is not the same as reconciliation.

National reconciliation, as occurred in South Africa after the dismantling of apartheid, involves people on opposite ends of a conflict coming together over a series of public meetings and hearings to listen to each other's perspectives, grievances, fears, and hopes and eventually develop empathy for the other side's actions, feelings, and words. It involves individuals being able to admit their own mistakes and the possibility that they may have been wrong, and a deep desire to ask for forgiveness. It involves individuals sincerely feeling the need to grant forgiveness and placing reconciliation above the traditionally more valued concept of being right.

What we have seen in Honduras during the past two months is a few people within the newly-elected government talking about unity and reconciliation. There have also been some courageous moves by President Porfirio Lobo to incorporate into his administration people from opposition political parties for the sake of creating a sort of unity coalition government. Mr. Lobo even brought in César Ham and Marvin Ponce of the socialist Unification Democratic Party. Mr. Ham has been among Mr. Zelaya's closest advisers. He was given the directorship of the National Agrarian Institute (INA), while Mr. Ponce is now the Vice-President of the Congress.

Bringing members of the opposition into your fold is a strategically savvy move. It creates division within the opposition and weakens it. At least in the short-term, it strengthens you and your team because it makes you look like a uniter to some... although to others you're merely viewed as someone who is co-opting their players. The point is that this is not reconciliation, because you are still not engaging the people who feel they have been wronged and are seeking "justice".

It may be that the number of people in Honduras who feel they have a grievance that is not being addressed is relatively small, but small should never be confused with insignificant, and it is precisely that segment of the population that will remain a potentially destabilizing force in the country for years to come. These citizens will not be reconciled or placated by any Truth Commission, and to suggest otherwise is simply an exercise in deluding the public.

If we are serious about national reconciliation in Honduras, then I would recommend to whomever sits on the Truth Commission that they closely study South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) set up in 1995. The TRC succeeded in helping South Africa avoid a bloodbath by emphasizing "restorative justice" over the kind of justice the stresses punishment or retribution, which is what too many in Honduras would prefer. Clearly, Honduras is not South Africa. Honduras has not suffered even a fraction of what South Africa did... and that may be precisely why it is vastly more interested in being accepted again by the world than in getting Hondurans to learn how to fully embrace and forgive each other.