Can truth and reconciliation commissions heal divided societies?

When do truth commissions actually help heal a divided society?

Truth and reconciliation commissions work best when there is genuine political will and citizen buy-in. A 2024 study of TRCs across Africa found that South Africa's post-apartheid commission succeeded in creating an authoritative record of human rights abuses, enabling victims to tell their stories without fear, and recommending reforms to prevent future abuses [2]. However, the same study noted that relapses of conflict and intercommunal hatred in other African countries show that TRCs have not resolved conflicts on their own—success requires willingness from both citizens and political leaders [2].

Religious actors can also play a crucial mediating role. A 2025 comparative study of South Africa and the former Yugoslavia found that religious leaders, with their moral authority and grassroots presence, helped bridge the gap between retributive justice (punishment) and restorative justice (healing and forgiveness) [4]. Through truth-telling rituals, communal confessions, and liturgies of forgiveness, they fostered inclusive narratives of national healing—but only when they remained independent of political allegiances [4].

When do truth commissions fail to heal divisions?

In highly polarized societies, truth commissions may have little to no effect on reducing division. A 2024 experimental study in Spain—where the legacy of the Civil War and Franco dictatorship remains a partisan issue—tested two TRC designs: a 'thin truth' (individual factual knowledge only) and a 'thick truth' (public report and pattern-finding). The study found that neither design significantly reduced the highly polarized reactions of citizens [1]. The authors concluded that restricting truth brings no advantages, as different formats failed to impact reconciliation in a deeply divided context [1].

Another limitation is that TRCs can create moral splits within society. A 2025 analysis of South Africa's TRC argued that it created a division between 'redeemed' victims who forgave and 'resentful' victims who refused to reconcile, marginalizing the latter and prioritizing reconciliation over addressing ongoing inequalities [5]. The author noted that while the TRC did contribute to dismantling apartheid, it did not achieve complete wholeness, and further work is needed [5].

The relationship between TRCs and criminal justice also creates tensions. A 2024 study of Indonesia's efforts to resolve gross human rights violations highlighted the dilemma between prosecuting perpetrators (retributive justice) and using forgiveness for national unity (restorative justice) [7]. The study questioned whether pardoning heinous crimes is feasible and emphasized that courts play a key role in establishing democratic legitimacy—suggesting that TRCs alone cannot substitute for legal accountability [7].

What factors determine whether a truth commission will succeed?

Several factors influence TRC effectiveness, according to a 2025 analysis of potential TRCs in post-conflict Ukraine. Positive factors include a broader transitional justice strategy (not just a standalone commission) and strong international support for reconstruction [3]. Negative factors include a distrustful society, political interference, and 'war fatigue' among international backers [3]. The study stressed that much depends on the commission's staff and procedures, and that political independence is critical [3].

The design of the commission matters, but not always in expected ways. A 2021 review of truth commission impact across multiple countries found that their influence on policy, courts, and social norms is the product of complex interactions between politicians, civil society activists, and the commissions themselves [6]. The review noted that scholars' normative assumptions—whether they prioritize building liberal institutions, transforming social hierarchies, or reflecting local values—shape their assessments of success, leading to divergent conclusions [6].

Finally, the concept of 'Ubuntu justice'—an African philosophy emphasizing the rehabilitation of both victim and perpetrator—offers a framework for genuine reconciliation. A 2022 study of South Africa's TRC argued that for reconciliation to be authentic, the perpetrator must genuinely commit to treating the victim as an equal, affirming their humanity and dignity [8]. This suggests that TRCs must go beyond truth-telling to foster genuine remorse and mutual respect [8].

Sources used in this answer

Related research questions