The Truth About the Yugoslav Truth Commission

When dictatorships fall, how can societies heal the wounds? Truth commissions are increasingly seen as the way forward. But when do they work best and what structures and rules make them work most effectively? When are they a means to unearth the truth and restore social peace and when are they merely a clever way for politicians to avoid responsibility and a reckoning with the past? Serbia is a test case for all of these issues.

In one respect, the body appointed by President Vojislav Kostunica to examine the crimes of Yugoslavia’s recent past is like South Africa’s successful model: it is called a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission." The resemblance ends there.

South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established by legislation after careful consideration by parliament and extensive discussion across the country. Fourteen months elapsed between the time Justice Minister Dullah Omar announced the government's intention to establish a commission and its signature into law by President Nelson Mandela. The mandate and the operating procedures of the Commission were clearly spelled out. A timetable for the Commission to report was specified. Measures were incorporated to ensure that the Commission would obtain the testimony of perpetrators as well as victims.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles from our archive every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which describes the personal data we collect and how we use it.

Log in;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.