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.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Subscribe

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

http://prosyn.org/mzcOSFG;

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.