Topic:Transitional Justice

Description: [?]

Preferred language style: English (U.S.)

In this essay, I will argue that truth telling most undergo a rigorous
vetting process, which is only achieved through official truth telling
apparatuses. With that said, I do not purport that other means of
truth expression is inadequate, but that these mediums must
complement, and not undermine the official process. First, this essay
will highlight several of these truth methodologies and examine some
of their strengths and weaknesses. Then it will give an illustration
of the official process and explain why it may be superior to all
other mediums. Lastly, it will propose a manner in which to integrate
all these mediums instead of trading-off one for the other.

Your focus on truth-telling and you are to distinguish between formal
and informal approaches. Often, the informal approaches will be
responses to people’s perceptions that the formal approaches are
leaving out important issues or are not getting at the whole truth.
And you’re suggesting that you think of formal and informal approaches
as complementary.
It’s plausible that official truth commissions can do things that
other initiatives cannot do: for example, they have privileged access
to documents and witnesses, and more means of tabulating data and
presenting it. At the same time, informal approaches can be better at
other things. For example, truth commissions might be constrained in
terms of their mandate (as in South Africa), so they might not look at
certain violations (of socio-economic rights, for example), and at
certain victims (of forced removals, for example). So maybe informal
approaches can be better at some things than official truth
commissions?
There is a lot of evidence that getting at the truth through testimony
and the gathering of evidence can be conflictual and disappointing for
people who testify as well as to those who follow the commission work.
Trauma theorists often argue that without talking about trauma, one
cannot work through it. But it’s not clear that TRCs are the best
place for doing this talking. And “working through” trauma usually
doesn’t result in closure, but in a form of memory in which the trauma
is part of the past, and not felt as an immediate pain in the present.
Choosing the South African Truth Commission as example for the paper

The outline:

-Truth Commissions
South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)
Provide healing to the victims (focal point)
Psychotherapists view: people can recover from mass traumas from
speaking about their bad experiences
Does the reenactment of a torture, rape and murder, an effective
method of truth telling? This truly is an ominous concern as it raises
issue of regression and not transition. Arguably, reliving the past
through these commissions can doubly-victimize the victim,
particularly if their offender goes unpunished.
Amnesty
Truth commissions are complementary to prosecutions and should not be
seen as a substitute for judicial accountability and prosecution
Prosecutions are offender centered

-Stage and Perform Plays

-�Outing� (former regime members)
Objective: bring light to something that has remained hidden in society
__
These performances of the truth can at times become more than just
peaceful symbolism and escalate to acts of violence. But how effective
are these other mechanisms of truth telling in the transitional
justice process? More importantly, does performing the truth run the
risk of exploiting others pain and suffering for profits or worst
satisfying the curiosity of on looking westerners?

As observers and practitioners of human rights what should be
considered the truth? Is the truth an official document produced under
the auspices of the international community in conjunction with the
new government? On the other hand, is the truth the testimony of
everyday individuals even those who opt not to participate in official
truth finding proceedings?

It can be changed, but I like the structure to be similar.