THE REALITIES OF WORKING TOWARDS RECONCILIAITON: THE TRUTH COMMISSIONS OF EL SALVADOR AND GUATEMALA
Truth Commissions are often formed in war-torn societies where reconciliation is the
ultimate goal. As described in the previous section, truth commissions theoretically aim to (1)
air the truth of the past in their final reports; (2) promote acknowledgement of that unequivocal
truth and the suffering caused; (3) empower the victims through the truth-telling experience; and,
(4) guarantee imminent measures of restorative justice in their final recommendations. The
question is whether or not these goals are realistic in practice.
There have been more than twenty truth commissions established in the past three decades of
varying scope, intent, and notability. None of these commissions has succeeded in bringing
about a “thicker” degree of national reconciliation. Should this signal to the world that the
objectives of truth commissions are simply too grandiose? Are they inherently destined to fail?
For any truth commission there are variable elements that might affect its success towards
promoting reconciliation: those of internal structure and organization of the commission, and
those of external pressures acting on the commission or on the commission’s public political
space. In establishing a truth commission, there are many decisions that must be made regarding
its structure, composition, powers, and expectations. Truth commissions purport to be promising
visa vis reconciliation, but their consequent results have fallen short of the desired end. What
accounts for the disparity between the ideal and reality of their success? Is it due to the fact that
these truth commissions are designed wrong for their specific contexts, or are inherently flawed?
Are truth commissions a worthy part of the “road to reconciliation?”
26There are five truth commissions ) most commonly and internationally recognized for their
relative success (according to the purposes set out in the mandates) and for important lessons
provided in their experiences: the commissions of Argentina (active 1983-4), Chile (1990-1), El
Salvador (1992-3), South Africa (1995-8), and Guatemala (1997-9). The contexts of the
atrocities investigated in these five countries vary considerably, therefore, the truth commissions
charged with their inquiry and analysis differed in composition, mandated powers, strengths,
specific challenges, and end objectives. In El Salvador and Guatemala, the systematic
extermination of the civilian population by the Armed Forces resulted in massive human and
material loss. El Salvador’s death toll numbered 75,000 in a country with a population of only
about 6 million. Guatemala suffered 200,000 deaths in a country of about 12 million and more
than 400 villages burned off the map. These situations of protracted civil conflict were very
different from the targeted repression, torture, and disappearance of individuals, identified as
politically left-leaning by the military regime in Chile and Argentina. Here, the repression was
clearly one-sided, perpetrated by a military dictatorship against innocent, defenseless citizens.
The dirty wars of Chile and Argentina resulted in more than 3,000 disappearances and between
50,000 and 200,000 victims of illegal detention and torture in Chile 58 and between 10,000 and
30,000 people arrested, interrogated, tortured, and killed in Argentina.
59
The circumstances of
the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission that confronted the overt,
institutionalized racism, oppression, and political marginalization of a forty-five year-old
Apartheid system present still another contrasting case with an innumerable number of victims of
human rights violations. All of these truth commission experiences can teach valuable lessons
about how best to engineer a commission for the best prospects for reconciliation. They also
“Judged by their size, the impact they had on their respective political transitions, and the national and
international attention they received.” Hayner, 32.
27exemplify the limited degree to which a truth c i
national reconciliation.
The balance of this paper explores the truth
potential facilitators of national reconciliation.
mmission can control or steer the course of
commissions of El Salvador and Guatemala as
here are three reasons that these two cases prove
worthy of analysis in the context of the above questions. Firstly, El Salvador and Guatemala are
severe conflict cases of political polarization, massive human cost, and societal break-down. At
the conclusion of their civil conflicts, they were in desperate need of healing and reconciliation at
the societal and political levels. Both countries became good tests for truth commissions’
potentials and power to initiate and further national reconciliation. Secondly, the Salvadoran and
Guatemalan truth commissions are two of the five most recent, prominent truth commissions
listed above. Accordingly, they were designed with the knowledge of valuable lessons from
previous truth commissions. Thirdly, the experiences of the Salvadoran and Guatemalan truth
commissions may provide lessons regarding structure and external politics for future
commissions emerging from similar contexts.
It is true that each tragic case of atrocities for which a truth commission has been established
occurs in a context unique to that place and time. Still, the contexts, experience, and challenges
of these two truth commissions, may be the two most relevant commissions to present-day truth
commission initiatives in Sierra Leone, Bosnia, and Rwanda. Truth commissions in El Salvador
and Guatemala were established as part of a comprehensive peace process, as in the case of
Sierra Leone, in order to heal a deeply polarized polity and social fabric torn by protracted civil
conflict, like those in the Balkans and in the Lakes region of central Africa.
The two Central American cases of El Salvador and Guatemala provide an interesting
comparative study. In these cases, truth commissions were established during peace accord
28negotiations and in the context of parallel political, military, and social conflict. In both
countries, the conservative-right government utilized the national army and paramilitary forces to
fight a counterinsurgency campaign, framed in the context of the Cold War, against leftist
guerillas and a perceived popular base. In both cases a civilian population found themselves
caught in the middle and fell victim to the severest brutality. A permeating culture of violence,
distrust, and fear made the issue of national reconciliation a central issue during peace accord
negotiation, an essential goal for post-accord measures, and an overwhelming future challenge.
The Salvadoran and Guatemalan truth commissions were created in order to help foster
reconciliation between political enemies of war and between the powerless victims and their
power-holding perpetrators. Facing the truth of the past would hopefully help the country to
look inside itself and examine its problems, reconcile with itself, and commit to new human
rights standards for the future. The crucial reports of the Salvadoran and Guatemalan truth
commissions were released to the public and to the parties of the peace accords twelve and seven
years ago, respectively. Before progressing to an evaluation of the consequent effectiveness of
these truth commissions and their reports towards reconciliation, this paper will provide a brief
historical overview of the conflict and establishment of a truth commission in each country.
Tags: Apartheid, Guatemalan, nstitutionalized racism, oppression, political marginalization, Salvadoran, South African