The Human Face of Justice: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission Process in South Africa David Backer Department of Political Science University of Michigan

Background Third Wave –60+ transitions since 1974 –legacies of violence, abuses and malfeasance Menu of approaches to transitional justice –prosecution –lustration –truth commission –amnesty Truth commissions as a compromise –practical alternative –absence of legal accountability

Impact of Truth Commissions Macro-level studies –Huntington (1991): comparative analysis of regime stability –Botha (1998): large-N analysis of political unrest Community-level studies –Van der Merwe (1998): reconciliation in South Africa Micro-level studies –Gibson & Guows (various): general population survey of tolerance in South Africa Gap: empirical research on victims’ responses

Relevant Literatures Trust in government Political participation Institutional legitimacy Legal processes Justice Democratic consolidation

Research Questions Are truth commissions just in the eyes of victims of human rights abuses? Does direct participation in the process mitigate the sense of injustice?

Data Collection JohannesburgCape Town Questionnaire Design Focus Groups Sampling Database Pilot Test Sep – Oct 00 Aug – Sep 00 Nov – Dec 00 Dec 00 Questionnaire Design Sampling Database Pilot Test Survey Administration Aug – Nov 02 Jan – Oct 02 Nov 02 Nov 02 – Feb 03 Questionnaire Revision Survey Administration Jan – Mar 01 Jul 01 – Feb 02Follow-up InterviewsMar 03 Data Entry/CleaningMar – Jul 02 Data Entry/CleaningJan – Feb 03

Survey Samples Gave statement N=86 Testified N=27 Did not testify N=59 Total N=176 Did not give statement N=90 Johannesburg Gave statement N=80 Testified N=35 Did not testify N=45 Total N=228 Did not give statement N=148 Cape Town Testified N=3

Perceptions of Justice Cape Town Jo’burg Pooled Acknowledgement Voice Truth Accountability Apology Punishment Reparations Changes in Society Total Index (Likert scale: 1=min; 5=max)

Perceptions of Justice Neither Statement Testified Acknowledgement Voice Truth Accountability Apology Punishment Reparations Changes in Society Total Index (Likert scale: 1=min; 5=max)

Acknowledgement Non-Participant StatementTestified Participant  =+0.66  =+0.58  =+0.21

Voice Non-Participant StatementTestified Participant  =+0.85  =+0.74  =+0.28

Truth Non-Participant StatementTestified Participant  =+0.01  =+0.07  =-0.15

Accountability Non-Participant StatementTestified Participant  =-0.29  =-0.34  =+0.13

Apology Non-Participant StatementTestified Participant  =+0.07  =+0.15  =-0.22

Punishment Non-Participant StatementTestified Participant  =-0.03  =-0.04  =+0.03

Reparation Non-Participant StatementTestified Participant  =-0.21  =-0.17  =-0.10

Change in Society Non-Participant StatementTestified Participant  =+0.16  =+0.03  =+0.32

Total Index Non-participant StatementTestified Participant  =+0.16  =+0.13  =+0.08

Key Findings Victims’ perceptions of justice are consistently negative, with the exception of the dimension of acknowledgement. Participation has countervailing effects: positive for acknowledgement & voice, but negative for accountability & reparation. Significant differences between research sites indicate divergent local processes.