Why address the scars of the past? Many African countries coming out of conflict face poverty and other daunting challenges that require immediate and effective action. A serious consideration of the past may therefore not be a high priority. What is more, some may even consider that by recalling the past, they will reopen old wounds that would have otherwise faded away with time.
Experience has shown, however, that addressing the scars of the past is the best way to guarantee that the crimes of the past do not happen again. The most successful reconciliation efforts have been those where governments have, at some risk and against the odds, made a genuine attempt to confront past abuses.
These thoughts were in the back of the minds of African parliamentarians who participated in the Regional seminar on the role of parliaments in national reconciliation in Africa, held in Bujumbura from 7 to 9 November 2005.
The painful history of the seminar's host country, Burundi, epitomizes the hardship that comes with conflict. Today, the country is at a crossroads.
Presidential and legislative elections in 2005 have radically changed its political landscape. Significant strides have been made in securing peace, though fighting still continues in some parts of the country. The new authorities have expressed their commitment to uncovering the truth of the past. Discussions are under way to define the parameters of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
The difficult decisions that Burundians now face served as a starting point for much of the debate on the use of transitional justice mechanisms for reconciliation, which, in addition to truth commissions, may also include trials, reparation programmes for victims and institutionalreform. Members of parliament everywhere in Africa are ideally placed to initiate a nationaldebate to identify the right mix of these mechanisms that would serve the reconciliation process in their own countries.
While according to the participants in this event TRCs can indeed make an essential contribution to reconciliation, their success is not guaranteed. There are many pitfalls and questions to be answered, the first of which concerns the timing for the creation of such a commission. Will its establishment unify, or divide? Are the former rulers capable of frustrating the entire exercise, including by putting those who choose to tell the truth at risk? Will the new authorities use the commission to take revenge? What kind of truth is being sought? Which period of abuse should the commission look into? How can the authorities make sure that the TRC's creation and work is a nationwide endeavour, and is supported by all?
When providing reparation to victims, there is the challenge of determining appropriate compensation. In the event of massive violations, how does the State provide redress, and how does it obtain the required resources? In discussing the option of prosecuting perpetrators of abuses, the magnitude of the violations makes it sometimes impossible for the ordinary justice system to respond. The use of gacaca courts in Rwanda aims to provide an answer to this challenge and has the advantage of involving society in the administration of justice at the grassroots level. The pursuit of justice also raises another important question. Where should it take place? In principle, a justice system which is close to those whom it is meant to serve is preferable. However, often the national justice system is very weak and cannot live up to its responsibility to dispense justice. The International Criminal Court or a hybrid nationalinternational tribunal could then offer an alternative
The summary and recommendations of the seminar may be found on its dedicated web page