Truth commissions and democratic transitions: Neither truth and reconciliation nor democratization in Nepal

Abstract

Truth commissions have become increasingly viewed as necessary for the establishment and consolidation of democracy in states undergoing transitions from authoritarian rule. Yet, their ability to function effectively and contribute to democratization rests, in part, on the preexistence of core democratic values in the states and societies they serve. This article examines how this paradoxical relationship between truth commissions and democratic transitions has played out in the case of Nepal. It argues that, although a truth and reconciliation commission was included in Nepal’s 2006 peace agreement to facilitate the country’s redemocratization process, the implicit political compromise on which it was established—together with a problematic legislative process, lack of commitment to human rights, and weak respect for the rule of law—has made it nearly impossible for the TRC to make any meaningful contribution to truth, justice, or democracy.

Notes

1 Wide variation exists in accounts of the numbers of institutions counted as truth commissions. For example, whereas the Transitional Justice Research Collaborative (2014) listed 71 cases, Dancy et al. (2010) identified just 37 cases between the 1970s and mid-2000s. For a discussion of “what counts” as a truth commission, see Brahm (2009:10).

2 A smaller number of truth commissions have been instituted in established democracies to address historical crimes. See, for example, Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2008), which was established to document the history and impact of the Canadian Indian residential school system on indigenous students and their families.

3 Some recent scholars (e.g., Sarkin 2018) have begun to question the backward-looking emphasis of truth commissions and highlighted the benefits of adopting more forward-looking definitions of their functions and purposes.

4 Bakiner referred to these as the “causes for the causes” (2014: 14).

5 It is worth noting that as this assessment was made before the TRC was actually operational, it too speaks to the truth commission–democratization paradox. That is, the failure of the democratic process to establish the TRC in a timely fashion made it impossible, by the time this assessment was undertaken, for the commission to have had an impact on democratization.

6 An exception to this was the Commission of Inquiry into the Disappearance of People in Uganda established in 1974 to “investigate the accusations of disappearances at the hands of the military forces” during the rule of President Idi Amin (Hayner 2002: 51).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (DP180103138).