What can we learn from a comparison between official truth commissions and Unofficial Truth Projects (UTPs), truth-telling initiatives that emerge from civil society? This Human Rights Quarterly article uses case studies from around the world to examine the two approaches. While neither is superior in terms of truth recovery, they each have certain strengths. The greatest asset of UTPs is their flexibility: they are unique, creative, and appropriate for a local context.
UTPs, like official truth commissions, are based on the idea that by elucidating the truth concerning human rights abuses that occurred in the recent past, societies can build more just, stable, and democratic futures. UTP efforts share certain characteristics but are also very diverse. Their most important attributes are that: they are part of a broader strategy of accountability and justice; they self-consciously or coincidentally resemble official truth commissions; but they are rooted in civil society and are not primarily state-based efforts.
Official truth commissions, given the right conditions, may be more capable than UTPs of establishing a society-wide dialogue about the past. However, UTPs have advantages in terms of community-level truth-telling. Further findings are that:
- In a country mired in or emerging from conflict, or in which the perpetrators are still in power, an unofficial initiative may be preferable to an official one for reasons of perceived neutrality.
- An official truth commission is a potentially expensive endeavour that may have a budget of millions of dollars over a short period of time. This kind of effort could be difficult for a UTP to replicate.
- In spite of essential relationships with civil society, truth commissions are official entities linked to the state. UTPs may be more connected with the community they aim to serve.
- Official truth commissions, when they achieve success and legitimacy for their methods and products, are likely to have a larger impact than UTPs.
There is much that official and unofficial efforts can learn from each other. Formulaic approaches are to be avoided, however:
- The similarities among the multitude of truth-telling examples may suggest the beginning of an overly scientific approach.
- A ‘template’ for truth-telling could lead to initiatives that omit the organic linkages to civil society that have characterised the most successful versions of these efforts.
- The most exciting element of unofficial truth project developments has been that there is no formula—no “one-size-fits all”—and that each has been characterised by context-driven specificity and creativity.
For access to the article via journal subscription see: Human Rights Quarterly
