The Politics of Past Evil: Religion, Reconciliation, and the Dilemmas of Transitional Justice (review)

The Politics of Past Evil sheds light on an important question: How do newly established democratic governments—in countries that previously lived under Communism, military dictatorship, or apartheid—address the crimes and injustices committed by the previous regime? The state can grant amnesty to the former dictators and organize public hearings before truth-and-reconciliation commissions, or it can imprison and ostracize the erstwhile rulers. The tradeoff between what is morally right and politically expedient poses one basic quandary: If the state forgives the wrongdoers, political stability will not be threatened, but the victims’ dignity will be tarnished. If, instead, the state opts to punish the offenders, the victims will win redress, but society might become polarized and the scarce resources for building democracy might be exhausted. The contributors to this volume ask under what conditions the political benefits of exonerating the offenders outweigh the moral losses to the victims.

In dealing with this complex puzzle, the book brings together theological, philosophical, and political approaches that in combination are rich in insights and exhaustive in their treatment. A true testimony to the methodological achievement of the book is the compatibility of views offered across disciplines.

The first chapter, by Daniel Philpott (who also provides a useful introduction), and the third chapter, by Nicholas Wolterstorff, offer philosophical rationales. Philpott argues that the liberal tradition of political philosophy, with its emphasis on personal rights and individual freedom, is fundamentally at odds with institutionalized reconciliatory practices. Wolterstorff advocates conditional forgiveness. Although he acknowledges that reconciliation effectively allows criminals to go unpunished for grave offenses, he outlines a philosophical warrant for amnesty when the perpetrator repents.

The fifth chapter, by A. James McAdams, and the sixth chapter, by Mark R. Amstutz, introduce political perspectives. Reviewing the debate about opening the secret police files of public officials in Germany in the 1990s, McAdams argues that the decision to administer transitional justice was neither rational nor informed. Rather, the opening of the files was simply the least costly compromise between the groups calling for justice and those demanding exoneration. Amstutz compares the public trials of political offenders in South Africa and Argentina and convincingly argues that forgiveness helps to foster strong democratic institutions and national unity.

The remaining three chapters make the case for forgiveness from a theological viewpoint. Alan J. Torrance avers that unconditional “evangelical” forgiveness is preferable to political amnesty because the former triggers true remorse, whereas the latter only alleviates the perpetrator’s sense of guilt. David B. Burrell advocates forgiveness because it fosters a conversation between conflicting religions. He rightly notes that religions are inherently open to many interpretations and that the understanding gained from respecting other religions can reveal the best way to interpret one’s own faith. This awareness in turn holds the key to political peace. In a chapter focusing on Northern Ireland, Ronald A. Wells traces the connection between mutual understanding and political peace in showing that political reconciliation in Northern Ireland spawned strong personal friendships between Catholics and Protestants.

The book as a whole is both innovative and provocative. It enriches the literature on democratization by introducing theological as well as political and philosophical reasoning into the transitional logic. On a fundamental level, democracy is about choosing accountable representatives, and elections are repeated acts of imposing responsibility and accountability. Nonetheless, contributors to the book convincingly argue that forgiveness in politics can be conducive to democracy in the long term even though it begins by removing responsibility from the offender. The proposition that one can successfully build a regime of accountability premised on an act of arguably denying it is truly fascinating.

At the same time, this idea provokes many questions. Philpott and his fellow contributors should clarify whether the logic of reconciliation applies only to periods of democratic transition. The book professes to discuss issues of transitional justice, but of the...