Abstract

Truth commissions are increasingly used as a transitional justice device in an attempt to move conflict-ridden societies to rights-based periods of stability. Using the case of El Salvador, this article finds that in cases where a truth commission does not directly engage public discourse, it cannot challenge the scripts that dominated the conflict period and therefore defined political actors, for instance as "insurgent" or "national security guarantor." In such cases, the truth commission may publicize "the facts" of the conflict period, but cannot facilitate transition to a new discourse that allows for true reconciliation and participatory governance.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1085-794X
Print ISSN
0275-0392
Pages
pp. 431-452
Launched on MUSE
2011-05-14
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.