Are historical "Truth Commissions" useful? (Belgium's colonial legacy)

Just read Tine Destrooper's paper critiquing the Belgium Truth Commission.

The author argues, in this particular case, the Commission has many limitations – but still could have "expressive" value (e.g. further socialise struggles for justice, and lead to future change).

The background:

• In 2020 the Belgian Parliament established a "Special Parliamentary Commission" (referred to as a "Truth Commission") to enquire into Belgium’s overseas colonial legacy.

• This Commission is notable -- Belgium is the "first consolidated democracy to establish a truth commission to investigate the historical and ongoing injustices related to overseas colonialism".

I found the paper a helpful commentary on the Commission:

• The author analyses the Commission's establishment, as well as (the largely negative) reaction of various stakeholders -- and offers her own critique.

• The Commissions can play an important "expressive" role -- i.e sending a message to larger society (e.g. cementing values, norms). This is separate from any "accountability" role the Commission may (or may not) have.

• While the author is quite critical of the Commission (e.g. over-ambitious, impossiblly short timelines, insufficient representation of experts), the author also offers reasons to (potentially) be hopeful:

"While acknowledging the pertinence of this concern, I have nevertheless argued that even under the current circumstances, the work of the commission could have a more far-reaching impact than can be gauged at present, if we consider its expressivist potential. It could generate momentum as well as a dynamic of rhetorical entrapment or socialization that could provide breeding grounds for further struggles for justice and thick accountability that may then have more potential to disrupt the status quo, lead to more transformative justice efforts, and challenge epistemic injustice."

Some quick thoughts:

• It seems to me that any exercise like this (a Truth Commission) is bound to be imperfect, due to various constraints (many were alluded to in the paper). Some of these constraints may be technical (e.g. policymaker capacities, time limits, subject matter complexity).

• Other constraints relate to political acceptability (e.g. the scope/ambit of the Commission, commitments following Commission findings). The author makes the point that having government backing is key, as it legitimises a Commission. And so if a society wants to initiate a Commission exercise, the boundaries of the government (at that particular time) are an implicit limit to the Commission's ambition.

• These constraints are not permanent, but there's rarely a "perfect time". And so, I appreciate the author's effort to find a (potential) silver lining.