Truth commissions have become a hallmark of post-conflict justice — a tool used by countries emerging from violence to reckon with the past, acknowledge victims’ suffering, and lay the groundwork for peace. Guatemala, Nepal, and Northern Ireland each endured decades of internal conflict marked by mass violence, disappearances, and deep societal division. In the aftermath, they turned — at least to some extent — to truth-seeking initiatives to uncover what happened and begin the process of healing.
But did those efforts bring peace, or were they just words on paper? And what do victims themselves think of truth commissions?
Truth Commissions: A Path to Healing, or More Harm?
War and repression leave deep scars — not only physical, but psychological. Even years after violence ends, many survivors continue to suffer the effects of trauma. Truth commissions are often promoted as mechanisms to process that pain. By offering a space for testimony and official recollection of the past, they are thought to help individuals and societies find closure.
However, recent evidence suggests that truth commissions may not always bring relief. For some, truth-telling reopens old wounds, especially when commissions fail to deliver justice or bring meaningful change. Moreover, truth commissions often lack the time, resources, and therapeutic support required to address psychological trauma. Without sufficient support or follow-through on recommendations—like prosecutions or reparations— truth commissions risk deepening disillusionment rather than providing relief.
So, as post-conflict societies weigh the costs and benefits of truth commissions, it’s crucial to listen carefully to the voices of those most affected. And that’s exactly what we did.
Support for Truth Commissions in Nepal, Northern Ireland, and Guatemala
In a recently published article, Karin Dyrstad and I explored how conflict exposure and trauma shape public support for truth commissions. We surveyed nearly 2,700 people in three countries that experienced prolonged internal violence.
Guatemala’s 36-year civil war (1960–1996) left over 200,000 people dead or missing, many of them Indigenous civilians. Nepal experienced a decade-long Maoist insurgency (1996–2006) that resulted in more than 13,000 deaths and widespread human rights abuses. Northern Ireland’s 30-year ethno-nationalist conflict known as “The Troubles” (1968–1998) claimed over 3,500 lives and left communities fractured. Each country pursued truth-seeking differently. Guatemala completed two commissions. Nepal established two commissions, but their progress has been stalled and delayed. Northern Ireland relied largely on grassroots initiatives.
Our study focused on what citizens — and especially victims — think about these processes. Across all three countries, we found broad public support for the idea of truth commissions. Most people, whether directly affected or not, agree that it is important to document the past and give voice to those who suffered.
Trauma, however, influences support in nuanced ways. In Nepal and Northern Ireland, people experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress were more likely to support truth commissions — but only if those commissions had real power. They wanted perpetrators’ names to be revealed and victims to be compensated. In short, they wanted “truth with teeth.”
In contrast, in Guatemala, where official commissions had completed their work years before our fieldwork, trauma had no clear influence on support. Many respondents were children during the war or born after it. This suggests that when a commission’s work lies in the past, those still living with trauma may no longer see truth-seeking as a path to closure.
Peace Needs Prospects, Not Just Processes
One key takeaway from our study is that victims want closure — but only when it still feels achievable. People do not automatically turn to truth commissions as a means to cope with trauma. Instead, they assess what commissions might realistically achieve. When closure feels within reach — when a commission might still deliver answers, recognition, or reparations — support grows, especially among those carrying psychological scars.
But if a commission is perceived as “toothless” or merely lip service, support wanes. A truth commission that does not reveal names or does not lead to compensations is less likely to win the trust of those it aims to serve.
This is especially urgent in places like Nepal, where formal commissions remain stalled, and in Northern Ireland, where the 2023 Northern Ireland Troubles Act has been highly criticized for obstructing the rights of victims to justice and reparations. Policymakers must understand that the truth can heal victims and society. Many victims are willing to confront the past—but only when they believe it could lead to answers, accountability, and meaningful change.
The lesson is clear: Truth commissions can help build peace — but only when people believe they will work. That belief, our research shows, depends on timing, credibility, and the promise of justice and closure.
It’s not just about telling the truth but about making the truth matter.
Policy Message
If we want truth commissions to contribute to lasting peace, we must design them with victims in mind. This means:
– Empowering commissions with the authority to reveal perpetrators and recommend reparations.
– Prioritizing closure—not just for society, but for individuals— by providing answers to specific questions and in specific cases.
– Avoiding empty gestures. Without justice and follow-through, truth commissions risk deepening disillusionment.
Keywords: truth commissions, truth, Guatemala, Nepal, Northern Ireland, The Troubles, conflict, conflict resolution, transitional justice, justice, peace
Amélie Godefroidt
Amélie Godefroidt (PhD) is a political scientist whose research sits at the intersection of Political Communication and Conflict Studies. She investigates how political violence and nonviolent contention influence public opinion and political behavior, employing quantitative and mixed-method designs to uncover the mechanisms behind these shifts. Her work is cross-national in scope, with fieldwork and case studies spanning Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Nigeria, Belgium, and the United States. She is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Research on Peace and Development (KU Leuven) and an incoming Assistant Professor in Conflict Management at IESEG School of Management.
