This post is also available in: Português Español

Despite concerns from critics, the truth and reconciliation commission in Honduras deserves a fair shot at its investigation

The Honduran truth and reconciliation commission began its work this month. Its goal, as per the re-negotiated San Jose Agreement that in part brought an end to the Honduran political standoff of 2009, is to investigate the acts before and after the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya on 28 June, and provide an objective, accurate, and exhaustive accounting of them.

This begins amid a spate of violence and human rights concerns, stewing resentment over the controversial political transition in January, and growing public scepticism from both sides on the ability of the commission – which some critics have pronounced “born dead” – to identify truth or foment reconciliation.

Still, there is reason to be hopeful that this commission can do some good.

First, it will bring some measure of finality to 2009’s chaotic series of negotiations – not for everyone, to be sure. But the truth commission is the final piece in what actors from both sides, including Zelaya, agreed was a solid San Jose agreement on paper at the time of its brokering. That agreement also included amnesty for all involved, and the holding of a general election, both of which have taken place.

Second, it’s seen as a key step for further international recognition. The commission offers a chance for world leaders to recognise Honduran efforts at advancement. With US, European and now full Central American recognition, Honduras is seeking to rejoin the OAS, whose secretary general presided over the launch of the truth commission. South American nations at the recent Unasur meeting remained cautious over formalising relations with the government of President Porfirio Lobo, yet most have stopped short of blaming Lobo’s administration or of promising to withhold recognition indefinitely.

Third, and despite critical reaction in Honduras, the six commissioners are credible choices and reflect a sincere and professional handling of the commission’s design. Three are foreigners – a Guatemalan, Canadian, and Peruvian – all non-partisan diplomats with impeccable reputations in their respective countries. In the selection of the three Honduran members – each respected academics – one can see an attempt to include representation from left, right and centrist sensibilities, if not agendas. It’s hard to envision a more balanced commission.

Eduardo Stein, the appointed chair of the commission and former vice-president of Guatemala, was chosen less for his political bonafides than his record as an independent-minded negotiator. The former leftist seminary student and professional musician maintains an ability to surprise with his candour, while recognising that this commission operates at the pleasure of a government that in no uncertain terms represents the “winning side” of the Zelaya ouster.

Those concerned about the confidentiality of testimony that the commission hears should consider that many would be unwilling to testify without this confidentiality. Critics should also remember that any truth commission – like the dozen or so of its kind in Latin America over the past 20 years – are not meant to replace criminal tribunals and have zero prosecutorial authority.

Those with loved ones lost at the hands of hit men, mobs or police officers over the past year may have little reason to find hope in the prospect of the commission’s findings. For the same reasons, though, there is little reason to find more hope in an alternative truth commissionbeing organised by resistance leaders. It could, however, be healthy and illuminating to compare the outcomes of both.

“Given what the people of Honduras have gone through, it’s natural for people to be suspicious of the goals set for this commission,” Stein recently commented, adding that his commission plans on “excluding absolutely no one and no subject” from review. All Hondurans should hold them to this. They should also understand that none of the commissioners have much to gain from either a coup whitewash campaign or golpista witch hunt, nor can they be expected solve the myriad problems and tensions in Honduras today. The commission should be seen as nothing more and nothing less than a small piece in a long-term process of normalisation for a country badly in need of many reforms, but which must first begin to construct a solid foundation on which to build them.

For now, Hondurans and the international community alike should give them a chance to do their work before passing final judgment.