One key goal of this project was to examine how political apologies are viewed in different countries, and whether or not key assumptions regarding such gestures are shared by people across the world (e.g. that collectives can be held responsible for past wrong-doing, that people can feel ashamed for actions by their country, that apologies by states are an appropriate way to deal with past human rights violations). For this, we conducted more than 240 in-depth interviews, conducted so-called vignette studies (N>500), and collected more than 1300 surveys in different parts of the world (Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Poland, The Netherlands, US) to assess people’s ideas about collective responsibility, shame and guilt, and their views on the value and meaning of apologies by the state in the aftermath of human rights violations (also relative to other transitional justice measures). We also conducted a survey across 33 countries, whereby we focused on people’s attitudes toward state apologies for human rights violations in general, and by their own country in particular. Overall, we find that people across the world see the value of state apologies at a more abstract level, although they are often less likely to accept collective responsibility and support the offering of an apology for wrongdoing by their own country. We also find that people’s notions in this regard are shaped more by the cultural context than by the political context, and in particular by the extent to which face and honor norms and the collective are emphasized in a country.
Another key goal in this project was to examine how political apologies are expressed and received across different countries. For this, we created a database of political apologies for human rights violations across the world, which we also coded in terms of their content and form. This database is now publicly available, together with all the coded files (www.politicalapologies.com). We also conducted three case studies on the apologies for the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador, the massacre on Jeju island (South Korea), and Bloody Sunday (UK). We conducted 127 interviews and collected 1,011 surveys among victim and non-victim community members in these countries regarding their evaluation of the meaning and impact of the apology. Finally, we conducted an experimental survey across 32 countries (N> 11,000), in which participants were asked to imagine a situation in which their country had either been the perpetrator or the victim of violence, and in which they evaluated different versions of an apology given for the harm done. Our findings show that political apologies for human rights violations have been offered by countries across the globe, but by liberal democracies in particular. We find that there is remarkable overlap in the types of rhetorical strategies that countries use in these apologies to (1) acknowledge past wrongdoings, (3) bridge past wrongdoings with future intentions, and (3) bond with the intended recipients of the apology. Furthermore, we show how countries use these strategies not only to address the needs of victims, but also to portray and understand themselves, whereby they often imitate the language that has become standard in human rights memorialization practices. Our case studies show that the apology that was offered was seen as a relatively important, but not necessarily as an impactful gesture. For it to be perceived as impactful, it also has to be seen as a meaningful (i.e. sincere) gesture, and this depends (among other things) on people’s trust in the country’s institutions. Overall, our findings suggest that apologies have a role to play in the aftermath of human rights violations, but that it is essential to take the broader context into account.
Our findings have been published in academic journals, and we have also given numerous invited talks and presentations at national and international conferences. We have written popular pieces as well, and we have appeared on radio shows and in podcasts. Our research has also been covered by various magazines. Our database on political apologies has been made publicly available.
