Conceptual Understandings of Redress and Reparation

Abstract

In reparation politics, the needs of the group—such as denunciation by the state of its earlier actions, reparations for health and financial losses, and official apologies—can only fully be met through state actions. When the state is the offender, the victim needs the state to take responsibility for wrongs committed. The failure of the state to take responsibility further victimizes the collective and often results in the group maintaining a contentious relationship with the victimizing populace, in addition to continuing psychological and/or mental harm to victimized group members. By committing to redress and reparation, some measure of justice can be achieved, such as reconstruction of a better society, repairing damaged relations, reintegration of offenders or survivors into a legal or moral framework, and political reconciliation between the state and the victimized group.

The state is not an independent actor whose goal is to ensure justice, but in these cases, the perpetrator of an injustice. In addition, individuals within society who acted as perpetrators, or as bystanders, hold, according to Karl Jaspers, criminal, political, moral, or metaphysical guilt for their actions/inactions. Thus, it would be insufficient to exclusively utilize the criminal justice system, as violations occurred not only in the criminal sense, but also in regards to political and moral decisions. As such, when redress and reparation movements negotiate with the offending state to “come to terms with the past” they often seek a wide variety of measures, including criminal, reparatory, legislative, historical and symbolic acts of justice.