One week ago today, a mob of insurgents attacked the US Capitol during a joint session of Congress. They were attempting to disrupt, or even prevent, the certification of the vote of the Electoral College.

Over the weekend, I wrote with some ethical reflections about options which might be considered in response to that crisis: invoking the 25th Amendment, impeachment, and a truth and reconciliation commission. Vice-President Pence has stated that he will not initiate the process for the 25th Amendment. Today, the House is voting on an article of impeachment. And one week from today, Joe Biden will be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States. "Interesting times" really doesn't cover it.

In my last mailing, the notion of a truth and reconciliation commission was not well developed, largely because I was not well informed about what that might involve. Over the last few days, I've done some additional research, and pondered the idea in more detail. I write today to flesh out the topic, and to invite your participation in an ongoing conversation.

My sketchy understanding of what a truth and reconciliation commission does grew almost entirely from what I'd heard about that process in South Africa at the end of apartheid. It was a large-scale, national effort to address the human rights abuses of the white regime, and to avoid cycles of retribution and violence which have often been found in countries making a transition from oppression to democracy. There's a fairly short article by Desmond Tutu -- who chaired the South Africa commission -- which gives a good historical and theological background.

While South Africa may be the most prominent example of this process, truth and reconciliation commissions have been used around the world. A Wikipedia article has an extensive list, with links, including two commissions in the United States. This is a well-tested and viable approach for dealing with national-level conflicts.

Very briefly -- these commissions are rooted in the principles of restorative justice, which seeks to bring reconciliation and healing to victims, offenders and the community. Commissions often have an important role in documenting truth about past abuses, primarily through testimony from the victims. It does not preclude punishment for offenders, but has larger goals for the restoration of the community and the nation. A commission might offer amnesty to offenders who show evidence of genuine repentance, or recommend various forms of punishment or censure for the non-repentant.

In the current setting of US political abuses, and the attempts to delegitimate the recent election, I do acknowledge that the categories of restorative justice are not a strong fit. It is difficult to name a clear group of victims who were specifically targeted (other than Joe Biden). The "victim" through the last two months has been the institution of democracy itself, and the entire national community has shared in that injury. In contrast, the situation of deep-seated structural racism in the US provides an opportunity for a more traditional embodiment of a truth and reconciliation commission -- and there have been calls for such commissions after the killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York, and in last summer's Black Lives Matter protests.

It is important to stress that a truth and reconciliation commission deals with very specific abuses by the oppressive regime. This is not a vague conversation about feelings, or a chance to "hear from all sides." Commissions are called into being to address well-known problems, and they are intended to bring participants in in the systems of oppression and abuse to accountability.

One of the things that I find most attractive about the commission approach is that it does not focus on a judicial, punitive approach to convict individuals for criminal behavior. It is possible for a commission to examine a failed system which allowed abuses in both active and passive ways, and to have a range of potential actions. For example, a US commission might focus on the Senators and Representatives who took the lead in spreading lies about "fraud" in the recent election; who filed lawsuits to overturn state elections or disenfranchise voters; and who used the certification of the Electoral College vote to spread doubt or discord, and to attempt to overturn the election itself. The commission might also examine public figures who were more passive in their chipping away at democracy, such as those who pointedly refused to speak of Mr. Biden as "the President-elect" for two months after it was clear that he won the election. On January 6, as insurgents swarmed through the Capitol, some of those who had filed objections to the electoral vote came to a new realization of the consequences of such acts, and withdrew their complaints. That is the sort of confessional testimony to a commission which would document the real damage caused, and which would show evidence of some level of repentance.

I don't have a developed plan for what an election-based US truth and reconciliation commission would involve. It would be a smaller agenda than those which deal with decades of governmental policy. I offer a few thoughts and questions which might be pertinent if a serious proposal were to be developed.

• A truth and reconciliation commission would probably be convened through an act of Congress, although a "people's commission" might be gathered by some other well-defined and respected coalition. In either case, it must be clear that the goal of the commission is to address wounds to our political system and our national community. The commission must not be seen as pushing a partisan political agenda.
  
• The commission would need to be composed of a fairly small group (15 to 20?) of highly respected individuals who have little to gain personally from their service. This is not an opportunity for politicians to build up their visibility and reputation. The group should be diverse in political affiliation, geography, age/race/gender, and the sort of qualifying experience that they bring to the commission. It might include former politicians, political scholars, community organizers, religious leaders, and experts in restorative justice.
  
• The commission would need a clearly defined task, with specific descriptions of the abuses to be addressed, and a list of outcomes from the commission's process, probably including a report of findings, and recommendations for further action related to individuals.
  
• The list of abuses, and the range of perpetrators, would be significant. I can imagine a specific listing of actions that degraded democracy and fostered insurrection during the last two months. Among these might be: filing spurious lawsuits against state election processes; repeated public statements about election fraud and stolen elections without basis in fact; and sponsorship of unfounded or irrelevant objections to the certification of the electoral vote. Less dramatic actions (a refusal to acknowledge election results, or more passive endorsement of "concerns" about election integrity) also should be included as a part of the commission's research and documentation.
  
• As I've envisioned a potential commission, I've assumed that their focus would be on individuals and entities directly related to the US government -- Senators and Representatives, members of the Cabinet, or senior executives in government agencies. (Mr. Trump, of course, is the prime offender, but I doubt that he'd be a willing participant in the process. He should be named at the center of any report from the commission.) Putting boundaries on the scope of the commission will be essential. Long-standing practices of voter suppression in numerous states, for example, are clearly related to the issues of fair elections in the US, but are probably too complex to be included in this commission's charge.

Last weekend, I floated the idea of a truth and reconciliation commission because it is not sufficient to look only at Mr. Trump's outrageous behavior. Trump's denial of the election was viable only because it was encouraged and affirmed by a large number of other public figures. What was done by those others was not illegal or cause for their own impeachment, but they must be held accountable in some way. The model of a truth and reconciliation commission provides one way to examine culpability in abusive or distorted institutions and systems.

I don't have a specific proposal for implementing a truth and reconciliation commission in the United States. It is not a step which needs to be taken immediately -- indeed such a commission might be more viable after a few months of reflection on where we've been.

Having thrown out a very vague idea last weekend, I felt that it was my responsibility to provide more background and more details. I invite your thoughts and suggestions.