How do perceptions of procedural fairness shape the preferences that citizens have for transitional justice (TJ) in postauthoritarian countries? This article uses original opinion poll data collected in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to investigate this question. It shows that differences in the demand for TJ are explained by how citizens perceive whether the TJ process commits errors—that is, whether the innocent are condemned (falsely convicted) or the guilty are exonerated (falsely acquitted). This is so even after accounting for threat perceptions of former autocrats and voting behavior. After comparing the ways in which citizens’ perceptions of errors in the TJ process shape their demand for lustration in the three postcommunist countries, the author discusses the implications of these findings for scholars of democratic consolidation, social psychologists, and policy makers designing TJ systems.
AmodioDavid M.ShahJames Y.SigelmanJonathanBrazyPaige C.JonesEddie Harmon. 2004. “Implicit Regulatory Focus Associated with Asymmetrical Frontal Cortical Activity.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology28:33-49.
2.
AppelHilary. 2005. “Anti-Communist Justice and Founding the Post-Communist Order: Lustration and Restitution in Central Europe.”East European Politics and Societies19 (3): 379-405.
3.
BackerDavid. 2003. “Civil Society and Transitional Justice: Possibilities, Patterns, and Prospects.”Journal of Human Rights2 (3): 297-313.
4.
BackerDavid. 2004. The Human Face of Justice: Victims’ responses to the Truth and Reconciliation Process in South Africa. PhD diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
5.
BackerDavid. 2006. “Comparing the Attitudes of Victims and the General Public towards South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission process.”Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, September 3.
6.
BenoitKennethLaverMichael. 2007. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. New York: Routledge.
7.
BlackstoneWilliamMorrisonWilliam. 2001. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Volumes. London: Cavendish.
8.
BrounéusKaren. 2010. “The Trauma of Truth Telling Effects of Witnessing in the Rwandan Gacaca courts on Psychological Health.”Journal of Conflict Resolution54 (3): 408-37.
9.
BunceValerie. 1999. Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Canetti-NisimDaphnaHalperinEranSharvitKerenHobfollStevan E.. 2009. “A New Stress-Based Model of Political Extremism: Personal Exposure to Terrorism, Psychological Distress, and Exclusionist Political Attitudes.”Journal of Conflict Resolution53 (3): 363-89.
11.
CasselCarol A.SigelmanLee. 2001. “Misreporters in Candidate Choice Models.”Political Research Quarterly54 (3): 643-55.
12.
ChoiSuzanneDavidRoman. 2006. “Forgiveness and Transitional Justice in the Czech Republic.”Journal of Conflict Resolution50 (3): 339-67.
13.
DiamondLarry JayPlattnerMarc F., eds. 2001. The Global Divergence of Democracies. A Journal of Democracy Book. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
14.
EkiertGrzegorz. 1996. The State against Society: Political Crises and their Aftermath in Post-Communist Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
ElsterJon. 2004. Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
ElsterJon. 2006. Retribution and Reparation in the Transition to Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
EvansLisa M.PettyRichard E.. 2003. “Self-guide Framing and Persuasion: Responsibility Increasing Message Processing to deal with Ideal Levels.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin29 (3): 313-24.
18.
GibsonJames L.2002. “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation: Judging the Fairness of Amnesty in South Africa.”American Journal of Political Science46 (3): 540-56.
19.
GibsonJames L. 2004a. Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation?New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20.
GibsonJames L.2004b. “Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process.”American Journal of Political Science48 (2): 201-17.
21.
GibsonJames L.GouwsAmanda. 1999. “Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Attributions of Blame and the Struggle over Apartheid.”American Political Science Review93 (3): 501-17.
22.
GordonSanford C.HuberGregory A.. 2002. “Citizen Oversight and the Electoral Incentives of Criminal Prosecutors.”The American Journal of Political Science46 (2): 334-51.
23.
Grzymala-BusseAnna. 2002. Redeeming the Communist Past: The Regeneration of Communist Parties in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HassinRan R.FergussonMelissa J.ShidlovkyDaniellaGrossTamar. 2007. “Subliminal Exposure to National Flags Affects Political thought and Behavior.”Psychology National Academy of Science104 (50): 19757-61. www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0704670104.
25.
HigginsE. ToryRoneyChristopher J. R.CroweEllenHymesCharles. 1994. “Ideal Versus Ought Predilection for Approach and Avoidance: Distinct Self-regulatory Systems.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology72 (May): 515-25.
26.
HigginsE. ToryMoldenDaniel. 2003. “How Strategies for Making Judgments and Decisions Affect Cognition.” In Foundations of Social Cognition, edited by BodenhausenGalen V.LambertAlan J., 211-35. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.
27.
HolmesStephen. 1994. “The End of Decommunization.”East European Constitutional Review3(Summer/Fall): 33-36.
28.
HuberGregory A.GordonSanford C.. 2004. “Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind When It Runs for Office?”The American Journal of Political Science48 (2): 247-63.
29.
HuckfeldtRobertSpragueJohn. 1991. “Discussant Effects on Vote Choice—Intimacy, Structure, and Interdependence.”Journal of Politics53 (1): 122-58.
30.
HuyseLuc. 1995. “Justice after Transition: On the Choices Successor Elites Make in Dealing with the past.”Law and Social Inquiry20 (1): 51-78.
31.
IyengarShantoSimonAdam. 1993. “News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public-Opinion—A Study of Agenda-setting, Priming, and Framing.”Communication Research20 (3): 365-83.
32.
KingGaryHonakerJamesJosephAnneScheveKenneth. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.”American Political Science Review95 (1): 49-69.
33.
LinzJuan J.StepanAlfred C.. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
LoyleCyanne. 2010. “Investing in the Truth: Economic Incentives for Post-Conflict Justice.”Paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, February.
35.
MoldenDaniel C.LeeAngela Y.Tory HigginsE.. 2008. “Motivation for Promotion and Prevention.” In Handbook of Motivation Science, edited by ShahJames Y.GardnerWendi L., 169-87. New York: Guilford Press.
36.
MoldenDaniel C.Tory HigginsE.. 2004. “Categorization under Uncertainty: Resolving Vagueness and Ambiguity with Eager versus Vigilant Strategies.”Social Cognition22 (2): 248-77.
37.
MoldenDaniel C.Tory HigginsE.. 2005. “Motivated Thinking.” In Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, edited by HolyoakKeithMorrisonRobert, 299-319. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
MoldenDaniel C.LucasGale M.GardnerWendi L.KnowlesMegan L.DeanKristy. 2009. “Motivations for Prevention or Promotion Following Social Exclusion: Being Rejected Versus being Ignored.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology95 (2): 415-31.
39.
NalepaMonika. 2010. Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics, Cambridge University Press.
40.
NinoCarlos Santiago. 1996. Radical Evil on Trial. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
NowekZbigniew. 2002. Rzeczpospolita, July6-7, A8.
42.
O’DonnellGuillermo A.SchmitterPhilippe C.. 1986. Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
43.
OppenheimA. N.1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing, and Attitude Measurement. New ed. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.
44.
PerzkowskiStanislaw. 1994. Tajne dokumenty Biura Politycznego i Sekretariatu KC: Ostatni rok wladzy 1988-1989. London: Aneks.
45.
QuillianLincoln. 1995. “Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Compositions and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe.”American Sociological Review60(4): 586-611.
46.
RosenbergTina. 1995. The Haunted Land: Europe’s Ghosts after Communism. New York: Random House.
47.
Rzeczpospolita. 2001. Rozkaz: ZniszczycProtokoly (Order: Destroy transcripts). Rzeczpospolita, January 11.
48.
SamilCyrus. 2010. Who wants to Forgive and Forget? Transitional Justice Attitudes in Post-Conflict Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, and Liberia. PhD diss., Columbia University, New York.
49.
SikkinkKathryn. 2004. Mixed Signals: U.S. Human Rights Policy and Latin America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
50.
StanLavinia. 2009. Transitional Justice in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: Reckoning with the Communist past. London: Routledge.
51.
StanilandPaul. 2010. Explaining Cohesion, Fragmentation, and Control in Insurgent Groups. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
52.
StoverEricWeinsteinHarvey M.. 2004. My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SullivanJohn L.PiersonJamesMarcusGeorge E.. 1982. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
WelshHelga. 1996. “Dealing with the Communist Past: Central and East European Experiences after 1990.”Europe—Asia Studies48 (3): 413-28.
55.
Wiedelhaus-BrahmEric. 2010. Truth Commissions and Transitional Societies: The Impact on Human Rights and Democracy. London: Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
