Explaining the Elusion of Victim Hierarchies in Sierra Leone

Abstract

Scholars have demonstrated how transitional justice mechanisms, such as criminal courts and truth commissions, often foster contestations over victimhood. Yet existing scholarship has failed to examine cases in which such victim hierarchies have not emerged in transitioning societies. This article examines why strong victim hierarchies did not emerge in Sierra Leone following its 11-year civil war, despite its extensive transitional justice program. It does so through an examination of the intergenerational transmission of knowledge between individuals who experienced the violence and newer generations. Drawing upon over 100 interviews with educators, parents, and educational and peacebuilding experts, this article identifies three key factors that disrupted the formation of rigid victim classifications. First, the war’s factional fluidity and lack of identity-based violence complicated binary distinctions between victims and perpetrators. Second, the concurrent implementation of a criminal tribunal, truth commission, and general amnesty generated disparate narratives of the violence. As a result, educators and parents selectively draw on these narratives to construct inclusive understandings of victimhood. Third, limited state capacity and regime continuity have led to a lack of material and symbolic affirmation for victims, muting incentives for contesting victim status. These findings contribute to the literature on victim hierarchies by presenting a negative case and highlighting how the nature of violence, the combination of transitional justice mechanisms, and state ambivalence shape memory transmission, thereby influencing the construction (or absence) of victim hierarchies.