Transitional Justice Approaches in Tunisia after the Revolution: The de jure and the de facto

Abstract

This study investigates the approach adopted by Tunisian policymakers after the 2011 revolution regarding transitional justice (TJ). The Justice-Balance approach is one of the holistic approaches suggested by the scholars to deal with past regimes’ human rights violations. Olsen, Payne, & Reiter (2010) presented this approach; it is the only available approach supported by a large N empirical study which supports it to be the most effective approach to reduce human rights violations and boost democracy, two goals of transitional justice. This study uses the justice-balance approach as a benchmark model of TJ policy after revolutions and examines how far the Tunisian approach is aligned with it both on the de jure and de facto levels. I find a significant gap between the constitutional texts produced to govern TJ after the revolution and the policies subsequently generated to apply them. However, both of them are mostly compatible with the justice-balance approach, as they both adopt a mix of trials and amnesty tools, combined with truth-revealing mechanisms. However, nearly all the adopted mechanisms were de facto applied only partially. Except for national consultations, all adopted TJ mechanisms, including trials, truth commissions, reparations, institutional reforms, and reconciliation efforts, suffered from either a partial or non-transparent application. This approach raises concerns around the de jure/de facto constitutional gap in Tunisia after the revolution. However, the Truth and Dignity Authority (TDA)’s work and the other related policies did follow an approach that considered all mechanisms, except for lustrations. Consequently, I expect that although the Tunisian TJ process was not perfect, it still has a chance to contribute to consolidate the democratic transformation and strengthen human rights respect, depending on how the government and parliament are willing to undertake its continuation.