Trials after Transitions: Bringing Authoritarian Regimes to Justice and the Consequences for Democracy
Date
2015
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Advisor
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Haverford College. Department of Political Science
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Dark Archive
Terms of Use
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
After transitions from repressive regimes to democracy, incoming democratic governments face a fundamental dilemma: should former authoritarian regimes be prosecuted or pardoned? Often, authoritarian regimes maintain significant influence over the terms of democratic transitions and post-transition democracies. Attempts to hold former authoritarian leaders accountable for abuses of power become problematic if trials provoke military intervention into politics, jeopardize post transition stability, or if the new democracy does not have the institutional capacity to uphold convictions. However, if post-transition democracies are able to hold past leaders accountable, then prosecutions serve to restore respect for the rule of law, making it clear that in newly established democracies certain actions are not only unacceptable, but also subject to punishment. This thesis concerns itself with one of transitional justice’s most fundamental mechanisms: prosecutions. Much has been written about the benefits, drawbacks, limitations, democratic consolidating effects, and structural factors related to post-transition trials. However, an empirical comparative analysis serves to confirm or disprove previous conclusions and might offer new insight into the questions of why certain democratic regimes are able to pursue trials after democratic transitions and what the actual effects of trials are on post-transition democracies. This comparative study of post-transition trials in Argentina and Chile finds that certain political factors enable or constrain post-transition trials, that post-transitional trials do not seem to change politics, but reflect entrenched political traditions, and that trials do not appear to significantly affect democratic consolidation or strengthen the rule of law.