9.2. The Scopes and Limits of Reparative Politics

This presentation is part of a postdoctoral research project conducted at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. The project examines the forms of political participation that emerged during the 2019 Chilean social uprising and explores how these are manifested and sustained within the current local contexts of Santiago. A qualitative approach was employed, involving 12 in-depth interviews with members of local organisations, and a map of active initiatives in various city districts was created. The analysis is based on the co-design of participation tools and explores the symbolic and material dimensions that shape situated political practices. The preliminary results challenge the widely held view that Chilean society has become depoliticised. They demonstrate the persistence of various forms of collective action that emerged during the uprising and have continued to evolve over time. Three central processes were identified. First, the thesis of depoliticisation was challenged based on the continuity of self-organised local networks that promote political action in neighbourhoods, drawing on memories of past political struggles. Second, there was a territorial shift in collective action, moving from the widespread visibility of the uprising in public spaces to sustained, albeit less visible, practices in community spaces. Third, territory was found to be a relevant space of belonging, care, and everyday politicisation, where emotional and organisational ties intertwine to sustain political action and redefine ways of building insurgent citizenship (Holston, 2017). Although invisible in dominant narratives and media, these experiences reveal a reconfiguration of political participation in Chile. Territorial practices demonstrate novel forms of politicisation that are rooted in daily life and memories of past struggles. These practices constitute modes of constructing direct democracy and of revitalising and redefining belonging and insurgent citizenship.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How representative is the memorialist movement? SUMMARY: We aim to show the differences in attitudes towards the conflicts of the recent past and memorial politics as an indication of how representative the memorialist movement is of society at large and also of citizens with a similar ideology and identify possible tensions in representativeness of citizens’ views. The findings are also relevant to the extent that they will help us analyze whether the memorialist movement is an active driver of polarization around this issue. To the extent that the views promoted by the movement are far away from those of society, the movement should design its strategies, discourses and alliances in a way that they compensate this gap. When comparing the profile and attitudes of activists and that of citizens, we will also focus on the questions about the significance of generational memory transmission in shaping political identities and movements as well as the different interpretations of “difficult pasts,” including silenced, taboo, or traumatic histories. METHODOLOGY: Based on a survey carried out in January-February 2024 to a representative sample of the Spanish population, and a survey carried out to smaller samples of activists and political elites (all part of the POLMEMO project) KEY FINDINGS: Activists hold more radical positions than those of society at large, but also than those citizens that identify with the same ideology. Although this is in line with a well-known phenomenon, it may hinder the success of the movement. For example, we find there is a lot more rejection to the removal of monuments that refer to the Franco period, to the prosecution of crimes of the past, and to reparation of victims amongst citizens while there is general support amongst activists.

Collective memory can function either as a destructive force or as a pillar that reinforces democracy, depending on how it is articulated. The historical narrative, particularly the memory of those who suffered terrorist violence at the hands of ETA especially in the Basque Country and Navarre, is frequently distorted by narratives that obscure the truth. These distortions hinder the repair of the region’s social fabric and delay the reintegration of both victims and perpetrators into society. The intergenerational transmission of the memory of a past fractured by violence, through the family, education, political parties or the media, shapes political identities, but these do not always tend towards reparation or remembrance, but rather try to move on as soon as possible, which is a very high price for a society that has been constituted and structured in part of its recent history by violence. To address these “difficult pasts” mechanisms such as memory museums, and dialogue forums have been developed. Nevertheless, political opportunism and ongoing instrumentalization continue to use victims for political gain, while they are still neglected at the institutional level. In this context, restorative justice emerges as a clear alternative in the reconstruction of the social fabric. By placing memory at the center of reparation—instead of emphasizing punishment—it promotes inclusive processes where victims, perpetrators, and communities rebuild damaged bonds, foster recognition and individual narratives, and move toward both symbolic and material healing. In this way, the democratization of the politics of memory, with the central focus on restorative justice, allows for the establishment of a democratic culture that prevents the repetition of violence.

The research analyzes the limits of the criminal judicialization of enforced disappearance crimes during the Brazilian dictatorship, highlighting obstacles generated by the Amnesty Law and prevailing legal interpretations. Drawing on the concept of sensitive pasts and frameworks of transitional justice and historiography, it examines how judicial decisions perpetuate impunity by denying the continuity of the crimes and the contemporaneity between victims and perpetrators. An analysis of court rulings and actions by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office reveals the clash between legal paradigms and conflicting temporalities, as well as the persistence of an anachronistic official memory that marginalizes families and survivors. I propose a critique of the dominant legal rationality in Brazil and advocate for the centrality of victims and memory in constructing a form of justice historically committed to redressing State injustices.

This research examines the relationship between the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) and the process of transitional justice in Brazil, focusing on how international recommendations have influenced the country’s efforts toward democratic consolidation and accountability for past human rights violations committed during the civil-military dictatorship (1964–1985). The study is grounded in the hypothesis that international human rights mechanisms exert a direct but uneven influence on domestic transitional justice policies. The central research question is: "How have the IAHRS recommendations for Brazil in the three selected cases been implemented so as to promote transitional justice in the country?". To explore this dynamic, three landmark cases submitted to the IAHRS are analyzed: Gomes Lund et al. v. Brazil (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”), Herzog et al. v. Brazil, and Denise Crispim, Eduardo Collen Leite (“Bacuri”) et al. v. Brazil. Using a qualitative and inductive methodology, the research examines reports, rulings, and recommendations from the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights, assessing their implementation through the four main pillars of transitional justice: truth and memory, reparation, institutional reform, and accountability. Drawing on the works of Ruti Teitel, Paul Van Zyl, Alexandra Barahona de Brito, and Eneá de Stutz e Almeida, the study finds that although Brazil has made significant progress in symbolic recognition and reparative measures, structural obstacles persist, particularly the continued enforcement of the 1979 Amnesty Law and the lack of criminal prosecution for perpetrators. The findings suggest that transitional justice in Brazil remains an unfinished and reversible process, a phenomenon described as “reverse transitional justice”, and that while the IAHRS serves as a crucial instrument for promoting human rights and collective memory, its impact is constrained by domestic political and institutional limitations.